Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for Designation of a Deep Water
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site off San Francisco, California
August 1993
Corded Bank /
National Marine /
Sanctuary /
Transverse Mercator Projection
ScaM
0 6 10 IS JO
Corded Bank
50 m
Nautical Mdm
Gulf of The Farallones
National Marine Sanctuary
oTtTu Farallon
islands
Alternative
Site 5 —
A Alternative
GumdrCpXO Site 3 \
Seamolint \ V. \
I Pioneer
ICanyon
Zone of
Siting Feasibility
[ZSF Range]
(53 nmi)
Monterey 8a/
National Marine
Sanctuary
38 °N
37°30'N
-123°30W
SEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
-123°w
-122"30\w
-------
FINAL
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for Designation of a Deep Water
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
off San Francisco, California
August 1993
Prepared by:
EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco CA 94105
With the assistance of:
Science Applications International Corporation
10260 Campus Point Drive
San Diego, CA 92121-1578
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR DESIGNATION OF A
DEEP WATER
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE OFF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
San Francisco, California
Comments on this administrative action should be addressed to:
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Comments must be received no later than:
October 29, 1993, 45 days after publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register
for the FEIS.
Copies of this EIS may be viewed at the following locations:
ABAG/MTC Library
101 - 8th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Bancroft Library
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Half Moon Bay Library
620 Correas Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Daly City Public Library
40 Wembley Drive
Daly City, CA 94015
Alameda County Library
3121 Diablo Avenue
Hayward, CA 94545
Berkeley Public Library
2090 Kittredge Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Marin County Library, Civic Center
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Environmental Information Center
San Jose State University
125 South 7th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
iii
-------
Oakland Public Library
125 - 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
San Francisco Public Library
Civic Center, Larkin & McAllister
San Francisco, CA 94102
San Mateo County Library
25 Tower Road
San Mateo, CA 94402
Sausalito Public Library
420 Litho Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
Stanford University Library
Stanford, CA 94305
Copies of the FEIS may be obtained from:
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch (W-7)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
For further information contact:
Mr. Allan Ota
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch (W-7)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1164
North Bay Cooperative Library
725 Third Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Richmond Public Library
325 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
San Francisco State University
1630 Hollo way Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
Santa Clara County Free Library
1095 N. Seventh Street
San Jose, CA 95112
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
This environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates the proposed designation of a deep-water
ocean dredged material disposal site as part of the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for
San Francisco Bay, California. The LTMS is a Federal and State partnership responsible for
addressing options for dredged material disposal, including ocean sites, sites within the Bay,
nonaquatic/reuse sites, and beneficial uses of dredged material. Once designated, the proposed
ocean site will provide a disposal option for an estimated 6 million yd3 per year of dredged
material over a 50-year period. Before ocean disposal may take place, proposed projects must
demonstrate a need for ocean disposal and material must be acceptable according to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria and regulations.
The preferred alternative site (Alternative Site 5) is located on the continental slope off San
Francisco approximately 50 nautical miles (nmi) from shore and in 2,500 to 3,000 m of water.
Selection of the preferred alternative site, as compared to two alternative ocean sites (Alternative
Sites 3 and 4) and the No-Action alternative, is based on evaluation of the 5 general and 11
specific criteria of the Ocean Dumping Regulations listed at 40 CFR sections 228.5 and 228.6,
respectively. Alternative Site 5 was chosen as the preferred alternative site primarily because,
in contrast to the other alternative sites, it is located in deeper waters away from productive
fishery areas and in an area that has been used historically for disposal of low-level radioactive
waste and chemical and conventional munitions.
Use of the site is not expected to cause any significant long-term adverse environmental effects
outside of site boundaries. Within the site, sediment composition will be altered and benthic
infaunal and epifaunal communities will be affected due to burial and smothering by dredged
material. However, because this site is located in deep water where organism abundances are
low, impacts are expected to be minimal. Potential impacts on water quality, plankton
communities, pelagic invertebrates, pelagic and demersal fishes, marine birds, marine mammals,
threatened and endangered species, and marine sanctuaries are expected to be insignificant.
Similarly, potential impacts to socioeconomic resources, such as commercial and recreational
fishing, military and commercial shipping, oil and gas or other mineral development, or cultural
and historical resources, are expected to be insignificant due to the distance offshore of the
preferred alternative site and minimal resource use in this area.
v
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
vi
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR DESIGNATION OF A
DEEP WATER
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE OFF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Reviewed by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Water Management Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2125
Harry Seraydarian
Director, Water Management Division
Approved and Submitted by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Office of the Regional Administrator
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1001
John Wise
Acting Regional Administrator
vii
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet iii
Abstract v
Agency Concurrence Sheet vii
Table of Contents ix
List of Figures xvii
List of Tables xxiii
Glossary of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Conversions xxvii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-l
5.1 Introduction S-l
5.2 Affected Environment S-3
5.2.1 Physical Environment S-3
5.2.2 Biological Environment S-4
5.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment S-4
5.3 Environmental Consequences S-5
5.3.1 Physical Environment S-5
5.3.2 Biological Environment S-5
5.3.3 Socioeconomic Environment S-6
5.4 Comparison of the Alternative Ocean Disposal Sites With the 5
General and 11 Specific Site Selection Criteria S-6
5.4.1 General Selection Criteria S-7
5.4.2 Specific Site Selection Criteria S-8
5.5 Conclusions S-10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 General Introduction 1-1
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action 1-4
1.3 Proposed Action 1-8
1.4 Areas of Controversy 1-10
1.5 Issues To Be Resolved 1-11
ix
-------
1.6 Regulatory Framework 1-11
1.6.1 International Treaty 1-11
1.6.2 Federal Laws and Regulations 1-11
1.6.2.1 Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972. as amended (33 USC Section 1401 et
sea.) 1-11
1.6.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
USC Section 4341 et sea.) 1-12
1.6.2.3 Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC Section 1251
et sea.) 1-12
1.6.2.4 Clean Air Act as Amended (42 USC Section
1451 et sea.) 1-13
1.6.2.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16
USC Section 661 et sea.) 1-13
1.6.2.6 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC
Section 1456 et sea.) 1-13
1.6.2.7 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC
Section 1531 et sea.) 1-14
1.6.2.8 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16
USC Parts 470 et sea.) 1-14
1.6.3 Executive Orders 1-14
1.6.3.1 Executive Order 11593. Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (36 FR
8921. May 15. 1971) 1-14
1.6.3.2 Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental
Review of Major Federal Programs (47 FR 3059.
July 16. 1982) 1-14
1.6.4 State of California 1-14
1.6.4.1 California Coastal Act of 1976. Public Resources
Code Section 3000 et sea. 1-15
1.6.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act. June 1986
Public Resources Code Parts 21000-21177 1-15
1.7 Relationship to Previous NEPA Actions or Other Facilities That May
Be Affected by Designation of the Disposal Site 1-15
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.1 Description of Alternatives 2-1
2.1.1 No-Action Alternative 2-2
2.1.2 Ocean Disposal Alternatives 2-2
2.1.2.1 Historically Used ODMDSs 2-3
2.1.2.2 Sensitive Areas 2-6
2.1.2.3 Incompatible Use Areas 2-14
x
-------
2.1.3 San Francisco Bay and Nonaquatic Disposal and Reuse
Alternatives 2-17
2.1.3.1 San Francisco Bay Alternatives 2-17
2.1.3.2 Nonaouatic Disposal and Reuse Alternatives 2-21
2.2 Discussion of Alternatives 2-24
2.2.1 Alternatives Not Considered for Further Analysis 2-25
2.2.2 Compliance of the Alternative Sites and Study Area 2
with General Criteria for the Selection of Sites 2-25
2.2.2.1 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(a) 2-25
2.2.2.2 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(b) 2-26
2.2.2.3 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(c) 2-27
2.2.2.4 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(d) 2-27
2.2.2.5 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(e) 2-27
2.2.3 Comparison of the Alternatives to EPA's 11 Specific
Criteria for Site Selection 40 CFR 228.6(a) 2-28
2.2.4 Selection of the Preferred Alternative 2-28
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 Ocean Disposal Site Characteristics 3-1
3.1.1 Historical Use of the Study Region [40 CFR 228.5(e)] 3-1
3.1.1.1 Dredged Material Disposal 3-1
3.1.1.2 Other Waste Disposal 3-5
3.1.1.3 Acid Waste 3-7
3.1.1.4 Cannery Wastes 3-7
3.1.1.5 Radioactive Waste 3-7
3.1.1.6 Chemical and Conventional Munitions Waste 3-9
3.1.1.7 Refinery Waste 3-11
3.1.1.8 Vessel and Dry Dock Sections 3-11
3.1.1.9 Summary of Historical Disposal in Relation to
the LTMS Study Areas 3-13
3.1.2 Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be
Disposed of [40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)] 3-13
3.1.3 Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharge
and Dumping in the Area [40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)] 3-14
3.1.4 Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring [40 CFR
228.5(d) and 228.6(a)(5)] 3-15
3.1.4.1 Surveillance 3-15
3.1.4.2 Monitoring 3-15
3.2 Physical Environment 3-17
3.2.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 3-17
3.2.2 Physical Oceanography [40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)] 3-19
3.2.2.1 Regional Current Patterns 3-24
xi
-------
3.2.2.2 Study Region-Specific Currents 3-26
3.2.2.3 Outer Shelf (Study Area 2) Currents 3-26
3.2.2.4 Slope (Study Areas 3 through 5) Currents 3-30
3.2.2.5 Near-Surface Currents Over the Slope 3-30
3.2.2.6 Mid-Depth Currents Over the Slope 3-30
3.2.2.7 Deep Currents Over the Slope 3-33
3.2.2.8 Near-bed Currents Over the Slope 3-33
3.2.2.9 Summary of Observed Currents 3-34
3.2.3 Water Column Characteristics [40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)] 3-35
3.2.3.1 Temperature-Salinity Properties 3-35
3.2.3.2 Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH) 3-36
3.2.3.3 Turbidity 3-36
3.2.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen 3-41
3.2.3.5 Nutrients 3-42
3.2.3.6 Trace Metals 3-45
3.2.3.7 Hydrocarbons 3-45
3.2.4 Regional Geology 3-48
3.2.4.1 Topography 3-48
3.2.4.2 Sediment Transport 3-49
3.2.5 Sediment Characteristics 3-53
3.2.5.1 Grain Size 3-53
3.2.5.2 Mineralogy 3-60
3.2.5.3 Sediment Organic Content 3-61
3.2.5.4 Sediment Trace Metals 3-61
3.2.5.5 Sediment Hydrocarbons 3-70
3.2.5.6 Sediment Radionuclides 3-76
3.3 Biological Environment 3-79
3.3.1 Plankton Community 3-79
3.3.1.1 Phvtoplankton 3-79
3.3.1.2 Zooplankton 3-81
3.3.2 Invertebrates 3-87
3.3.2.1 Benthic Infauna 3-87
3.3.2.2 Demersal Epifauna 3-101
3.3.2.3 Pelagic Invertebrates 3-116
3.3.2.4 Commercially Important Species 3-117
3.3.3 Fish Community 3-118
3.3.3.1 Demersal Species 3-118
3.3.3.2 Pelagic Species 3-134
3.3.3.3 Commercially and Recreationallv Important
Species 3-135
3.3.4 Marine Birds 3-140
3.3.4.1 Distribution, Abundance, and Ecology of
Representative Breeding Species 3-151
xii
-------
3.3.4.2 Summary of Studv Area Usage by Marine Bird
Species 3-157
3.3.5 Marine Mammals 3-157
3.3.5.1 Cetaceans 3-160
3.3.5.2 Pinnipeds 3-179
3.3.5.3 Fissipeds 3-190
3.3.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 3-190
3.3.6.1 Species Observed Regularly Within the Studv
Region 3-190
3.3.6.2 Species Occurring Irregularly Within the Studv
Region 3-194
3.3.7 Marine Sanctuaries and Special Biological Resource
Areas 3-195
3.3.7.1 Federally Protected Areas 3-195
3.3.7.2 State Protected Areas 3-200
3.3.8 Potential for Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species 3-201
3.4 Socioeconomic Environment 3-202
3.4.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 3-202
3.4.1.1 Existing Fisheries 3-202
3.4.1.2 Potential Fisheries 3-212
3.4.2 Mariculture 3-213
3.4.3 Shipping 3-213
3.4.4 Military Usage 3-217
3.4.5 Mineral Or Energy Development 3-219
3.4.6 Recreational Activities 3-219
3.4.7 Cultural and Historical Areas 3-219
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Preferred Alternative 4-2
4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment 4-7
4.2.1.1 Air Quality 4-7
4.2.1.2 Physical Oceanography 4-9
4.2.1.3 Water Quality 4-10
4.2.1.4 Geology and Sediment Characteristics 4-38
4.2.2 Effects on Biological Environment 4-49
4.2.2.1 Plankton 4-49
4.2.2.2 Infauna 4-50
4.2.2.3 Epifauna 4-55
4.2.2.4 Fishes 4-56
4.2.2.5 Marine Birds 4-57
xiii
-------
4.2.2.6 Marine Mammals 4-58
4.2.2.7 Threatened. Endangered, and Special Status
Species 4-59
4.2.2.8 Marine Sanctuaries 4-60
4.2.3 Effects on Socioeconomic Environment 4-60
4.2.3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fishing 4-60
4.2.3.2 Commercial Shipping 4-61
4.2.3.3 Mineral or Energy Development 4-61
4.2.3.4 Military Usage 4-62
4.2.3.5 Recreational Activities 4-62
4.2.3.6 Cultural and Historical Resources 4-62
4.2.3.7 Public Health and Welfare 4-63
4.3 No-Action Alternative 4-63
4.4 Other Ocean Disposal Alternatives 4-64
4.4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment 4-64
4.4.1.1 Air Quality 4-64
4.4.1.2 Physical Oceanography 4-64
4.4.1.3 Water Quality 4-65
4.4.1.4 Geology and Sediment Characteristics 4-66
4.4.2 Effects on Biological Environment 4-68
4.4.2.1 Plankton 4-68
4.4.2.2 Infauna 4-68
4.4.2.3 Epifauna 4-69
4.4.2.4 Fishes 4-70
4.4.2.5 Marine Birds 4-70
4.4.2.6 Marine Mammals 4-71
4.4.2.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status
Species 4-72
4.4.2.8 Marine Sanctuaries 4-72
4.4.3 Effects on Socioeconomic Environment 4-73
4.4.3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fishing 4-73
4.4.3.2 Commercial Shipping 4-73
4.4.3.3 Mineral or Energy Development 4-74
4.4.3.4 Military Usage 4-74
4.4.3.5 Recreational Activities 4-75
4.4.3.6 Cultural and Historical Resources 4-75
4.4.3.7 Public Health and Welfare 4-76
4.5 Other Alternatives 4-76
4.6 Management of the Disposal Site 4-77
4.6.1 Ocean Dumping Permits 4-77
4.6.2 Site Management and Monitoring 4-80
4.7 Cumulative Impacts as a Result of the Project 4-86
4.7.1 Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites 4-87
4.7.2 Munitions Waste Sites 4-87
xiv
-------
4.7.3 Navy Section 103 Dredged Material Disposal 4-88
4.7.4 BIB Dredged Material Disposal Site 4-88
4.8 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Resource
Uses 4-88
4.9 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-89
CHAPTER 5
COORDINATION 5-1
5.1 Notice of Intent and Public Scoping Meeting 5-1
5.2 San Francisco Bay Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredged
Material 5-2
5.3 LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group 5-6
5.4 Formal Consultation 5-14
5.5 Public Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement .... 5-14
CHAPTER 6
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 6-1
CHAPTER 7
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 7-1
APPENDIX
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A-l
xv
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
S.l. Locations of Study Areas and Alternative Sites in the LTMS Study
Region S-2
1.1.1. Evaluation Processes for Dredged Material Permits 1-5
1.3-1. Locations of Study Areas 1 Through 5 and Alternative Sites 3, 4,
and 5 in the LTMS Study Region 1-9
1.7-1. Locations of Existing ODMDSs, Ocean Outfalls, National Marine
Sanctuaries, Submarine Operating Areas, Navigation Channels and
Precautionary Zone, and Historical Waste Disposal Sites in the
LTMS Study Region 1-17
2.1-1. Locations of National Marine Sanctuaries, Areas of Special
Biological Significance, Reserves, and Features of Potential
Scientific Importance in the LTMS Study Region 2-4
2.1-2. Distribution of Hard-Bottom Areas in the Vicinity of Study Areas 3,
4, and 5 2-9
2.1-3. Location of Navigation Channels and Precautionary Zones in the
LTMS Study Region 2-11
2.1-4. Location of Submarine Operating Areas (Areas U1-U5) in the
LTMS Study Region 2-15
2.1-5. Location of the Ocean Disposal Sites Evaluated by the COE and
Navy in the Vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones 2-16
2.1-6. Locations of Study Areas 2 Through 5 Within the LTMS Study
Region as Related to Sensitive and Incompatible Use Areas 2-18
3.1-1. Locations of Previously Used Ocean Waste Disposal Sites Within
the LTMS Study Region 3-2
3.2-1. Surface Wind Vectors at Four NDBC Buoys in the Vicinity of the
Gulf of the Farallones During 1991 3-20
xvii
-------
3.2-2. Locations of Current Meter Stations A Through F 3-28
3.2-3. Subtidal Currents at Station A 3-29
3.2-4. Schematic Representation of the Three-Dimensional Structure of the
"Wedge-Shaped" Region of Coherent Mid-Depth Flow Over the
Slope 3-31
3.2-5. Subtidal Currents at Station E 3-32
3.2-6. Satellite Images of Sea Surface Temperatures Within the LTMS
Study Region During (A) February and (B) May 1991 3-38
3.2-7. A Composite Profile of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the
Water Column Over the Continental Slope off San Francisco and the
Gulf of the Farallones 3-43
3.2-8. Vertical Profiles of Silicate, Phosphate, and Nitrate Concentrations
at CalCOFI Station 60060 (37°36.8'N, in July 1984 3-44
3.2-9. Mapped Distribution of Ripples and Scour Lag Deposits (High
Kinetic Energy Bottoms) and Sediments Dominated by Biogenic
Features (Low Kinetic Energy Bottoms) 3-51
3.2-10. Mapped Distribution of Major Modal Grain Size (phi units) 3-52
3.2-11. Low Kinetic Energy Zones in LTMS Study Area 5 3-54
3.2-12. Patterns in Sediment Grain Size (mean phi) with Depth Within the
LTMS Study Region 3-55
3.2-13. Patterns in Sediment Silt Content with Depth Within the LTMS
Study Region 3-59
3.2-14. Patterns in Sediment Total Organic Carbon Concentrations with
Depth Within the LTMS Study Region 3-62
3.2-15. Sediment Concentrations of: (A) Aluminum; (B) Cadmium; (C)
Chromium, and (D) Copper Within the LTMS Study Region 3-66
3.2-16. Sediment Concentrations of: (A) Total n-alkanes and (B) Total
PAHs Within the LTMS Study Region 3-72
xviii
-------
3.2-17. Sediment Concentrations of: (A) Total n-alkanes and Organic
Carbon and (B) Total PAH and Organic Carbon Within the LTMS
Study Region 3-73
3.2-18. Sediment Concentrations of Total DDT and Total PCBs Within the
LTMS Study Regions 3-74
3.3.1-1. Total Number of Fish Larvae (Abundance) Versus Bottom Depth
(top panel) and by Season (bottom panel) 3-86
3.3.2-1. Bar Graph of the Total Number of Species at Each Station in LTMS
Study Areas 3, 4, and Pioneer Canyon, Arranged by Depth 3-92
3.3.2-2. Species Accumulation Curve for 68 Samples Collected in Study
Areas 3, 4, and 5 in 1990 and 1991 3-99
3.3.2-3. Infaunal Densities at Two Transects on the U.S. Atlantic Continental
Slope and Rise and One Transect off the Farallon Islands 3-100
3.3.2-4 Number of Benthic Megafaunal Species by General Taxonomic
Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) at Each
Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing Depth 3-109
3.3.2-5 Sum of Densities of Megafaunal Invertebrate Species by General
Taxonomic Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC
(1992b) at Each Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing
Depth 3-111
3.3.2-6 Sum of Biomasses of Benthic Megafaunal Invertebrate Species by
General Taxonomic Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by
SAIC (1992b) at Each Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of
Increasing Depth 3-112
3.3.3-1. Community Assemblages on Continental Shelf and Slope off San
Francisco, California, for Common Fishes Collected in Trawls by
SAIC (1992b), Cailliet et al. (1992), and NMFS (1992) in LTMS
Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 3-123
3.3.3-2. Summary of Distribution Patterns of Benthic Communities (Fishes
and Megafaunal Invertebrates) from Trawl and ROV Studies
Conducted in September and October 1991 3-125
xix
-------
3.3.3-3. Number of Benthic Fish Species by General Taxonomic Group
Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) by Each
Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing Depth 3-129
3.3.3-4. Sum of Densities of Benthic Fish Species by General Taxonomic
Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) at Each
Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing Depth 3-130
3.3.3-5. Sum of Biomasses of Benthic Fish Species by General Taxonomic
Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) at Each
Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing Depth 3-131
3.3.4-1. Density Estimates for all Marine Bird Species During June 1986, a
Poor Rockfish Year 3-148
3.3.4-2. Density Estimates for all Marine Bird Species during June 1987, a
good Rockfish Year 3-149
3.3.4-3. Density Estimates for all Marine Bird Species during June 1991, an
Intermediate Rockfish year 3-150
3.3.4-4. Tufted Puffin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region
1985-1991 3-155
3.3.4-5. California Brown Pelican Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones
Region, 1985-1991 3-156
3.3.5-1. Whale Migrations (Northern and Southern) and Times During
Which Each Species May Occur in the Study Region 3-163
3.3.5-2. Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones
Region, 1985-1991 3-164
3.3.5-3. Northern Right Whale Dolphin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones
Region, 1985-1991 3-165
3.3.5-4. Risso's Dolphin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-167
3.3.5-5. Dall's Porpoise Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-168
3.3.5-6. Harbor Porpoise Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-169
xx
-------
3.3.5-7. Gray Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-171
3.3.5-8a. Humpback Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farrallones Region,
August 1990 and 1991 3-173
3.3.5-8b. Humpback Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-174
3.3.5-9. Blue Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, August
1990 and 1991 3-175
3.3.5-10. Minke Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-177
3.3.5-1 la. California Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
August 1990 and 1991 3-181
3.3.5-1 lb. California Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-182
3.3.5-12. Northern Elephant Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-183
3.3.5-13a. Northern Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
August 1990 and 1991 3-184
3.3.5-13b. Northern Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-185
3.3.5-14a. Northern Fur Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
August 1990, February, May, August, November 1991 3-187
3.3.5-14b. Northern Fur Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-188
3.3.5-15. Harbor Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991 3-189
3.3.7-1. National Marine Sanctuaries in the LTMS Study Region 3-196
3.3.7-2. Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, Farallon Islands Area of Special
Biological Significance, and Farallon Islands Game Refuge 3-197
xxi
-------
3.4-1. CDFG Commercial Fisheries Catch Blocks Showing Locations of
Blocks and Total Catches of Fishes and Invertebrates From 1970 to
1986 Within the LTMS Study Areas 3-203
3.4-2. Commercially Collected Megafaunal Invertebrates (by catch block in
pounds) Within the LTMS Study Areas between 1970 and 1986 3-205
3.4-3. Commercially Collected Fishes (by catch block in pounds) Within
the LTMS Study Areas between 1970 and 1986 3-206
4.2-1. Model of Dredged Material Transport and Fate 4-15
4.2-2. Schematic of a Particle Cloud Sinking Through the Water Column 4-19
4.2-3. Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Particle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments Discharged at the
Preferred Alternative Site 4-25
4.2-4. Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Particle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments Discharged at the
Alternative Site 3 4-27
4.2-5. Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Particle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments Discharged
at the Alternative Site 4 4-29
4.2-6. Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Panicle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments Discharged
at the Preferred Alternative Site Using a Diffusion Coefficient of
D=10m2/sec 4-33
4.2-7. Model-Predicted Bottom Deposit Thicknesses (in mm) From
Discharges of Six Million yd3 of Clay-Silt Type Material Over a
One-Year Period at the Preferred Alternative Site (red), Alternative
Site 3 (green), and Alternative Site 4 (blue) 4-45
4.2-8. Model-Predicted Bottom Deposit Thicknesses (in mm) From
Discharges of Six Million yd3 of Mostly Sand Type Material Over a
One-Year Period at the Preferred Alternative Site (red), Alternative
Site 3 (green), and Alternative Site 4 (blue) 4-47
5.2-1. Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) Management and
Implementation Structure 5-3
xxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1.1-1. Five General and Eleven Specific Site Selection Criteria 1-2
1.2-1. Projected Annual and 50-Year Dredging Volumes for Projects in
San Francisco Bay 1-7
2.1-1. Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs), Reserves,
National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS), and Features of Potential
Scientific Significance Shown in Figure 2.1-1 2-5
2.1-2. Potential Ocean Disposal Sites Evaluated by the COE, as Shown in
Figure 2.1-5 2-12
2.1-3. Designated Open Water Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the San
Francisco Bay Region 2-19
2.1-4. Upland Reuse/Disposal Options Classified as "Highly Feasible" by
the LTMS Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group 2-22
2.2-1. Comparison of the Three Alternative Ocean Disposal Sites and
Study Area 2 Based on the 11 Specific Criteria at 40 CFR 228.6(a) 2-30
3.1-1. Summary of Dredged Material Disposal Site Locations and Disposal
Activities Within the LTMS Study Region 3-3
3.1-2. Summary of Waste Disposal in the LTMS Study Region 3-6
3.1-3. Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites in the Gulf of the Farallones 3-8
3.1-4. Summary of Munitions Discharges in the LTMS Study Region 3-10
3.1-5. Summary of Vessel and Dry Dock Disposal in the Vicinity of the
Gulf of the Farallones 3-12
3.2-1. Meteorological Conditions for the Coastal Area off San Francisco 3-18
3.2-2. A. Annual Air Pollutant Summary for Central San Francisco Bay
Stations During 1988-1991; and B. California and National
Standards for Individual Pollutants 3-21
xxiii
-------
3.2-3. Wave Observations (Percent Occurrence) Based on U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers (COE) Wave Data at Station 20 (Dates Unspecified),
Located Approximately 7 nm southwest of the Golden Gate Bridge,
San Francisco, California 3-27
3.2-4. Trace Metal Concentrations in Seawater in the Vicinity of the Gulf
of the Farallones 3-46
3.2-5. Descriptive Statistics for Sediment Parameters from Study Areas 2,
3, 4, and 5 3-57
3.2-6. Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments for Study Areas 2, 3, 4,
and 5, and Pioneer Canyon 3-63
3.2-7. Trace Metals in Sediments from the Study Areas and Comparison
Data 3-65
3.2-8. Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Sediments for Study Areas 2, 3,
and 4, and Pioneer Canyon 3-71
3.2-9. Hydrocarbons in Sediments from the Study Areas and Comparison
Data 3-77
3.3.1-1. Dominant Zooplankton in Waters Offshore Central California Based
on a Review of CalCOFI Atlases, Hatfield (1983) and Tasto et al.
(1981; 1975-1977 samples) 3-82
3.3.2-1. Total Number of Species Belonging to Each Major Taxonomic
Group Collected from Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 (SAIC 1992c,d) 3-88
3.3.2-2. Benthic Infaunal Community Parameters for Study Areas 2, 3, 4,
and 5 (SAIC 1992a,c) 3-89
3.3.2-3A. Rank Order of Density for Demersal Megafaunal Invertebrates
Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) in Study Areas 2
through 4 and Adjacent Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and in "Mid-
Depth" (MD) 3-103
3.3.2-3B. Rank Order of Biomass for Demersal Megafauna Collected During
Trawl Surveys of Study Areas 2 Through 4 and Adjacent Sites in
Pioneer Canyon (PC) and in "Mid-Depth" (MD) (SAIC 1992b) 3-106
xxiv
-------
3.3.3-1 A. Rank Order of Density (number of individuals/hectare) by
Increasing Trawl Depth for Demersal Fishes Collected by SAIC
(1992b) During Surveys in Study Areas 2 Through 4 and Adjacent
Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and at "Mid-Depth" (MD) 3-119
3.3.3-IB. Rank Order of Biomass by Increasing Trawl Depth for Demersal
Fishes Collected by SAIC (1992b) During Surveys in Study Areas 2
Through 4 and Adjacent Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and at "Mid-
Depth" (MD) 3-121
3.3.3-2. Summary by Study Area of Demersal Fish Community
Characteristics 3-128
3.3.3-3. Summary of Common Commercially and Recreationally Important
Fishes Within the LTMS Study Areas 3-137
3.3.4-1. Species and General Characteristics of Marine Birds Observed Off
California in the Vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones 3-141
3.3.4-2. Relative Densities of the Ten Key Marine Bird Species Within the
Four LTMS Study Areas 3-147
3.3.5-1. Marine Mammals Observed in the Vicinity of the Gulf of the
Farallones 3-158
3.3.5-2. Relative Densities of Marine Mammal Species Within the Four
LTMS Study Areas 3-178
3.3.6-1. Threatened or Endangered Species Occurring in the Study Areas
(modified from KLI 1991) 3-191
3.4-1. Total Vessel Transits in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1980-1991 3-215
3.4-2. Percentage by Category of Total Vessel Movements That Include
Transiting Through the Golden Gate 3-216
3.4-3. Incidents Involving Tugs, Barges, and Self Propelled Dredges
Within and Near San Francisco Bay, 1980-1989 3-218
4.1-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts at the Preferred
Alternative and Alternative Sites 3 and 4 4-3
xxv
-------
4.2-1. Model-Predicted Maximum Concentrations of Air Pollutants in
Central San Francisco Bay and the Corresponding Air Quality
Standards 4-8
4.2-2. Particle Size Classes and Sinking Velocities Used in the Sediment
Deposition Model 4-12
4.2-3. Model-Predicted Disposal Plume Visitation Frequencies, Mean
Depth, and Exposure Times for Simulated Discharges at the
Preferred Alternative (Alternative Site 5) and Alternative Sites 3
and 4 4-21
4.2-4. Model-Predicted Deposit Thicknesses, Areal Coverage, and Material
Losses Due to Transport Outside of the Model Boundaries 4-40
5.2-1. Members of the LTMS Technical Review Panel 5-4
5.2-2. Members of the LTMS Policy Review Committee 5-5
5.3-1. LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG) Members 5-7
5.3-2. Agencies and Organizations that Provided Written Comments on
LTMS Ocean Studies Plan, February 1990 to June 1991 5-10
5.3-3. Attendance at LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group Meetings,
February 1990 to May 1993 5-11
5.5-1. Distribution List for Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 5-16
5.5-2. Locations Where the FEIS Can Be Reviewed or Requested 5-26
6-1. List of EIS Preparers 6-2
6-2. List of EIS Contributors 6-5
xxvi
-------
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND CONVERSIONS
ACSAR
Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise Program (U.S.)
ADCP
acoustic doppler current profiler
AEC
Atomic Energy Commission
ASBS
Area of Special Biological Significance
BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit
BCDC
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BFBA
Bay Farm Borrow Area
CalCOFI
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations
CBNMS
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
CCC
California Coastal Commission
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CHASE
Cut Holes and Sink 'Em
CMDA
chemical munitions dumping area
CO
carbon monoxide
CODE
Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiment
COE
Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army)
CSWRCB
California State Water Resources Control Board
CWA
Clean Water Act
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
CZMPs
California Coastal Zone Management Plans
DDD
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
xxvii
-------
DEIS
Draft EIS
Eh
redox potential
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
ENSO
El Nino/Southern Oscillation
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
ESA
Endangered Species Act (Federal)
FEIS
Final EIS
FR
Federal Register
FWS
Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S.)
GOFNMS
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
INPFC
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission
kg
kilogram (s)
km
kilometer(s)
LDC
London Dumping Convention
LSM
least-squares mean
LTMS
Long-Term Management Strategy
MB
Monterey Bay
MBNMS
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
mCi
millicurie(s)
MD
mid-depth
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
MMS
Minerals Management Service
MPRSA
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
NDBC
National Data Buoy Center
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NESS
Normalized Expected Species Shared
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
nmi
nautical mile(s)
NMS
National Marine Sanctuary(ies)
xxviii
-------
N02 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NODS Navy Ocean Disposal Site
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NS&T National Status & Trends
OAQPS TTN Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards Technology Transfer
Network Bulletin Board System
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
ODMDS ocean dredged material disposal site
ODSS Ocean Dumping Surveillance System
OMZ oxygen minimum zone
OSC Oakland Scavenger Company
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon(s)
PC Pioneer Canyon
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
pCi picocurie(s)
PDEIS preliminary draft EIS
PM particulate matter
ppb parts-per-billion
ppm parts-per-million
ppt parts-per-thousand
PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory
ROV remotely operated vehicle
RPD redox potential discontinuity
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
S02 sulfur dioxide
SWOOP Southwest Ocean Outfall Project
T-S temperature-salinity
xxix
-------
TSS
total suspended solids
USCG
United States Coast Guard
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
USN
United States Navy
ussc
United States Steel Corporation
voc
volatile organic compound(s)
VTS
Vessel Traffic Service (San Fransisco)
yd3
cubic yard(s)
ZSF
zone of siting feasibility
M
micro
XXX
-------
Unit Conversion Table (Metric System with U.S. Equivalents)
Metric Unit
U.S. Equivatontys)
¦ Lenglh/Dflpth
millimeter (mm)
0.039 inches (in)
centimeter (cm)
0.39 inches (in)
meter (m)
39.37 inches (in)
3.28 feet (ft)
0.55 fathoms (fm)
kilometer (km)
0.62 statute miles (mi)
0.54 nautical miles (nmi)
square centimeter (cm2)
0.155 square inches (in2)
square meter (m2)
1.196 square yards (yd2)
square kilometer (km2)
0.3861 square statute miles (mi2)
0.292 square nautical miles (nmi2)
hectare (ha) = 10,000 m2
2.471 acres
i jVofuroa
cubic centimeter (cm3)
0.061 cubic inches (in3)
milliliter (ml)
cubic meter (m3)
1.31 cubic yards (yd3)
liter (I)
61.02 cubic inches (in3)
Mttric Unit
U.S. Equivalent^)
" Mass
gram (g)
0.035 ounces (oz)
1,000 milligram (mg)
kilogram (kg)
2.2046 pounds (lb)
metric ton (MT)
1.1 tons
2,205 pounds (lb)
• $
centimeter per second (cnVsec)
0.02 knots (kn)'
meter per second (nVsec)
1.94 knots (kn)
2.24 statute miles per hour (mi/hr)
kilometer per hour (km/h)
0.54 knots (kn)
Temperature
degree Celsius (°C)
degree Fahrenheit (°F) =
(1.8 x °C) + 32
0°C
32°F (freezing point of water)
100°C
212°F (boiling point of water)
*1 knot (1 nautical mile per hour) equals 1.15 statute (land) miles per hour.
AKOOO0.WS1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
xxxii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.l Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the proposed designation of a deep
water ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) off San Francisco, California (Figure S-l).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, is issuing this EIS in accordance
with Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and as required
by EPA's national policy on the designation of ocean disposal sites (39 FR 37119, October 21,
1974).
The EIS has been prepared in coordination with other components of the Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) for San Francisco Bay, an effort led by a Federal and State
partnership consisting of EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC). An LTMS goal is to provide "timely, technically
feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable disposal alternatives for dredged
material." Disposal options, including sites within the Bay, nonaquatic/reuse sites, and ocean
disposal sites, as well as beneficial uses of dredged material are being developed by the LTMS.
An ODMDS is required to fulfill the LTMS objective of a range of disposal options for
sediments dredged from San Francisco Bay. Presently, no ocean disposal site is available to
accept this dredged material. Maintenance dredging of channels and expansion of dock capacities
are essential to sustain economic growth and strategic use of the ports. An estimated
6 million yd3 per year and a total of 400 million yd3 of dredged material could be disposed at
the ODMDS over the next 50 years.
The specific goal of this EIS is to provide an acceptable ocean disposal site which will not cause
unreasonable degradation of the ocean with respect to human health and the marine environment.
Other non-ocean alternatives are being addressed by the LTMS In-Bay Work Group and the
Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group. The suitability of alternative sites for ocean disposal is evaluated
according to 5 general and 11 specific site-selection criteria (40 CFR 228). Criteria for
evaluating changes to conditions within and adjacent to the ODMDS associated with dredged
material disposal, as indicated by results from site monitoring, are presented separately in the Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP).
Information contained in this EIS is used to characterize the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environments (Section S.2) and evaluate the potential environmental consequences
of dredged material disposal at the preferred alternative (Alternative Site 5) and two alternative
sites (Alternative Sites 3 and 4) (Section S.3). The environmental characteristics and potential
S-l
-------
38 °N -
37°30'N -
-iza^cw
-123°w
-122°30V/
Figure S-l. Locations of Study Areas and Alternative Sites in the LTMS Study
Region.
AK01S4
S-2
-------
disposal-related impacts are compared and evaluated according to the five general and eleven
specific site-selection criteria (Section S.4).
Based on this information, the proposed action is to designate Alternative Site 5 (Figure S-l) as
the ODMDS to receive dredged material from San Francisco Bay, in accordance with LTMS
objectives. The designated site can only be used for the disposal of dredged material from
Federal projects and permit applications that meet EPA and COE criteria and regulations. The
site will not be used for disposal of industrial or municipal wastes.
S.2 Affected Environment
The following sections summarize the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments of
the preferred and alternative sites.
S.2.1 Physical Environment
The preferred and alternative ocean disposal sites are located on the continental slope off San
Francisco (Figure S-l). The size and configuration of the sites are similar with an oval shape
of dimensions of approximately 3.7 nmi (6.9 km) long and 2.2 nmi (4.1 km) wide. Alternative
Site 3 is located in the western part of Study Area 3 (depths ranging between 1,400 and 1,900
m ), south of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GOFNMS), north of Pioneer
Canyon, and approximately 47 nmi from the Golden Gate. Alternative Site 4 is located in the
southwestern part of Study Area 4 (depths ranging between 1,900 and 2,100 m), approximately
55 nmi from the Golden Gate and 15 nmi SE of Pioneer Seamount Alternative Site 5 (the
preferred alternative) is located on the lower continental slope (depths between 2,500 and
3,000 m), approximately 49 nmi from the coast and 50 nmi from the Golden Gate.
The coastal environment off San Francisco has a maritime climate, characterized by a general
lack of weather extremes, with cool summers and mild, wet winters. Fog occurs off the coast
throughout the year, but is most persistent during summer. Winds are an important influence on
water column characteristics and currents over the continental shelf and upper continental slope.
Strong north and northwest winds in spring and early summer promote offshore-directed flow of
surface waters and upwelling.
Current flow in the vicinity of Alternative Site 3 is primarily to the northwest in the upper 800
to 900 m of the water column, although periodic reversals in flow occur. Currents below
1,000 m are generally weaker than near-surface currents, while the direction and velocity of
near-bottom flows are affected by tidal influences and topography. Similar trends in current
flows occur in Alternative Sites 4 and 5. Considerable seasonal variability in surface water
temperature and salinity reflect large-scale current patterns, outflow from the Bay, and small-scale
flow features. Although the site-specific data are limited, the existing water quality conditions,
including dissolved oxygen, suspended particle concentrations, trace chemical constituent
concentrations, and turbidity levels, at all alternative sites likely are similar.
S-3
-------
Sediments at Alternative Site 3 are mostly silt-sized particles, while sediments at Alternative
Site 4 comprise mostly sand and silt-sized particles, and sediments at the preferred alternative
site comprise mainly fine-grained silts and clays. All of the sites are characterized by
background or low concentrations of chemical constituents. No known hard-bottom areas occur
within any of the sites.
5.2.2 Biological Environment
The preferred alternative site is characterized by somewhat lower infaunal diversity and
abundance than Alternative Sites 3 or 4. The number of species and abundances of megafaunal
invertebrates at Alternative Site 5 is moderate, with sea cucumbers, brittlestars, and sea pens
predominating. Some species of midwater fishes, such as juvenile rockfishes, have higher
seasonal abundances at the preferred alternative than at Alternative Sites 3 or 4. Based on
limited data on plankton communities and other midwater species, there do not appear to be any
significant differences among the sites. The preferred alternative site has relatively higher
apparent use by marine birds and mammals as compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
Alternative Site 3 is characterized by a diverse and abundant infaunal community comprised of
polychaetes, amphipods, tanaids, and isopods. Abundances and species diversity for megafaunal
invertebrates is moderate at this site, with sea cucumbers, seastars, and brittle stars
predominating. Juvenile rockfishes are seasonally abundant, while marine birds and mammals
make moderate use of this site.
Alternative Site 4 is characterized as having a very similar infaunal species composition as
Alternative Site 3, but with fewer amphipods. This site also has moderate numbers of species
and abundances of megafaunal invertebrates. Juvenile rockfishes use this site seasonally, while
marine birds and mammals utilize this site less than Alternative Site 3.
5.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment
The region off San Francisco supports important commercial and recreational fisheries, consisting
of a variety of pelagic and demersal fishes and megafaunal invertebrates. However, use of the
preferred or alternative sites for commercial and recreational fisheries is minimal due to the great
depths and limited resource value. Commercial and recreational catches of pelagic fishes in the
vicinity of the sites consist mainly of tunas, mackerels, and some salmon, while commercial
catches of demersal fishes consist primarily of flatfishes, such as Dover sole, and rockfishes, such
as thornyheads.
The area offshore of San Francisco is one of the nation's largest naval operating zones.
However, of the alternative sites, none is located within submarine operating areas or navigational
lanes. The potential for conflicts with oil and gas development at any of the sites is extremely
low. Although large repositories of oil and gas reserves are located in several areas along and
offshore of the California coast, there are no existing or planned oil and gas development
activities or structures within the general study region. Current technological limitations preclude
S-4
-------
such activities at depths greater than approximately 400 m, while bottom depths at the preferred
and alternative sites are all greater than 1,400 m. Further, there are no known features of cultural
or historical significance within the sites.
S.3 Environmental Consequences
Potential environmental consequences associated with dredged material disposal at the preferred
and alternative sites are summarized in Table 4.1-1 (Chapter 4). The impact category and spatial
and temporal extents of potential impacts to specific environmental conditions are identified in
the table.
Evaluations of potential effects from dredged material disposal on air quality, water quality
parameters (suspended particle concentrations), and sea floor conditions (bottom deposit
thicknesses) were performed using computer models to simulate disposal at the preferred and
alternative sites. Additional information concerning environmental impacts from research and
monitoring of other dredged material disposal sites also was used to evaluate potential impacts
at these sites.
5.3.7 Physical Environment
Impacts from dredged material disposal operations on air quality, water quality, and geology are
considered insignificant. Exhaust emissions from dredged material transport operations would
not result in concentrations of air pollutants that exceed State and Federal standards. The water
quality model predicted a low probability that fine-grained sediments would reach the boundary
of any of the National Marine Sanctuaries following disposal at the preferred or alternative sites.
Therefore, potential effects on water quality are considered insignificant A sediment deposition
model predicted that, within the boundaries of the preferred and alternative sites, deposits with
thicknesses greater than or equal to 10 cm (100 mm) would cover areas less than 10 km2.
Depending on the characteristics of the dredged material, significant localized changes in the
grain size of the bottom sediments would be expected in areas with the highest deposition.
However, according to the deposition model calculations, no measurable deposition and alteration
of bottom sediments would occur within the sanctuaries. Significant impacts on sediment quality
in any area are not expected given that the dredged material must be tested and determined
suitable, according to EPA and COE testing criteria, for disposal in the ocean.
S.3.2 Biological Environment
Impacts on infauna, epifauna, and fishes at deep-water sites are expected to occur over a wider
area than at shallow shelf sites because of greater sediment dispersal in the water column before
it reaches the bottom. The benthic community would be affected similarly by dredged material
disposal at the preferred or alternative sites as a result of smothering of some organisms and
alteration of sediment characteristics. However, these impacts are expected to occur only in areas
with depositional thicknesses equal to or greater than 10 cm. Areas with depositional thicknesses
less than 10 cm would not be expected to incur significant changes in abundance or diversity of
S-5
-------
infauna, epifauna, or demersal fishes. Impacts on water column organisms such as plankton,
pelagic fishes, pinnipeds, and cetaceans are expected to be minimal and temporary at the
preferred and alternative sites. Further, exposure of marine organisms to dredged material is not
expected to result in significant adverse effects because all dredged material must be determined
to be suitable for ocean disposal according to EPA and COE testing criteria.
S.3.3 Socioeconomic Environment
At the preferred and alternative sites, it is unlikely that dredged material disposal will interfere
with other ocean uses, including shipping, fishing, and recreation. The effects of disposal
activities on commercial and recreational fishing are expected to be temporary and insignificant.
Most disposal impacts will occur near the sea bottom, and no significant demersal fisheries exist
within any of the alternative sites.
Potential hazards to commercial and recreational navigation resulting from dredged material
transport and disposal also are expected to be minimal at the preferred and alternative sites.
Dredged material barge transits to the preferred alternative site could cause some interference
with commercial, recreational, and scientific boat traffic, particularly near the Farallon Islands.
However, this will be mitigated by specifying barge transit routes that avoid the vicinity of the
Islands. No existing or planned oil and gas development activities occur within the region, so
no impacts on these activities would occur from dredged material disposal. Disposal activities.
at the preferred or alternative sites should not pose a significant danger or cause interference with
military vessels because the number of dredged material barge trips is small compared to the
overall volume of vessel traffic in the region.
Similarly, no known cultural or historical resources exist within the preferred or alternative sites,
so no effects from dredged material disposal would occur. Potential impacts to human safety
would be very low because the number of barge trips is small compared to the overall volume
of traffic, and measures such as specifying barge transit routes should avoid interference in the
vicinity of the Farallon Islands. As stated in MPRSA, no materials considered to be hazardous
may be disposed at an ODMDS. Therefore, the potential for human health hazards is minimal
at all the sites.
S.4 Comparison of the Alternative Ocean Disposal Sites With the 5 General and
11 Specific Site Selection Criteria
The preferred alternative (Alternative Site 5) and the two alternative disposal sites (Alternative
Sites 3 and 4) are compared to the 5 general criteria listed at 40 CFR 228.5 and the 11 specific
site selection criteria listed at 40 CFR 228.6(a). A detailed summary of the 11 site selection
criteria is contained in Table 2.2-1 (Chapter 2).
S-6
-------
S.4.1
General Selection Criteria
1. The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or in
areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal activities with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing
fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of commercial or recreational
navigation.
The preferred and alternative sites are located in water depths greater than 1,400 m, characterized
by sparsely distributed fisheries species of potential commercial value. Use of the sites for
dredged material disposal would have minimal effects on existing or potential fisheries or
shellfisheries. None of the sites is located within the established precautionary zone, navigation
lanes, or submarine operating areas. The additional vessel traffic represented by dredged material
barge transits to the alternative sites is considered small compared to overall traffic volumes,
therefore representing a negligible potential impact on commercial or recreational navigation.
2. Locations and boundaries of the disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions
during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere within the site
can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline,
marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
The preferred and alternative sites are outside of any National Marine Sanctuary boundaries.
Modeling results based on conservative parameters indicated low probabilities that dredged
material disposed of at the sites would be transported into the sanctuaries. Further, predicted
dilution rates would reduce the suspended particle concentrations to normal ambient levels at the
sanctuary boundaries. Similarly, use of the sites is unlikely to affect water quality or other
environmental conditions at any beach, shoreline, or resource or amenity area. This is due to the
large distances offshore and the ability to specify barge transit routes to avoid resources
associated with the Farallon Islands. Barge transit routes are specified in the SMMP.
3. If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined
that existing disposal sites presently approved on an interim basis for ocean
dumping do not meet the criteria for site selection set forth in Sections 228.5
through 228.6, the use of such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable
alternate disposal sites can be designated.
Continued use of a designated disposal site will be evaluated as part of the SMMP.
S-7
-------
4. The sizes of ocean disposal sites 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. The size, configuration, and location of any
disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or
designation study.
The sizes and configurations of the preferred and alternative sites are based on the results of
water quality and deposition modeling studies. Site size will be limited, yet will encompass
modeled regions of significant sediment deposition (i.e., greater than or equal to 10 mm). The
site locations were chosen to coincide with depositional zones where resuspension and dispersion
of dredged material will be minimized and monitoring of long-term effects will be facilitated.
5. EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge
of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been historically used.
All of the alternative sites are located beyond the edge of the continental shelf. Historical
disposal operations of low-level radioactive wastes and chemical and conventional munitions have
occurred in the general vicinity of the preferred alternative site. Additionally, the U.S. Navy is
discharging approximately 1.2 million yd3 of dredged material at the Naval Ocean Disposal Site
(NODS), which coincides with the preferred alternative site. In contrast, no historical waste
disposal has occurred at Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
S.4.2 Specific Site Selection Criteria
1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from
coast
The preferred alternative (Alternative Site 5) is located on the lower continental slope at depths
ranging between 2,500 and 3,000 m, with a moderately sloping bottom with topographic
containment features. Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are located in shallower depths (1,400 to 1,900
m and 1,900 to 2,100 m, respectively) on the continental slope. All alternative sites are located
at least 45 miles from the Golden Gate.
2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas
of living resources in adult or juvenile stages.
The preferred and alternative sites contain low numbers of fish species and abundances (as
compared to inshore areas) and moderate numbers of megafaunal invertebrate species and
abundances. The preferred alternative has higher use by some organisms, such as marine birds
and mammals and some midwater fishes, but relatively lower diversity and abundances of infauna
compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
S-8
-------
3.
Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
All alternative sites are located at least 45 nmi from any coastal resources and approximately
10 nmi or more from any National Marine Sanctuaries. Based on water quality modeling results,
concentrations of sediment particles transported across sanctuary boundaries will be within the
range of normal background levels.
4. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and proposed
methods of release, including methods of packing the waste, if any.
Up to 6 million yd3 per year of predominantly silt and clay material dredged from San Francisco
Bay could be disposed at the ODMDS. Disposal most likely will be from split hull barges. The
total amount of dredged material disposed over a 50-year period could total 400 million yd3. No
dumping of toxic materials or industrial or municipal wastes would be allowed at the site.
5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
The USCG has surveillance responsibility at the designated site. Physical, chemical, and
biological sampling is possible at all alternative sites. However, the preferred alternative is the
deepest site and, therefore, may be more difficult to monitor compared to Alternative Sites 3
and 4. Additionally, monitoring activities at the preferred alternative site may require special
precautions due to previously disposed waste materials.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the
area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any.
At all the sites, ocean currents flow primarily to the northwest in the upper 800 to 900 m of the
water column, although periodic reversals in flow occur. Currents below 1,000 m are generally
weaker than near-surface currents. Near-bottom current speeds may be influenced by tides and
bottom topography. Sediment resuspension and transport is expected to be minimal within all
the alternative sites.
7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the
area (including cumulative effects).
No current disposal activities occur within Alternative Sites 3 and 4. In contrast, the Navy has
received an MPRSA Section 103 permit and is using the NODS for disposal of up to 1.2
million yd3 of dredged material. In addition, disposal of radioactive waste containers was
conducted between 1951 and 1954 in the vicinity of Study Area 5. Chemical and conventional
munitions were disposed from approximately 1958 to the late 1960s at the Chemical Munitions
Dumping Area, within which the preferred alternative site is located. No residual contamination
from either source was detected during recent surveys and disposal of dredged material is
unlikely to have any synergistic or additive effects. Dredged material disposal may, in fact, serve
to isolate any residual contamination.
S-9
-------
8. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction,
desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance
and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
Dredged material barge transit to the preferred alternative site could cause minor interference
with recreation and scientific boat traffic in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands. However, under
normal conditions, no interference is expected. A requirement that barges avoid the Farallones
vicinity could minimize potential impacts. EPA and COE are the primary agencies responsible
for site management Specific site conditions and use, including transit routes, are specified in
the SMMP. Further, no significant interferences with fishing or shipping would be expected at
the preferred alternative site. The potential for interference of dredged material disposal with
shipping, fishing, recreation, and areas of special scientific importance also would be minimal
at Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
9. Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data,
by trend assessment, or by baseline surveys.
The water quality conditions at the preferred and alternative sites likely are similar. Sediments
at all the sites contain low to background concentrations of trace metal and organic contaminants.
Ecological characteristics are discussed under site-specific Criterion 2. Potential impacts at any
of the sites are expected to be transitory and insignificant.
10. Potentiality for the development of nuisance species at the disposal site.
It is unlikely that nuisance species would recruit to any of the sites due to dredged material
disposal. This is based on the significant differences in depth and environment at the preferred
and alternative sites compared to the dredging site(s).
11. Existence at or in close proximity to the site or any significant natural or
cultural features of historical importance.
There are no known significant natural or cultural features within or in the vicinity of any of the
alternative sites.
S.5 Conclusions
Impacts from disposal of dredged material at the preferred alternative site are expected to be
minimal for the following reasons:
• Bathymetric and sediment surveys indicate Alternative Site 5 is located in a
depositional area which, because of topographic containment features, is likely
to retain dredged material which reaches the sea floor;
S-10
-------
• No significant impacts to other resources or amenity areas (e.g.. marine
sanctuaries) are expected to result from designation of Alternative Site 5;
• Existing and potential fisheries resources within Alternative Site 5 are minimal
and this site is removed from more important fishing grounds located nearer
to Alternative Sites 3 and 4;
• Densities and biomass of demersal fishes and megafaunal invertebrates are
estimated to be relatively low compared to those at Alternative Sites 3 and 4;
• Potential localized impacts to bottom-dwelling organisms are considered
significant at all of the alternative sites, but the magnitude of the impacts
varies because of differences in site-specific densities. Abundances and
biomass of demersal fishes and megafaunal invertebrates, and the abundances
and diversity of infaunal invertebrates, are lower at the preferred alternative
site than at Alternative Sites 3 and 4. Thus, the relative magnitude of impacts
at the preferred alternative site are expected to be less than those at the other
alternative sites;
• Potential impacts to seabirds, mammals, and midwater organisms are expected
to be insignificant regardless of which of the alternative sites is used for
dredged material disposal;
• Waste disposal has occurred historically in the vicinity of the site (and
disposal of dredged material has occurred as part of the Navy disposal
activities at NODS under the MPRSA Section 103 permit).
S-l 1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
S-12
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 . General Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the proposed designation of a
deep-water ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) off San Francisco, California. A
variety of maintenance dredging and new channel and harbor deepening projects proposed for
San Francisco Bay will generate material that will be evaluated for disposal at the ODMDS (COE
1992a). The proposed ODMDS could receive up to 6 million cubic yards (yd3) of sediments per
year over the next 50 years (COE 1992c).
Sediment dredging and disposal are regulated under two federal laws: Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Both Acts require that a number of alternative methods, including ocean disposal, be
evaluated for environmental acceptability prior to disposal. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) share responsibility for the
management of ocean disposal of dredged material. Under Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA has the
responsibility for designating an acceptable location for the ODMDS. With concurrence from
EPA, the COE issues permits under MPRSA Section 103 for ocean disposal of dredged material
deemed suitable according to EPA criteria in MPRSA Section 102 and EPA regulations in 40
CFR Part 227.
It is EPA's policy to publish an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all ODMDS
designations (39 FR 37119, October 21, 1974). A site designation EIS is a formal evaluation of
alternative sites in which the potential environmental impacts associated with disposal of dredged
material at various locations are examined. The EIS must first demonstrate the need for the
proposed ODMDS designation action (40 CFR §6.203(a) and 40 CFR §1502.13) by describing
available or potential aquatic and nonaquatic (Le., land-based) alternatives, and the consequences
of not designating a site—the No-Action Alternative. Once the need for an ocean disposal site
is established, potential sites are screened for feasibility through the Zone of Siting Feasibility
(ZSF) process. Remaining alternative sites are evaluated using EPA's ocean dumping criteria at
40 CFR Part 228 (Table 1.1-1) and compared in the EIS. Of the sites which satisfy these criteria,
the site which best complies with these criteria is selected as the preferred alternative for formal
designation through rulemaking published in the Federal Register.
Formal designation of an ODMDS in the Federal Register does not constitute approval for ocean
disposal. Designation of an ODMDS provides an ocean disposal alternative for consideration in
the review of each proposed dredging project. Ocean disposal is allowed only when EPA and
1-1
-------
Table 1.1-1.
Five General and Eleven Specific Site Selection Criteria.
General Site Selection Criteria—40 CFR 228.5
(a) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at
sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine environment, particularly
avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of
heavy commercial or recreational navigation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbances 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.
(c) If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is
determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site
selection set forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of such
sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate disposal sites
can be designated.
(d) The sizes of the ocean disposal sites 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. The
size, configuration, 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, designate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been
historically used.
AKOOIO.W5I
1-2
-------
Table 1.1-1.
Continued.
Specific Site Selection Criteria—40 CFR 228.6(a)
(1)
Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and
distance from the coast;
(2)
Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases;
(3)
Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas;
(4)
Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packaging the
waste, if any;
(5)
Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;
(6)
Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics of
the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any;
(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,
desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific
importance and other legitimate uses of the ocean;
(9)
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; and
(11)
Existence at, or in close proximity to, the site of any significant
natural or cultural features of historical importance.
AKX10.W51
1-3
-------
COE determine that the proposed activity is environmentally acceptable according to the criteria
at 40 CFR Part 227. Decisions to allow ocean disposal are made on a case-by-case basis through
the MPRSA Section 103 permitting process.
Upon application for a permit, an evaluation process, shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.1-1,
ensures that the proposed disposal operation conforms to the provisions of EPA's Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts 220, 225, 227-228) and COE's dredged material disposal
permit requirements under MPRSA Section 103 (33 CFR Parts 320-330 and 335-338). Material
proposed for disposal at the designated ODMDS must conform to EPA's permitting criteria for
acceptable quality (40 CFR Parts 225 and 227), as determined from physical, chemical, and
bioassay/bioaccumulation testing (EPA and COE 1991). Permits to use a designated ODMDS
also can specify the times, rates, and methods of disposal, as well as the quantities, types, and
sources of the dredged material.
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide an ocean disposal site for sediments dredged
from San Francisco Bay. Dredging is required to remove millions of cubic yards of accumulated
sediments transported by natural processes into San Francisco Bay (COE 1992b). In depositional
areas with weak currents, these sediments settle to the bottom, accumulate, and gradually cause
portions of the Bay to become shallower. Sediment deposition and accumulation, particularly
in the navigation channels and port facilities, may seriously interfere with vessel traffic, vessel
loading and unloading, and vessel mooring or storage.
Dredging is needed to maintain over 85 miles of authorized deep and shallow navigation channels
in San Francisco Bay that provide vessel access to commercial, recreational, and fishing facilities.
The COE (1990a) stated that:
"Navigation channel maintenance and improvements are essential to the nation's
ability to compete effectively in international import/export markets. The San
Francisco Bay and estuary act as a critical thoroughfare for the nation's increasing
role in Pacific Rim Trade with its numerous ports and intermodal links. As of
1983, the San Francisco Bay Area was the fifth largest export manufacturing
center in the United States with export-related employment of over 68,000 and a
dollar value of close to 7 billion dollars (Skinkle, 1989). In 1980, trade with the
Pacific Rim nations (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia and other countries in the
Far East) accounted for one-quarter of the nation's imports/exports—today the
share is over one-third and rising (Skinkle, 1989)."
Furthermore, the COE (1992a) concluded that:
"Dredging needs to continue in order to provide adequate depths for deep and
shallow draft vessels serving the commercial and recreational needs of the Bay.
Over 4,000 deep draft vessels annually call at container ports, oil and auto
facilities, bulk terminals and other facilities throughout the Bay and the inland
ports of Sacramento and Stockton. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard maintain a
1-4
-------
Figure 1.1-1. Evaluation Processes for Dredged Material Permits.
AK0060
1-5
-------
major presence in the Bay Area and many of their facilities require dredging.
Dredging is also required to maintain the depths necessary for shallow draft
vessels serving recreational boaters, tourists and ferry riders, commercial fishing
and miscellaneous other activities."
Under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889, as amended (33 USC Sections 401 et seq.), the COE
is responsible for maintaining the navigability of major waterways. The COE's maintenance
dredging operations throughout the Bay comprise 13 civil works projects that historically have
generated approximately 5 million yd3 per year of dredged material. Other channel-deepening
and new work projects have been proposed that would generate additional volumes of dredged
material. The annual and projected 50-year volumes for dredging projects within San Francisco
Bay are approximately 7.6 million yd3 and 400 million yd3, respectively (Table 1.2-1; COE
1992a). Approximately 6 million yd3 of the 7.6 million yd3 annual volume is under consideration
for disposal at the ODMDS.
Disposal options, including the use of sites within the Bay, nonaquatic sites, and ocean disposal
sites, as well as beneficial uses of dredged material are being evaluated as components of the
Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for San Francisco Bay (COE 1992a). The goal of the
LTMS is "to secure timely, technically feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable
disposal alternatives for dredged material." Evaluations of these alternatives are scheduled for
completion in 1994. The LTMS envisions that several options will be available for disposal,
depending on the volumes and characteristics of the dredged material and the location of the
dredging project. Disposal options are necessary because it is unlikely that a single site can
satisfactorily accommodate the planned volumes and characteristics of the dredged material
(COE 1990a).
Historically, most sediments dredged from the Bay have been disposed at sites within the Bay.
The primary disposal site within the Bay, the Alcatraz Site, is mounding (i.e., shoaling) due to
previous disposal practices (COE 1992a). Due to present mounding problems and concerns about
potential effects of dredged material disposal on fisheries resources, water quality, and habitat
alteration, restrictions have been placed on the use of sites within the Bay (COE 1990a). The
present capacities of existing sites within the Bay for dredged material disposal are unknown
(COE 1990a). The continued feasibility of dredged material disposal at sites within the Bay is
being evaluated by the LTMS In-Bay Work Group.
Nonaquatic sites also have been used historically for the disposal of dredged material from the
Bay. Dredged material has been used primarily as fill at these sites, although disposal at
nonaquatic sites also can have beneficial effects, such as marsh restoration, creation of wetlands,
and levee maintenance. However, nonaquatic sites generally have limited capacities. At present,
no sites are available to accommodate the large volume of material projected to be dredged from
San Francisco Bay (COE 1992a), although some sites, such as Sonoma Baylands and the
Montezuma Wetlands Project, are being developed and other potential sites are under study. The
high costs associated with land acquisition and transport, constraints against filling wetlands, and
a variable and vaguely defined permitting process complicate the selection of nonaquatic areas
1-6
-------
Table 1.2-1. Projected Annual and 50-Year Dredging Volumes for Projects in San
Francisco Bay. Dredging Volumes in Cubic Yards.
Project
Annual
Volume
50-Year
LTMS Volume
COE Maintenance
4,276,000
213,800,000 *
John F. Baldwin
New Work
9,000,000
Oakland New Work
7,000,000
Richmond New Work
1,500,000
Navy Maintenance
1,780,000
89,000,000
Navy New Work
1,200,000
Oakland Permit"
140,000
7,000,000
San Francisco
Permit"
200,000
10,000,000
Chevron Permit"
196,000
9,800,000
Other Permit"
1,040,000
52,000,000
TOTAL
7,632,000
400,300,000 *
Source: COE 1992a
'Includes maintenance dredging volumes from new work projects (T. Wakeman, COE, pers. comm. 1992).
"Permit projects are non-Congressionally authorized projects that may include maintenance or new work
dredging (T. Wakeman, COE, pers. comm. 1992).
AKOOI I.W51
1-7
-------
as disposal sites (COE 1990a). The feasibility of dredged material disposal at nonaquatic sites
is being evaluated by the LTMS Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group. Given the lack of capacity at
sites within the Bay and nonaquatic sites, the COE (1990a) concluded that "clearly, there exists
a shortfall in disposal capacity for the improvement projects scheduled by the USACE [COE],
the Navy and the ports for this region."
Presently no ocean disposal site is available to accept dredged material from San Francisco Bay.
The Channel Bar Site is a designated ODMDS [40 CFR 228.12(b)( 14)]; however, only coarse-
grained sediments dredged from the entrance channel to San Francisco Bay are permitted for
disposal. Most sediments from San Francisco Bay are fine-grained and, therefore, are not
suitable for disposal at the Channel Bar ODMDS (EPA 1982). Thus, although the goal of the
LTMS is to provide a range of options that include ocean disposal, presently no ODMDS is
available. Designation of an ODMDS for large quantities of dredged material from San
Francisco Bay is considered an integral component of the LTMS (COE 1992a). The California
State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) resolution 90-37 "places all dredging parties
and agencies on notice that failure to reach specific commitments for designation of [such] an
ocean disposal site in a timely manner will result in the State Board exercising its full authority
regarding water quality certification [for disposal within the Bay]..." Designation, monitoring,
and management of an ODMDS are being evaluated by the LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group.
1.3 Proposed Action
The proposed action is the designation of a deep-water ODMDS that could be used for disposal
of sediments dredged from San Francisco Bay. This FEIS evaluates three alternative disposal
sites, according to the five general and eleven specific criteria promulgated at 40 CFR §228
(Table 1.1-1), as well as the No-Action Alternative, and recommends a preferred alternative.
The locations of the alternative disposal sites are shown in Figure 1.3-1. Alternative Sites 3, 4,
and 5 are located within LTMS Study Areas 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Alternative Site 5 is the
preferred alternative.
Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 are located off the continental shelf. Study Area 3 is south of the Gulf
of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GOFNMS), north of Pioneer Canyon, and
approximately 47 nautical miles (nmi) from the Golden Gate. Study Area 4 is south of Pioneer
Canyon, 55 nmi from the Golden Gate, and between two former explosives disposal areas. Study
Area 5 is south of the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS), adjacent to the
western side of the GOFNMS, and approximately 50 nmi from the Golden Gate. This study area
encompasses a former chemical munitions disposal site and is near a previously used low-level
radioactive waste site. Study areas were selected through a screening process which considered
proximity to marine sanctuaries and designated areas of special biological significance, vessel
traffic lanes, submarine operating areas. Pioneer Canyon, areas with significant hard-bottom
features, and sites used historically for disposal of chemical munitions, explosive munitions, and
low-level radioactive wastes (EPA 1991; see Chapter 2).
1-8
-------
Figure 1.3-1. Locations of Study Areas 1 Through 5 and Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5
in the LTMS Study Region.
The 50m, 200m, 500m, 1,500m, and 2,500m contours correspond lo the 28,110,275, 825, and
1,375 fathom contours, respectively.
AK0061
1-9
-------
Alternative sites within each of Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 were delineated from the results of EPA-
sponsored surveys at Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 (SAIC 1992b.c; Chin et al. 1992; Karl 1992; Jones
and Szczepaniak 1992; Noble et al. 1992) and Navy-sponsored surveys at Study Area 5 (SAIC
1991, 1992a; Nybakken et al. 1992; Cailliet et al. 1992). These results are summarized in
Chapter 3. Specific portions of these study areas that are characterized as low-energy,
depositional zones containing sediments which are similar in grain size to those within the Bay
were selected as alternative sites. These conditions are considered important for minimizing
dispersion of dredged material and the area of potential impacts. The site sizes and positions of
the site boundaries were determined by modeling the fate of dredged material based on simulated
discharges over a one-year period (see Chapter 4).
No alternative sites are considered for Study Areas 1 or 2. Study Area 1 corresponds to the
Channel Bar ODMDS; however, as noted above and discussed in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, Study
Area 1 was dropped from further consideration as an alternative for disposal of dredged material
from San Francisco Bay. Study Area 2 is located on the continental shelf, in depths shallower
than 180 meters (m), and adjoins the boundary of the GOFNMS. This study area also was
dropped from further consideration because it lies within the boundaries of the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The Final Rule for MBNMS designation prohibits
dredged material disposal at any new ODMDS within the Sanctuary boundaries. Therefore, EPA
will not pursue designation of an ODMDS within Study Area 2.
1.4 Areas of Controversy
This section summarizes issues raised during the Public Scoping Meeting, the scoping period, and
the LTMS public involvement process (Chapter 5). The general areas of controversy include:
• Proximity of the ODMDS to national marine sanctuaries (NMSs), areas of hard
bottom, and Pioneer Canyon;
• Potential interferences with existing and/or future fisheries resources, and to
feeding, breeding, and migratory activities of marine birds and mammals;
• Potential impacts to other water column organisms should particles remain
suspended;
• Uncertainties associated with predictions of the area affected by disposal
operations; and
• The scope, frequency, and costs of monitoring short- and long-term effects
from disposal operations at a deep-water disposal site.
An additional area of controversy involves the relationship of the ODMDS to the NMSs. The
12-mile wide zone contiguous with the seaward boundary of the NMSs, as described in EPA site
monitoring regulations [40 CFR §228.10(c)(l)(i)], includes Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5.
1-10
-------
Although the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will not regulate
dredged material within this zone (NOAA 1992), any site selected as an ODMDS may require
a more intensive monitoring effort because of its proximity to NMS resources.
1.5 Issues To Be Resolved
Major issues identified in Section 1.4 are being resolved through the LTMS public involvement
process (Chapter 5). Specifically, the locations, sizes, and boundaries of the alternative sites have
been delineated in regions removed from NMSs and areas of known hard bottom. Potential
impacts to marine birds, mammals, and fisheries resources have been evaluated based on existing
information and from computer model predictions of the dispersion of dredged material from the
sites (Chapter 4). A Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) has been developed that
contains approaches for monitoring impacts to marine organisms, as well as verification of model
predictions. Development of this SMMP was based on comments received on the DEIS, and the
SMMP will undergo final public review as part of the proposed rule package required by NEPA.
1.6 Regulatory Framework
An international treaty and several laws, regulations, and orders apply to ocean disposal of
dredged material and to the designation of an ODMDS. The relevance of these statutes to the
proposed action and to related compliance requirements is described below.
1.6.1 International Treaty
The principal international agreement governing ocean disposal is the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (26 UST 2403: HAS
8165), also known as the London Dumping Convention (LDC). This agreement became effective
on August 30, 1975, after ratification by the participating countries, including the United States.
Ocean dumping criteria incorporated into MPRSA have been adapted from the provisions of the
LDC. Thus, material considered acceptable for ocean disposal under MPRSA also is acceptable
for ocean disposal under the LDC.
1.6.2 Federal Laws and Regulations
1.6.2.1 Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. as amended
(33 USC Section 1401 et sea.)
The MPRSA regulates the transportation and ultimate disposal of material in the ocean, prohibits
ocean disposal of certain wastes without a permit, and prohibits the disposal of certain materials
entirely. Prohibited materials include those which contain radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agents, high-level radiological wastes, and industrial waste. MPRSA has jurisdiction over
all United States ocean waters in and beyond the territorial sea, vessels flying the U.S. flag, and
vessels leaving U.S. ports. The territorial sea is defined as waters three miles seaward of the
1-11
-------
nearest shoreline. For bays or estuaries, the three-mile territorial sea begins at a baseline drawn
across the opening of the water body.
Section 102 of the Act authorizes EPA to promulgate environmental criteria for evaluation of all
dumping permit actions, to retain review authority over COE MPRSA 103 permits, and to
designate ocean disposal sites for dredged material disposal. EPA's regulations for ocean
disposal are published at 40 CFR Parts 220-229. Under the authority of Section 103 of the
MPRSA, COE may issue ocean dumping permits for dredged material if EPA concurs with the
decision. If EPA does not agree with a COE permit decision, a waiver process under Section
103 allows further action to be taken (Figure 1.1-1). The permitting regulations promulgated by
COE, under the MPRSA, appear at 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330 and 335 to 338. Based on an
evaluation of compliance with the regulatory criteria of 40 CFR Part 227, both EPA and COE
may prohibit or restrict disposal of material that does not meet the criteria. The EPA and COE
also may determine that ocean disposal is inappropriate because of ODMDS management
restrictions or because options for beneficial use(s) exist. Site management guidance is provided
in 40 CFR §228.7-228.11.
1.6.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC Section 4341 et sea.)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was established to ensure that the environmental
consequences of federal actions were incorporated into agency decision-making processes. It
establishes a process whereby the parties most affected by the impact of a proposed action are
identified and their opinions are solicited. The proposed action and several alternatives are
evaluated in relation to their environmental impacts, and a tentative selection of the most
appropriate alternative is made. A DEIS is developed which presents sufficient information to
evaluate the suitability of the proposed and alternative actions. A Notice of Availability,
announcing that the DEIS can be obtained for comment, is published in the Federal Register.
After the DEIS comment period, the comments are addressed, revisions are made to the DEIS,
and the document is published as a Final EIS. A proposed rule is published after the FEIS. For
ODMDS designations, publication of a Final Rule in the Federal Register is equivalent to a
NEPA Record of Decision.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has published regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500
to 1508 for implementing NEPA. EPA NEPA regulations are published at 40 CFR Part 6. The
COE regulations for implementing NEPA are published at 33 CFR Part 220.
1.6.2.3 Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC Section 1251 et seaA
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Specific sections of the Act control the discharge of
pollutants and wastes into aquatic and marine environments.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill
material into navigable waters of the U.S. The CWA and MPRSA overlap for discharges to the
1-12
-------
territorial sea. CWA supercedes MPRSA if dredged material is dumped in the ocean for beach
restoration or some other beneficial use. MPRSA supercedes CWA if dredged material is
transported and disposed in the territorial sea.
Section 401 of the CWA applies to dredging activities and requires certification that the permitted
project complies with State Water Quality Standards for actions within State waters. Under
Section 401, states must establish Water Quality Standards for waters in the territorial sea.
Dredging may not cause the concentrations of chemicals in the water column to exceed State
standards. To receive State certification, a permit applicant must demonstrate that these standards
will not be exceeded.
1.6.2.4 Clean Air Act as Amended (42 USC Section 1451 et sea.)
The Clean Air Act is intended to protect the Nation's air quality by regulating emissions of air
pollutants. The Act is applicable to permits and planning procedures related to dredged material
disposal within the territorial sea. It is not applicable to the proposed designation of an ODMDS.
1.6.2.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC Section 661 et sea.)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that water resource development programs
consider wildlife conservation. Whenever any body of water is proposed or authorized to be
impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) and the State agency responsible for fish and wildlife must be consulted. Section 662(b)
of the Act requires federal agencies to consider recommendations based on the FWS
investigations. The recommendations may address wildlife conservation and development, any
damage to wildlife attributable to the project, and measures proposed for mitigating or
compensating for these damages. The Act is applicable to the evaluation of MPRSA Section 103
permits and other water resource development projects.
1.6.2.6 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC Section 1456 et sea.)
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), any federal agency conducting or supporting
activities directly affecting the coastal zone must proceed in a manner consistent with approved
State coastal zone management programs, to the maximum extent practicable. If a proposed
activity affects water use in the coastal zone (i.e., the territorial sea and inland), the applicant
may need to demonstrate compliance with a state's approved CZMA program.
The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (Section 6208) state that any federal
activity, regardless of its location, is subject to the CZMA requirement for consistency if it will
affect any natural resources, land uses, or water uses in the coastal zone. No federal agency
activities are categorically exempt from this requirement. As part of the site designation process,
EPA will prepare a coastal consistency determination and will seek approval from the California
Coastal Commission (CCC). The coastal consistency determination will address potential effects
of dredged material disposal at the ODMDS on marine organisms, including threatened and
1-13
-------
endangered species. It will also describe provisions for sediment testing, to ensure that
contaminated material is not discharged at the ODMDS, and other aspects of the SMMP. The
CCC will continue to review permit applications for dredging projects and federal determinations
of consistency for federal dredging projects, including the transport of dredged material through
the coastal zone, for consistency with the California Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP).
1.6.2.7 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC Section 1531 et sea.)
The Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered species by prohibiting federal
actions which would jeopardize the continued existence of such species or which would result
in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat of such species. Section 7 of
the Act requires that consultation regarding protection of such species be conducted with the
FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to project implementation.
During the site designation process, the FWS and the NMFS evaluate potential impacts of ocean
disposal on threatened or endangered species. These agencies are asked to certify, or concur with
the sponsoring agency's findings, that the proposed activity will not adversely affect endangered
or threatened species. Documentation of the consultation process on the proposed ODMDS
designation is included in Chapter 5.
1.6.2.8 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC Parts 470 et sea.)
The purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act is to preserve and protect historic and pre-
historic resources that may be damaged, destroyed, or made less available by a project. Under
this Act, federal agencies are required to identify cultural or historical resources that may be
affected by a project and to coordinate project activities with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). EPA is coordinating the proposed ODMDS designation with the SHPO (see
Chapter 5).
1.6.3 Executive Orders
1.6.3.1 Executive Order 11593. Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
(36 FR 8921. May 15. 1971)
This executive order requires federal agencies to direct their policies, plans, and programs so that
federally-owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological
significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the public.
Compliance with this order is coordinated with the SHPO.
1.6.3.2 Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Major Federal Programs
(47 FR 3059. July 16. 1982)
This order requires federal agencies to consult with elected officials of state and local
governments that may be affected directly by a proposed federal development In providing for
this consultation, existing state procedures must be accommodated to the maximum extent
1-14
-------
practicable. For this EIS, the EPA, through the LTMS program, has consulted with the
Resources Agency of California, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the
appropriate state agencies, boards, and departments on the proposed action (see Chapter 5).
1.6.4 State of California
1.6.4.1 California Coastal Act of 1976. Public Resources Code Section 3000 et sea.
This Act establishes the CZMP, which has been approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
All federal actions which affect the coastal zone must be determined to be as consistent as
practicable with this plan (see CZMA above).
1.6.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act, June 1986 Public Resources Code Parts
21000-21177
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements similar to those of
NEPA for consideration of environmental impacts and alternatives, and for preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to implementation of applicable projects. However,
this proposed action is a federal action involving site designation outside state boundaries and,
therefore, does not fall under the purview of CEQA.
1.7 Relationship to Previous NEPA Actions or Other Facilities That May Be
Affected by Designation of the Disposal Site
Several NEPA actions in the project area potentially may be affected by disposal of dredged
material at an ODMDS. Because disposal activities would occur over open-ocean water, no
facilities or structures would be affected directly. However, resuspension of dredged material or
disposal plumes from an ODMDS must be considered in terms of cumulative impacts to the
water quality, sediment quality, and the biological environment These projects are shown in
Figure 1.7-1 and described briefly below.
• Channel Bar ODMDS: This si^e is designated for disposal of material from
maintenance dredging of the San Francisco main ship channel [40 CFR
section 228.12(b)(22)]. The site is 5.6 kilometers (km) from shore, adjacent
to the ship channel.
• San Francisco Southwest Ocean Outfall Project (SWOOP): The outfall is
located 10.2 km from shore off San Francisco at a depth of 23 m
(37°42.267'N, 122°34.65'W). It is operated by the City and County of San
Francisco, and discharges 24 million gallons per day of primary treated sewage
effluent and stormwater runoff.
1-15
-------
• City of Pacifica Outfall: The outfall is located 0.8 km from shore off Pacifica
(37°37.917'N, 122°30.500'W) at a depth of 10 m. It discharges 3.2 million
gallons per day of secondary treated sewage effluent.
• Northern San Mateo County Outfall: The outfall is located 0.8 km from shore
off northern San Mateo County (37°42.800'N, 122°30.833'W) at a depth of
10 m. It discharges 8 million gallons per day of secondary treated sewage
effluent.
The Channel Bar ODMDS and three ocean outfalls are at least 45-55 nmi from the alternative
sites. Because of this large distance, these activities will not be affected directly by the
designation of an ODMDS at any of the alternative sites (see Section 4.4.1.3, Water Quality
Modeling). The Channel Bar Site, designated to receive dredged material from the entrance
channel to San Francisco Bay, does not receive any dredged material from other parts of the Bay.
Thus, disposal volumes and activities at the Channel Bar ODMDS are independent of the amount
of material that might be discharged at an offshore ODMDS.
Project-specific, dredged material disposal operations at the Navy Ocean Disposal Site (NODS),
corresponding to Alternative Site 5 in this FEIS, were initiated in May 1993 by the Navy under
an MPRSA Section 103 permit. The NODS and Alternative Site 5 are located within a portion
of the historical chemical munitions dumping area (CMDA). A Final EIS (Navy 1990) and Final
Supplemental EIS (Navy 1993) were prepared for this action. A total volume of 1.2 million
yd3 of dredged material from NAS Alameda and NSC Oakland will be discharged at NODS
during May 1993 to December 1994 under permit No. 19260E48 issued by the COE, San
Francisco District. This permit contains general and special conditions that pertain to dredging
and disposal operations, coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), inspections, report
submissions, and permit liability. The COE is a cooperating agency on this project.
Three national marine sanctuaries (GOFNMS, CBNMS, and MBNMS) have been designated in
the region. The GOFNMS was designated in 1981 (46 FR 7936; January 26, 1981). The
boundaries of the GOFNMS extend from Bodega Rock to Rocky Point (near Bolinas) and 19 km
beyond the Farallon Islands. The CBNMS was designated in 1990 (55 FR 4994; December 4,
1990) and is located adjacent to and north of the GOFNMS boundary. The MBNMS includes
areas of the continental shelf from the Gulf of the Farallones to Cambria (NOAA 1992). The
Final Rule for designation of the MBNMS was published on September 18, 1992. Dredged
material disposal within the boundaries of any of the NMSs is prohibited by Sanctuaiy
regulations. CBNMS regulations also prohibit discharges outside the boundary which could enter
the Sanctuary and impact a Sanctuary resource (NOAA 1989).
A number of other areas delineated in the study region correspond to submarine operating areas,
vessel traffic lanes (i.e., navigation channels and a precautionary zone), and historical waste
disposal sites (Figure 1.7-1). These areas are not previous NEPA actions or facilities. However,
they are legitimate uses of the ocean that may be affected by ODMDS designation (see
Chapter 2). Continued use of these areas or, in the case of historical waste disposal sites.
1-16
-------
38°N -
37°30'N
-ISS^OVv
-123°w
-122°30Vv
Figure 1.7-1.
Locations of Existing ODMDSs, Ocean Outfalls, National Marine
Sanctuaries, Submarine Operating Areas, Navigation Channels and
Precautionary Zone, and Historical Waste Disposal Sites in the LTMS
Study Region.
The existing ODMDSs are Study Area 1 (Channel Bar ODMDS) and NODS (corresponds
approximately to Alternative Site 5). The terminus of each of the three ocean outfalls is
indicated as a submarine operating areas are designated Areas U1-U5; areas within the
National Marine Sanctuaries are shaded, and sanctuary boundaries are indicated by dashed
lines.
AK0062
1-17
-------
cumulative environmental impacts associated with these areas could be affected by the
designation of an ODMDS. Potential impacts from ODMDS designation, including cumulative
impacts with other disposal operations, are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 (Environmental
Consequences).
1-18
-------
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter discusses five general alternatives for the disposal of dredged material from San
Francisco Bay and compares three alternative ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDS).
Each of the alternative ocean disposal sites is evaluated on the basis of the five general and
eleven specific site-selection criteria listed at 40 CFR sections 228.5 and 228.6(a), respectively
(Table 1.1-1). Disposal alternatives are described in Section 2.1 and evaluated in Section 2.2.
2.1 Description of Alternatives
Five general alternatives for the disposal of dredged material from San Francisco Bay are
available: (1) No-Action; (2) ocean disposal; (3) disposal within the Bay; (4) nonaquatic (i.e.,
land-based) disposal; and (5) reuse or treatment options, such as landfill cover, beach
nourishment, or marsh restoration.
These alternatives are being evaluated as part of the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS),
an interagency effort led by a State/Federal partnership consisting of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC). It is the intent of the LTMS lo provide an array of
disposal options—including ocean, within the Bay, and nonaquatic sites—to accommodate the
volumes and composition of material proposed for dredging over the 50-year planning period
(COE 1992a). The LTMS also will develop general guidelines for evaluating the use of
individual disposal options for specific projects, as well as promote utilization of dredged
material for beneficial uses such as wetlands creation and levee maintenance (COE 1992a).
These options are being developed by the LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group, In-Bay Work
Group, Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group, and the Implementation Work Group. Overall
management and policy guidance of these groups is provided by an Executive Committee with
LTMS coordination and technical direction delegated to a Management Committee (Section 5.2).
Because other options will be evaluated by ongoing LTMS efforts concerning disposal within the
Bay, nonaquatic/reuse sites, and implementation, this Environmental Impact Statement (E1S)
evaluates only the ocean disposal and No-Action alternatives. Evaluations of non-ocean disposal
options are scheduled for completion in 1994.
The process of designating an ODMDS begins by establishing the need for an ocean disposal site.
Designation of an ODMDS would not preclude the use of other disposal options or beneficial
uses of dredged materia). Land-based disposal evaluations are required under 40 CFR sections
2-1
-------
227.14 to 227.16 in EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria for all Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) Section 103 permits. These evaluations are considered by the COE
and EPA as part of the review of individual applications for use of an ODMDS. If disposal
within the Bay or at a nonaquatic/reuse site is feasible, a decision whether an ODMDS is the best
disposal option will be made during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and permit
review process according to the existing regulations and other guidelines developed by the
LTMS.
2.1.1 No-A ction A Itemative
The LTMS mission is to develop long-term options that include an array of potential ocean,
within the Bay, and nonaquatic disposal sites to accommodate the dredged material volumes and
composition projected for the 50-year planning period (COE 1992a). The No-Action Alternative
would preclude ocean disposal except under an MPRSA Section 103 permit. Use of an MPRSA
Section 103 interim ODMDS is project-dependent and does not provide a long-term management
option. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would not fulfill the LTMS goal of providing a
long-term, multi-user ODMDS. In addition, in the absence of a designated ODMDS, or Section
103 interim ODMDS, other disposal options would be required for dredged material, or planned
dredging programs would have to be delayed until a suitable disposal option is identified.
2.1.2 Ocean Disposal Alternatives
The process of identifying potential alternative ocean disposal sites involves several steps (EPA
1986a). Once the need for an ocean site has been established, the next step typically is to define
a zone of siting feasibility (ZSF) which establishes a broad potential area for locating an
ODMDS. The geographic boundary of the ZSF is determined by evaluating operational and
economic considerations and jurisdictional limitations. Within the ZSF, historically used disposal
sites and sensitive and incompatible use areas then are identified from existing information
sources (EPA/COE 1984). Sensitive areas may include marine sanctuaries, breeding, spawning,
nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living resources, and significant natural or cultural features
of historical importance. Incompatible use areas may include shipping lanes, mineral extraction
sites, or geographically limited fisheries or shellfisheries (EPA 1986a). After sensitive or
incompatible use areas have been delineated, the remaining portions of the ZSF then may be
considered as candidate areas for siting aft ODMDS. Candidate sites are evaluated further based
on site-specific information, plus other considerations such as disposal management requirements
(EPA/COE 1984). Additionally, the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228.5) require that
"EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental
shelf and other such sites that have been historically used."
Potential alternative ocean disposal sites within the LTMS study region were identified from an
initial screening process that considered the following: (1) marine sanctuary boundaries; (2)
navigation lanes; (3) submarine operating areas; (4) areas of hard bottom; and (5) Pioneer
Canyon. As a result of this screening, Study Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were delineated by EPA and
members of the LTMS Management Committee as potential alternative ocean disposal sites that
2-2
-------
represented a range of depths and distance from shore and that avoided previously identified
incompatible use areas (EPA 1991).
EPA prepared an Ocean Studies Plan (OSP; EPA 1991) that summarized existing information on
the environmental conditions of the LTMS study region. The OSP also described methodologies
for obtaining additional information and for conducting studies at Study Areas 2, 3,4, and 5, and
Pioneer Canyon, that were needed to support the site designation process. Although the
background information available prior to these surveys suggested that areas such as Pioneer
Canyon and shelf locations in the vicinity of Study Area 2 might contain potentially unique or
sensitive features or resources which should be avoided for ODMDS designation, the OSP
included sampling at these locations to fill specific data gaps and document the areas'
characteristics for the EIS. EPA-sponsored surveys of Study Areas 2, 3, and 4 and Pioneer
Canyon subsequently were conducted from 1990 to 1992. Study Area 5 was surveyed by the
Navy and by EPA from 1990 to 1992. Results from these surveys (summarized in Chapter 3)
were used to evaluate the individual LTMS study areas, and eventually to select the three
alternative sites addressed in this EIS.
Coincidental with the development of the OSP, the COE prepared a draft final ZSF report in
1991 that "...delineate[s] the outer geographical boundaries of operational and economic
acceptability within which further environmental, regulatory and socio-economic analysis is
performed to achieve a site designation." Based on analyses of the benefit-to-cost ratios of ten
representative dredging projects in San Francisco Bay, the COE recommended that the ZSF
encompass an area within 53 nmi (100 km) from the Golden Gate Bridge. The ZSF
(Figure 2.1-1) includes areas beyond the edge of the continental shelf, all of which would be
accessible using existing technology and equipment (COE 1992c). All of the LTMS study areas
are within the region defined by the ZSF.
The following sections discuss historically used ODMDSs and the sensitive and incompatible use
areas within which dredged material disposal operations would interfere with other activities,
uses, or resources within the LTMS study region. These uses and their geographical locations
are described below.
2.1.2.1 Historically Used ODMDSs
EPA's ocean site selection criteria [40 CFR Section 228.5(e)] require that sites used historically
should be designated as ODMDS wherever possible. Historically used sites within the LTMS
study region are discussed below.
The Channel Bar Site (corresponding to LTMS Study Area 1) is the only historically used
ODMDS presently designated for disposal of dredged material (see Section 3.1.1, Historical Use
of the Study Region). This site received final designation (50 CFR 38524; September 23, 1985),
but can be used only for disposal of sandy sediments dredged from the entrance channel to
San Francisco Bay. The Farallon Island or 100-Fathom site was given interim designation by
EPA in 1977. However, this site is now within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
2-3
-------
Figure 2.1-1. Locations of National Marine Sanctuaries, Areas of Special Biological
Significance, Reserves, and Features of Potential Scientific Importance in
the LTMS Study Region.
See Table 2.1-1 for a legend to the numbered circles.
The 50m, 200m, 500m, 1,500m, and 2,500m contours correspond to ihe 28, 110, 275,825, and
1,375 fathom contours, respectively.
AK0063
2-4
-------
Table 2.1-1. Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs), Reserves, National
Marine Sanctuaries (NMS), and Features of Potential Scientific
Significance Shown in Figure 2.1*1.
1.
Point Reyes National Seashore
15.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
2.
Point Reyes Headlands Reseive
16.
Montana State Beach
3.
Point Reyes Headlands Reserve and ASBS
17.
James Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and
ASBS
4.
Drakes Estero
18.
Pillar Point, Half Moon Bay
5.
Estero de Limantour Reserve
19.
Purisima Creek
6.
Double Point ASBS
20.
Lobitos Creek, Tunitas Creek
7.
Duxbury Reef Reserve
21.
San Gregorio State Beach
8.
Duxbury Reef Reserve and
Extension ASBS
22.
Pomponio State Beach
9.
Bolinas Lagoon
23.
Pescadero Marsh
10.
Cordell Bank NMS
24.
Pescadero Point
11.
Gulf of the Farallones NMS
25.
Bean Hollow State Beach
12.
Farallon Islands Game Refuge
26.
Pigeon Point
13.
Farallon National
27.
Franklin Point
Wildlife Refuge
28.
Ark> Nuevo State Reserve
14.
Farallon Islands ASBS
29.
Monterey Bay NMS
Source: KL11991.
AK0012-IW51
2-5
-------
Sanctuary (GOFNMS), which was established in 1981 (46 CFR 7936; January 26,1981), and
disposal of dredged material inside the Sanctuary boundary is prohibited except where
necessitated by national defense or in response to an emergency (15 CFR 936.6). Consequently,
the interim designation of the 100-Fathom site was canceled in 1983 (48 CFR 5557;
February 7, 1983). This site has not been used for dredged material disposal since 1978.
Disposal of dredged material from San Francisco Bay has not occurred routinely at any other
ocean site, except for the limited or experimental use of three sites that have not been designated
for further use (Section 3.1.1): the COE experimental 100-fathom site, the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) site, and Site BIB (Chapter 3, Figure 3.1-1). These sites are considered
historical sites because they have been used previously for dredged material disposal. However,
all of these sites have been eliminated from further consideration as an ODMDS. The COE
experimental 100-fathom site was eliminated because it is within the GOFNMS. The BART site
was not considered further because it is located in close proximity to the Golden Gate, nearshore
resources, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Finally, Site BIB has
also been eliminated from consideration because it is within the boundaries of the MBNMS.
The Navy obtained a project-specific (MPRSA Section 103) permit for disposal of dredged
material at the Navy Ocean Disposal Site (NODS) located within the former chemical munitions
dumping area (CMDA). The NODS coincides with LTMS Alternative Site 5. A total volume
of 1.2 million yd' of material from NAS Alameda and NSC Oakland will be discharged at NODS
between May 1993 and December 1994. Therefore, the NODS is considered a historically used
ODMDS.
2.1.2.2 Sensitive Areas
EPA's ocean site selection criteria [40 CFR section 228.5(b)] require that impacts to sensitive
areas such as sanctuaries, restricted habitats, and areas with high resource values be avoided.
Sensitive areas in the LTMS study region are discussed below.
The ocean adjacent to San Francisco Bay contains several national marine sanctuaries (NMS),
areas of special biological significance (ASBSs), ecological preserves, and other areas of special
scientific importance (Figure 2.1-1 and Table 2.1-1). The GOFNMS boundaries extend from
Bodega Rock to Rocky Point (Bolinas) and approximately 19 km seaward of the Farallon Islands.
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS), located north of the GOFNMS and 30 km
west of Point Reyes peninsula, was designated in 1990 (55 CFR 4994; December 4, 1990). A
large area of the California coast from Marin County to Cambria (4,024 nmi2) has been
designated as the MBNMS (57 FR 43310). Routine disposal of dredged material within the
boundaries of any of the NMSs is prohibited by Sanctuary regulations. Therefore, the areas
within the NMS boundaries are eliminated from further consideration as an ODMDS.
EPA regulations [40 CFR section 228.10(c)( 1 )(i)] also describe a 12-mile zone around sanctuaries
in reference to monitoring of disposal sites. EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) agree that designation of an ODMDS within this zone is not precluded
2-6
-------
by EPA or sanctuary regulations, or by MPRSA (W. Reilly, EPA, letter to Gov. Pete Wilson
dated June 22, 1992).
Several ASBSs occur along the coast between the Point Reyes National Seashore and Afio Nuevo
Point, within the GOFNMS and the MBNMS (Figure 2.1-1). These locations represent breeding,
nursery, haul-out, and feeding areas for marine mammals; over-wintering, breeding, roosting, and
migratory passage areas for birds; or geographically limited habitat for large numbers of plant
and animal species, including several threatened and endangered species. The need to protect
these ASBSs is, in part, justification for including these regions in the GOFNMS and MBNMS.
Further, the nearshore zone adjacent to this portion of the coast would not be appropriate for
further considerations of ODMDS siting because of potential shoreward transport of dredged
material and degradation of water quality at the shoreline.
Physiographic features, such as hard-bottom reefs, submarine canyons, and seamounts, are
considered potentially sensitive areas because they could support biological communities which
are different from those found on adjacent soft-bottom substrate and which are restricted to the
spatial extent of the feature.
The presence of several hard-bottom features, submarine canyons, or seamounts has been
identified in locations off the continental shelf (e.g., Nybakken et al. 1984; Towill, Inc. 1986;
Parr et al. 1987; SAIC 1992b). The distribution of potential hard-bottom areas in the vicinity
of Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 is shown on Figure 2.1-2. Based on interpretation of U.S. Geological
Survey acoustic data (J. Chin pers. comm. 1993), the mapped hard-bottom areas within Study
Areas 3 and 4 likely consist primarily of compacted, sandy sediment, whereas localized areas of
sea floor to the east of these study areas may include lithified or crystalline rock. Study Area
5 contains relatively few potential hard-bottom sites. Significant hard-bottom features are located
at depths of approximately 900 m near the GOFNMS boundary, on and adjacent to Pioneer
Seamount, and scattered within Pioneer Canyon south of the GOFNMS (Karl 1992). Other areas
with potential hard-bottom features are associated with Gumdrop and Guide Seamounts located
to the north and far south of Pioneer Seamount, respectively (Figure 2.1-2). Previous studies
conducted in submarine canyons off southern California and within Monterey Canyon revealed
the presence of rich or unique biological communities (e.g., Hartman 1963; Embley et al. 1990).
Therefore, significant hard-bottom features, submarine canyons, and seamounts off San Francisco
may represent unique biological habitats or areas of scientific importance. In addition, the
difficulty of predicting dredged material dispersion in the vicinity of seamounts and canyons also
makes these areas unsuitable for an ODMDS. Nevertheless, because the information previously
available for characterizing and evaluating the potential sensitivities of these features or habitats
was sparse, EPA conducted surveys within Pioneer Canyon (SAIC 1992b,c) to complete the
regional characterization.
Information on potentially sensitive areas within the study region was obtained during studies
sponsored by the COE (Nybakken et al. 1984; Towill, Inc. 1986; Stevenson and Parr 1987; Parr
et al. 1987) to evaluate potential ocean disposal sites. The majority of these sites were located
on the continental shelf (Figure 2.1-3 and Table 2.1-2). These studies were intended to
2-7
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-8
-------
-123° 40'
3 7° 4 5
31-4(1
.17'111
12 y ?. 5. • -12 y ? °' -1"
;2^"20' -12T17.' -121"* Io• i:
ST 2*
\7 2H
37° IS
J 7 ' J 0
37'f.
- // C ^4k' * r-.j/
r:'
• i:r
r:rr.n i - i::r«i«r rjr:.r
12 2fJ 3 0'
'¦-u^
1 /
>V-U?W:X'V
c " ;-r:'V. h^.,
— - —>.^/( \
( < c. F- V
Farallon Islands
%f?
> \ -* r
«¦as ~
'•r; c r. <'¦-
k > '¦ t--—v
| | Non-discrete Hardbottom Location
Hj Discrete Hardbottom Location
'->» i i » r " <•' v.v / f' /' < v
yf-J V v.S% (
I '' j Y tri-' A--a -1 / c' \ \
n Hltt'ffl-** ( s6? < '.%
NAUTICAL MILES
i-
H
0 8
KILOMETERS
-+-
10
20
s mmai myzmf\
-i mmM. I» I I JjfeJgrf// i
' I / Gl C—-' f'
()
\ \ hy-^r.^ /! , -^=^=7/^. \ v- /"
/T J'O V
fiV . >iQ<( Vy^~-!sf5p \
/ { 'i S v * v_ T^V-.V
¦, -I -a\V w Avsll *<¦
7 i c- ' ¦¦ '7->s . „ s>
% ,,^?s {¦ ( \ yi-fl Vs.
i /Y/Jm-s{ \ --.N
- I I I I * I i I -' -l^'-^-.'-l ^ » I ) t S,\ . - I-. -1. J- . ....
*
37"4 5'
<7'M0'
37° 3S'
.< /' <()'
i'ras1
.17° l?
j r tu-
*3 7'-'l !_ i I \ \ i 1 ''ftc' 'ttf " \ \ . I ^ •> ) a ' I J / , \ i% J i r . I n -1*.
J ' -12T3S' -12.^3(1' -12T2S' -123°2U' -12 3° IS* -I2ri0f -12rS' -123° -122°SS' -122^W -122e4<">" -122*40' -I22,35* J '
-123° 40' -12 2° 3 0'
Figure 2.1-2.
Distribution of Hard-Bottom Areas in the Vicinity of Study Areas 3, 4,
and 5.
Hard-bottom area distributions are based on acoustic data. Discrete hard-bottom areas arc
defined as features of approximately 500 m or greater in horizontal extent. Non-discrcte areas
are intervals witb patches of individual hard-bottom areas of less than 500 m in extent.
Bathymetry is in meters.
Source: Chin (pers. comm. 1993).
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-10
-------
38°N
37-30'N
-123°30'W
-123°w
-122°30Vf
Figure 2.1-3. Location of the Ocean Disposal Sites Evaluated by the COE and Navy in
the Vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones.
Refer to Table 2.1-2 for COE site details.
AK0067
2-11
-------
Table 2.1-2. Potential Ocean Disposal Sites Evaluated by the COE, as Shown in Figure 2.1-5.
Center Coordinates
Site
Latitude
Longitude
Depth (m)
Sampling Date
Study Conclusions
Reference
Station 1
37°40.00'N
122°44.00'W
50
March/June, 1983
Productive fishery area for lingcod, flatfish,
and Dungeness crab; designation considered
inappropriate until otber alternatives explored.
Nybaklcen et at.
1984
Station 2
37°29.00'N
122°57.00'W
180
March/April, 1983;
September, 1983
Highly productive hard-bottom area that
supports rockfish and sablefish fishery;
designation considered inappropriate until
other alternatives explored.
Nybakken et al.
1984
B1
37°3I.27'N
122°50.I8'W
80-90
January-May, 1986;
October, 1986;
April, 1987
Fish abundances low to high; site may be
important nursery habitat Tor two fish species.
Towill Inc. 1986;
Stevenson and
Parr 1987; Parr
et al. 1988
B2
37°22.77'N
122°50.18'W
110-140
January-May, 1986;
October, 1986;
April, 1987
Supports high numbers of commercially
important fish species and Dungeness crab;
may be particularly important habitat for
brooding crabs.
Towill Inc. 1986;
Stevenson and
Parr 1987; Parr
et at. 1988
B3
37°16.10'N
122°31.00'W
60-80
January-May, 1986;
October, 1986
Includes some hard-bottom habitat and
supports rich fish and benthic assemblages;
also, possible interferences with coastal
shipping routes.
Towill Inc. 1986;
Stevenson and
Parr 1987; Parr
et al. 1988
B4
37°30.00*N
123°08.50'W
900
Januaiy-May, 1986
Located in a large submarine canyon;
eliminated from further consideration due to
high-relief rock outcroppings.
Towill Inc. 1986
AKOOI 3.W5I
-------
Table 2.1-2. Continued.
Center Coordinates
Site
Latitude
Longitude
Depth (m)
Sampling Date
Study Conclusions
Reference
B5
37°29.65'N
122°55.20'W
110-140
January-May,
October, 1987,
April, 1987
Productive rockfish area, possibly due to
presence of mixed hard-bottom habitat, and
supports sensitive life stages of Dungeness
crabs; considered inappropriate for site
designation.
Towill Inc. 1986;
Stevenson and
Parr 1987; Parr
et al. 1988
B1A
37°27.00'N
122°44.50'W
80-85
April, 1987
Possible hard substrate downcoast from site;
moderate to high fish abundances; site used as
nursery area by two commercial fish species.
Parr et al. 1988
BIB
37°29.00'N
122°48.00'W
84-88
April/May 1988
Low to high fish abundances; minor to
moderate use of site as nursery area. Low
crab densities and historically low commercial
fish catch.
Parr et al. 1988
1M
37°38.70'N
122°42.27'W
42-46
April/May, 1988
Medium to high densities of Dungeness crabs;
located in area of intensive commercial crab
fishery activity.
Parr et al. 1988
D1
37°46.83'N
122°32.66'W
18-24
April/May, 1988
Historical BART site - 1 nmi from shore and
0.5 nmi south of Entrance Channel; site
contains medium sand-sized sediments
considered incompauble with dredged
materials. Contains high densities of juvenile
crabs.
Parr et al. 1988
Sources; Nybakken et al. 1984; Stevenson and Parr 1987; Parr et al. 1987.
AKOOI3.W51
-------
characterize the physical features (e.g., bathymetry and sediment grain size) and biological habitat
(benthic infauna and demersal fishes). Based on the study results. Stations 1 and 2 and Site B4
were considered inappropriate locations for an ODMDS due to the presence of hard-bottom
features or rich biological assemblages and fisheries resources (Table 2.1-2). The remaining sites
were ranked by Parr et ai (1987) for potential disposal site suitability based on the density and
diversity of the infaunal and demersal fish assemblages and abundances of Dungeness crabs.
Sites B2, B5, and D1 appeared to be used by sensitive life stages of Dungeness crabs, and Site
1M was located in an area of intensive crab fishing. Site B3 was located close to shore and to
nearshone kelp beds, as well as being within heavily used vessel traffic areas; this site also
contained some hard-bottom habitat. Site B1 was near the GOFNMS boundary, and Site B1A
was located near productive rockfishing reefs. Survey data indicated that Site BIB is removed
from Dungeness crab and rockfish habitat, and that the site supports low infaunal abundances and
diversity. Additionally, historical fish block data for this area suggested that the commercial fish
catch was relatively low. Based on this assessment. Site BIB was considered the most suitable
of the sites evaluated. This site was selected as the preferred alternative site for disposal of
400,000 yd3 of dredged material from the Oakland Inner Harbor Deepening Project. However,
only 18,000 yd3 of dredged material was disposed at Site BIB before the project was halted by
the Slate court system.
Although results from these studies indicated significant resource values at many of these
stations, there remained substantial controversy regarding the scope and methodology of the
studies. Therefore, EPA retained some stations from the previous studies in the surveys of
LTMS Study Area 2 to better characterize and document the resources in this area.
2.1.2.3 Incompatible Use Areas
As part of ODMDS designation, incompatible use areas such as regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation should be avoided [40 CFR 228.5(a)]. Within the LTMS study region,
incompatible use areas include vessel traffic lanes and submarine operating areas. The effect of
incompatible use areas on selection of the LTMS study areas is discussed below.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) established vessel- traffic lanes and a precautionary area within
the Gulf of the Farallones (Figure 2.1-4) to promote safe navigation of marine traffic to and from
ports within San Francisco Bay. The "General Approach to Site Designation Studies for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites" (EPA/COE 1984) lists navigational lanes as incompatible use
areas. Therefore, areas corresponding to the traffic lanes and the precautionary zone were
eliminated from consideration (Table 1.1-1).
Submarine operating areas Ul, U2, U3, U4, and U5 are used by the U.S. Navy for classified
submarine operations and post-overhaul seatrials (Figure 2.1-5). Portions of area U3 are within
the CBNMS and the GOFNMS, and the northern boundary of area U4 is contiguous with the
southern boundary of the CMDA and overlaps the southern portion of Study Area 5. The Navy
confirmed that it was acceptable for EPA to conduct studies within some of the submarine
operating areas (E. Lukjanowicz pers. comm. 1992), but the Navy also expressed concern that
2-14
-------
Figure 2.1-4. Location of Navigation Channels and Precautionary Zone in the LTMS
Study Region.
AK0065
2-15
-------
38°N -
37°30'N -
¦123*30"w
-123°w
-122°30'w
Figure 2.1-5. Location of Submarine Operating Areas (Areas U1-U5) in the LTMS
Study Region.
AK0066
2-16
-------
dredged material disposal within areas Ul, U2, and U5 could jeopardize submarine operations
or result in collisions between disposal barges and submarines or support vessels. Therefore,
areas corresponding to submarine operating areas Ul, U2, and U5 were eliminated from
consideration.
Based on the location of sensitive and incompatible use areas, and comments received at a
Scoping Meeting held on April 11, 1989, EPA and members of the LTMS Management
Committee selected Study Areas 1 through 5 (Figure 2.1-1) as potential locations for siting an
ODMDS. The LTMS study areas represent appropriate ranges of depths and distances from
shore within the ZSF and avoid most of the sensitive "and incompatible use areas. Figure 2.1 -6
provides a summary overlay of the primary sensitive and incompatible use areas in the LTMS
study region. Study Area 1 corresponds to the Channel Bar ODMDS, which is designated for
disposal of sandy material from the entrance channel to San Francisco Bay. The previously used
Site BIB is located within LTMS Study Area 2, and the CMDA and NODS are within LTMS
Study Area 5. Ocean disposal alternatives are described further in Section 2.2.
2.1.3 San Francisco Bay and Nonaquatic Disposal and Reuse Alternatives
The feasibility and environmental consequences of using sites within the Bay, nonaquatic sites,
and reuse options for disposal of dredged material are being investigated under the LTMS
program by the COE, the SFBRWQCB, and the BCDC, with significant input from other LTMS
participants (see Chapter 5). Detailed evaluations of these dredged material disposal options are
beyond the scope of this EIS. However, the following summarizes the present status of these
options.
2.1.3.1 San Francisco Bay Alternatives
Eleven open water (unconfined) disposal sites in the San Francisco Bay region have been used
historically for disposal of sediments dredged from within the Bay. Four of these
sites—Carquinez Straits (SF-9), San Pablo Bay (SF-10), Suisun Bay, and Alcatraz
(SF-11>—presently are used for dredged material disposal (Table 2.1-3). The Carquinez Straits,
San Pablo Bay, and Alcatraz disposal sites are used for most Federal and private maintenance
dredging projects; the Alcatraz site also has been used for new work projects in the Bay. The
Suisun Bay site is used exclusively for material composed of at least 95% sand dredged from the
adjacent Suisun Bay Channel. The sites are located in high current energy areas to promote
dispersion and eventual transport of dredged material to the ocean (COE 1990a). The seven other
historical disposal sites in the Bay, typically located within one mile of the respective dredging
sites, have not been used since 1972 (COE 1990a).
During 1986 to 1992, the San Pablo and Carquinez Straits sites received annual dredged material
volumes from 0.008 to 0.98 million yd3 and from 0.18 to 0.99 million yd3, respectively (COE
1992a). In accordance with present COE policy, dredged material discharged at these sites is
slurried prior to discharge. The annual dredged material disposal volume planned for the Suisun
Bay disposal site is 0.2 million yd3 (COE 1990a). The capacities of these sites are not known.
2-17
-------
38 °N -
37°30'N -
-123°30"w
-123°w
-122°30W
Figure 2.1-6. Locations of Study Areas 2 Through 5 Within the LTMS Study Region as
Related to Sensitive and Incompatible Use Areas.
AK0068
2-18
-------
Table 2.1-3. Designated Open Water Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the San Francisco Bay Region.
Site
Location
Target Disposal Volumes (yd3)
Site Use Restrictions
AJcatraz
San Francisco Bay; Central Bay
4 million (annual)
0.3 million (monthly;
May-September)
0.4 million (monthly;
October-April)
Slurried Bay sediments or no more
than 0.1S million yd3 of material
dredged with a clamshell dredge
may be discharged within any 30-
day period.
San Pablo
San Francisco Bay; North Bay
0.5 million (monthly or annual)
Slurried Bay sediments
Carquinez Straits
San Francisco Bay; North Bay
2.0 million (annual)
3.0 million (annual-wet year)
1.0 million (monthly)
Slurried Bay sediments
Suisun Bay
Suisun Bay; North Bay
0.2 million (annual-planning
estimate)
Disposal of sandy sediment from
adjacent shipping channel
Source: COE 1992a; COE 1990a; COE 1993.
AKOOI4 WSI
-------
The Alcatraz disposal site has received from 1.2 to 5.0 million yd3 of dredged material per year
since 1986 (COE 1990a, 1992a). Accurate disposal records for periods prior to 1986 are
unavailable. Studies conducted at the Alcatraz disposal site in the early 1980s (e.g.. SAIC 1987)
indicated dispersion of the discharged sediments was lower than predicted, and accumulation and
mounding of dredged material within the site was significantly limiting the capacity for long-term
use. Consequently, since 1986, the COE has imposed a slurry requirement for materia] disposed
at the site to promote dispersion and to minimize accumulation (COE 1990a). The present
capacity of the Alcatraz site to accept slurried material is not known because the factors
controlling dispersion are poorly understood (COE 1990a). Periodic removal of a portion of the
accumulated materials from the Alcatraz site may be required in the future. Further, recently
proposed changes to COE policy on Alcatraz site management, including reducing the maximum
30-day target volumes from 1.0 to 0.4 million yd3 during October through April and limiting the
volumes of material dredged by clamshell dredge to 0.15 million yd3 within a 30-day period,
were published in Public Notice 93-3 (COE 1993). These changes were proposed because
"le]xisting maximum volume targets have been determined inadequate to maintain the site for
continued dredged material disposal."
Several resource and regulatory agencies—including the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the SFBRWQCB—have expressed
concern about the effects of open water disposal operations on fisheries resources in the Bay;
alteration of benthic and shoreline habitats; increased water column turbidity; and remobilization
of chemical contaminants associated with resuspended sediments. The BCDCs San Francisco
Bay Plan also states that the capacity of existing dredged material disposal sites in the Bay are
limited and disposal activities at these sites may have adverse impacts on the Bay's natural
resources. The Bay Plan policies allow disposal within the Bay only if use of alternative disposal
sites or options is deemed infeasible. In 1990, SFBRWQCB Resolution No. 89-130 was adopted
conditionally by the California State Water Resources Control Board (Resolution No. 90-37).
Resolution 89-130 included (1) target monthly and annual disposal volume limits for each of the
sites within the Bay; and (2) a requirement for the COE to demonstrate "...that there are no
significant or irreversible impacts occurring from the disposal of maintenance dredged material
in San Francisco Bay." BCDC also has adopted similar volume targets for disposal in the Bay.
The target limits for the annual disposal volumes at the San Pablo and Carquinez Straits sites are
0.5 million yd3 and 2.0 million yd3, respectively (except that the limit for the Carquinez Strait
site during wet weather years is 3.0 million yd3). The target annual volume for the Alcatraz site
is 4.0 million yd3 (Table 2.1-3). The resolution also states that the RWQCB will encourage land
and ocean disposal alternatives whenever feasible. The measures contained in this resolution are
implemented by the RWQCB through the issuance or denial of waste discharge requirements,
water quality certifications under Section 401 of the Clear Water Act (CWA), or other orders for
individual dredging projects that propose disposal volumes which exceed the annual or monthly
targets.
The Bay Farm Borrow Area (BFBA) is being investigated by the COE as a potential confined
aquatic disposal site. This site is located in the central Bay, immediately west of the northern
portion of Bay Farm Island, and it consists of a "borrow pit" that was excavated in the 1950s for
2-20
-------
material used as fill for the Island and for dike construction and maintenance. The site
dimensions are 2,800 m by 1,500 m, with an average potential fill depth of 3 m (i.e., the depth
below the adjacent bottom) and an estimated capacity of 16 million yd\ The environmental
characteristics, including the physical and chemical characteristics of the bottom sediments,
benthic infaunal abundances, fish abundances, current patterns, and the potential suitability of the
BFBA as a confined open-water disposal site presently are being evaluated.
Other sites within the Bay which are potentially suitable for unconfined dredged material disposal
were investigated by Nolte and Associates (1987) and PTI (1989). The capacities and dispersive
characteristics of most of these sites are not known (COE 1992a). Designation of new sites
within the Bay must comply with the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. Siting and
use of sites within the Bay are regulated by COE, SFBRWQCB, and the BCDC, and EPA
participates in an oversight and review capacity. The State and Regional Water Quality Control
Boards are responsible for issuing water quality certifications (COE 1992a).
2.1.3.2 Nonaquatic Disposal and Reuse Alternatives
Existing and potential nonaquatic and reuse sites presently are being evaluated by the LTMS
Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group as candidate dredged material disposal sites. The use of existing
nonaquatic disposal sites has declined in recent years due to extensive development, exhausted
capacity, and restrictions against filling wetlands (COE 1990a). Of the 78 potential sites
originally identified, 11 sites have been characterized as "highly feasible sites." These sites and
their potential uses are listed in Table 2.1-4. Note that Redwood Sanitary Landfill is considered
a separate site, and Cargill Salt Div-1 is considered two separate sites. The LTMS selected three
of these potential disposal sites—Skaggs Island, Cargill Salt Div-1 (East), and Cargill Salt Div-1
(West)—for preliminary engineering feasibility assessments. Preliminary engineering feasibility
assessments also have been prepared for the Leonard Ranch, Praxis/Pacheco, and Cargill Salt
Div-1 (East) sites, which were identified as "highly feasible" for the development of dredged
material rehandling facilities. The assessments are scheduled for completion in June 1993. The
primary factors affecting the feasibility of dredged material disposal at nonaquatic sites include
groundwater quality, distance from the dredging area, site capacity, local resource concerns, and
monitoring requirements (COE 1992a).
Dredged material may have beneficial uses for projects such as marsh restoration, levee
maintenance, beach nourishment, and landfill cover. These alternative disposal options are being
evaluated independently as part of the LTMS process. However, the suitability of dredged
material for use in any project will depend on a variety of engineering, economic, environmental,
and regulatory considerations. For example, key factors affecting the feasibility typically include
site access and capacity, compatibility of the dredged material with construction or engineering
requirements, contaminant levels in dredged material, presence of critical habitat or endangered
species, habitat replacement value, and regulatory requirements of local, state, and federal
governments (COE 1992a). Specific beneficial or reuse options are summarized briefly below.
2-21
-------
Table 2.1-4. Upland Reuse/Disposal Options Classified as "Highly Feasible" by the
LTMS Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group.
Candidate
Site
Site Status and Feasibility
Projected Site
Capacity (yd3)*
Additional Remarks
Port
Sonoma-
Marin
Presently used and "highly feasible"
for continued use as rehandling
facility.
0.06 miliion/yr throughput
(for use at Redwood Sani-
tary Landfill).1-3
0.2 miles from existing barge access
channel.
Leonard
Ranch
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material rehandling project.
LTMS preparing feasibility study to
construct on-site rehandling facility.
COE directed by Congress to study.
Up to 0.80 miUion/yr
throughput (for possible use
at Redwood Sanitary
Landfill), if entire site
used.'-2
1 mile from existing barge access
channel. Need funding to under-
take. Site owned by Sonoma Land
TrusL
Praxis/
Pacheco
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material confined disposal
and/or rehandling project. LTMS
prepared a study in January 1993.
045 million/yr throughput
for Tebandling, or 2.5 mil-
lion for confined disposal.1-5
Project constraints due to sewer
easement. No project sponsor.
Privately-owned; site acquisition and
funding required. 3 miles from
existing barge access channel.
Sonoma
Baylands
(330-acre
project)
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material habitat creation pro-
ject. Congressional direction to COE
to undertake has yet to be approved.
2-5 million for habitat
creation.
Need funding to undertake.
0.6 miles from existing barge access
channel.
Montezuma
Wetlands
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material habitat creation,
contained disposal, and/or rehandling
project; proposals pending for first
two uses.
20 million for habitat
creation or confuted
disposal; estimates for
annual throughput from the
rehandling facility are being
developed.
0.1 mile from existing deep-water
barge access channel.
Skaggs
Island
(Navy-
owned)
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material confined disposal
and/or habitat creation project; LTMS
conceptual plan issued May 1993.
16.2 million for habitat
creation, or 72 million for
confined disposal.1
3-mile pumping distance across salt
ponds. Would require Navy base
closure and funding to undertake.
Cargill Salt
Div. 1 (East
and West)
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material confined disposal,
rehandling, and/or habitat creation
project LTMS conceptual plans for
habitat and confined disposal projects
issued May 1993. LTMS
reconnaissance level study for
rehandling project issued June. 1993.
Up to 15 million/yr through-
put for rehandling, or 9
million for confined disposal
(at east site).1-1 11.4 million
for habitat creation (at west
site).
Option signed for public acquisition
of west site in June 1993. If
acquired by public, funding needed
if dredged material is used to restore
habitat Adjacent to existing barge
access channel.
Cullinan
Ranch
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material habitat creation pro-
ject Possible subject of further
LTMS research; FWS conducting
preliminary planning.4
7.2 million for habitat
creation.
FWS, project sponsor, unsure
whether it will use dredged material.
Need funding to undertake.
0_5 miles from existing barge access
channel.
Hamilton
AFB:
Antenna
Field
Identified as "highly feasible" for
dredged material habitat creation
project
2.7 million for habitat
creation.
Public site ownership; COE and
CDFG potential project sponsors.
Need funding to undenake. 3 miles
from existing barge access channel.
'Capacities arc preliminary planning estimates.
'Rehandling projection based on assumption that total amount of rthandled material removed annually; subject to change depending upon disposal
site size and specific needs of end-user.
'Redwood will need up to 14 million yd* of wet material, if landfill expansion permitted; if not permitted, only 1.6 million yd3 of wet materia]
will be needed by Redwood.
'Confined disposal projection based on assumption that multiple disposal events and an average 40% compaction rale for in-place, dry material
will occur; subject to change depending upon disposal site size.
'Shell Oil Trust will fund initial studies.
Source: LTMS Non-Aquatic/Reuse Work Group, 1992.
2-22
AJ0I05 W5l
-------
Several habitat development and marsh restoration projects have been proposed at sites within
the San Francisco Bay area. The six sites/projects ranked as highly feasible by the LTMS
Upland/Reuse Work Group are (1) Cargill Salt Div-1 (West); (2) Hamilton Antenna Field;
(3) Cullinan Ranch; (4) Sonoma Baylands; (5) Montezuma Wetlands; and (6) Skaggs Island
(Table 2.1-4). The capacities of these proposed projects for dredged material range from
approximately 2.5 to 20 million yd3.
The proposed levee rehabilitation/maintenance projects evaluated as dredged material disposal
options are located in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River delta area. The primary sites and
estimated capacities include Sherman Island (1.6 million yd3); Twitchell Island (1.0 million yd3);
Jersey Island (1.6 million yd3); Lower Jones Tract (0.8 million yd3); Chipps Island (2.0 million
yd3); and Tubbs Island (capacity presently unknown) (COE 1990, 1992a). The primary
constraints in using sediments dredged from San Francisco Bay for delta area levees are the
potential effects of adding saline waters (associated with the dredged material) to a freshwater
environment (COE 1992a).
Some of the sediments dredged from San Francisco Bay may be suitable for landfill cover and
construction fill. Nolte and Associates (1987) estimated that 115,000 yd3 per year of dried
(processed) dredged material could be used for construction fill and 15,300 yd3 per year could
be used at sanitary landfill sites. The Redwood Sanitary Landfill near San Pablo Bay was
identified by the LTMS Upland/Reuse Work Group as a landfill which could use from 140,000
to 440,000 yd3 of dredged material annually from 1993 to 1997 if landfill expansion is permitted.
Both Port Sonoma-Marin and Leonard Ranch sites have been identified as highly feasible sites
for rehandling dredged material intended for Redwood Sanitary Landfill (Table 2.1-4).
Ocean Beach, south of the Golden Gate, has been severely eroded, and California Coastal
Commission staff has suggested that this area may be a candidate site for beach nourishment
(L. Madalon, COE, pers. comm. 1992). However, it is likely that the majority of sediments from
the planned dredging projects would not be consistent in quality or size with the sands that occur
on the beaches, and therefore would be inappropriate for nourishment of this or other local
beaches. The use of dredged material for beach nourishment will be evaluated by COE on a
project-specific basis.
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this EIS, designation of an ODMDS does not preclude further
consideration of in-Bay or Nonaquatic/Reuse alternatives for specific projects. The COE and
EPA will evaluate other feasible alternatives on a project-specific basis during the MPRSA
Section 103 permitting process. In addition, the LTMS Implementation Work Group will address
disposal and beneficial reuse options for the San Francisco Bay area.
2-23
-------
2.2
Discussion of Alternatives
This section presents a discussion of the alternatives that are not being considered for further
analysis (Section 2.2.1), a discussion of how the three proposed ocean disposal site alternatives
comply with EPA's general and specific site selection criteria (Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3,
respectively), and a discussion of the preferred alternative (Section 2.2.4). Detailed information
and an evaluation of each candidate disposal site with EPA's general and specific criteria are
presented in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
The locations of AJtemative Sites 3, 4, and 5 were determined from results of EPA- and Navy-
sponsored studies of the regional ocean circulation patterns and surveys of the benthic
environments (bottom sediments and bottom-dwelling organisms). The alternative site locations
correspond to low-energy depositional zones which contain sediments similar in grain size to
those within the Bay (Section 3.2). Disposal in such zones should minimize the dispersion of
dredged material and the area of impact. Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are located along the central
western and southwestern boundaries of Study Areas 3 and 4, respectively. Alternative Site 5
is located along the central portion of the western boundary of Study Area 5, and corresponds
to the location of the NODS (Navy 1993) (Figure 2.1-3).
The size of the alternative sites was determined from the results of dredged material deposition
(footprint) modeling (Section 4.2.1.4). The site boundary was intended to encircle the model-
predicted JO-mm thick deposit of "mostly clay-silt " material (74% clay and 16% silt) after a
one-year dredged material disposal period at Alternative Site 5. The 10-mm thick deposit was
boundary used to delineate the site because this thickness represents (1) an amount of material
approximately one order of magnitude greater than the minimum thickness that might be
measured using existing technology (1 mm) and (2) is approximately one order of magnitude
lower than the 100-mm thickness threshold above which impacts, such as smothering of
bottom-dwelling organisms, are expected to be significant. Thus, the 100-mm thick deposits
would be completely incorporated within each site boundary. Deposition over a one-year period,
instead of the 50-year project period, was used as the basis for delineating the site boundaries
because natural physical and biological recolonization processes are expected to offset potential
effects due to deposition of dredged material at rates less than 10 cm per year. Thus, the present
site boundaries are intentionally conservative. Also, because the site boundaries are based on the
sediment deposition footprint, the authorized discharge area at the surface will be smaller than
the area of the actual disposal site to account for dispersion during settling and to aJlow material
to reach the bottom within the site boundaries. The areas of the model-predicted 10-mm thick
deposits at Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are smaller than that at Alternative Site 5. However, to be
conservative, the size and configuration of Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are the same as Alternative
Site 5. Therefore, each site is ail oval shape with dimensions of approximately 3.7 nmi (6.9 km)
long and 2.2 nmi (4.1 km) wide, and an area of approximately 6.4 nmi2 (22 km2).
2-24
-------
2.2.1 Alternatives Not Considered for Further Analysis
The No-Action Alternative, Study Area 1, and Study Area 2 will not be considered further as
alternatives in this EIS. The LTMS mission is to provide long-term options, including ocean
disposal, to accommodate the dredged material volumes and compositions anticipated for the
50-year planning period. The No-Action Alternative would impede the use of ocean disposal as
a long-term management option and therefore is an undesirable alternative. Study Area 1,
corresponding to the Channel Bar ODMDS, is only designated for disposal of sandy material
from the San Francisco Bay entrance channel. The LTMS considered changing the designation
of this ODMDS to accept sand from other dredging projects in the Bay, but decided that the
amount of potentially suitable material would be too small to warrant redesignating the site. This
area was eliminated from further consideration. Study Area 2 originally was included as a
candidate location on the continental shelf, and was subjected to considerable study effort by the
COE (KLI 1991) and EPA (SAIC 1992b,c). Nevertheless, based on its location within the
MBNMS, and because dredged material disposal at a new ODMDS within the Sanctuary is
prohibited (NOAA 1992), Study Area 2 also has been eliminated from further consideration as
an ODMDS. Because extensive and valuable studies have already been conducted as part of
EPA's ocean site designation efforts, the environmental characteristics of Study Area 2 are
presented in Chapter 3 of this EIS to provide a basis for comparison with Study Areas 3, 4,
and 5.
2.2.2 Compliance of the Alternative Sites and Study Area 2 with General Criteria for
the Selection of Sites
2.2.2.1 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(a)
The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or in areas selected
to minimize the interference of disposal activities with other activities in the marine
environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing Fisheries or shellflsheries, and regions
of commercial or recreational navigation.
Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are in water depths greater than 1,600 m, on the lower continental
slope, and are characterized by sparsely distributed fisheries species of potential commercial
value, including marginally targeted commercial fisheries species such as rattails (Section 3.4).
The use of any of the alternative sites would have minimal effects on existing fisheries or
shellfisheries, although vessels towing dredged material barges would pass through sanctuary
and fisheries areas. A direct route to Alternative Site 5 (Figure 2.1-1) is of concern because
accidents or problems with barges in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands could result in
inadvertent releases of dredged material with potential impacts to biological communities.
However, the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) and site use conditions in
MPRSA Section 103 permits will require barges to stay within established navigation lanes and
greater than 3 nmi from the Farallon Islands. These conditions would minimize potential
impacts of transit.
2-25
-------
None of the alternative sites is located within the precautionary zone, navigation lanes, or
submarine operating areas (Section 2.1.2.3). Therefore, commercial shipping traffic heading
south towards or north from San Francisco should not be affected by use of any of the
alternative sites. Dredged material barges transiting directly to Alternative Site 5 would pass
along routes potentially used by boats engaged in such activities as bird watching, whale
watching, or sailing near the Farallon Islands. However, the SMMP requires dredged material
barges to stay within the navigation lanes and at least 3 nrai from the Farallon Islands, thereby
minimizing potential interferences with activities or navigation in the vicinity of the Islands.
Because of its location closer to shore and the Golden Gate, the nearshore region including
Study Area 2 represents greater potential access for smaller vessels, as well as larger
commercial traffic, passing south from or north to San Francisco. Therefore. Study Area 2
likely would be associated with more commercial and recreational boat traffic than Alternative
Sites 3, 4, or 5.
2.2.2.2 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(b)
Locations and boundaries of the disposal sites will be so chosen that temporary
perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations anywhere within the ate can be expected to be reduced to
normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable concentrations or effects before
reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery
or shellfishery.
Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are located outside of any sanctuary boundaries. Results of
modeling dispersion of dredged material from the alternative sites (see Sections 4.2 and 4.4)
indicate very low probabilities of suspended particles from the disposal being transported into
the GOFNMS, CBNMS, or MBNMS. Further, predicted dilution rates would reduce the
suspended particle concentrations to within the range of normal, ambient levels near the
sanctuary boundaries. Thus, disposal at Alternative Sites 3, 4, or 5 would result in undetectable
effects on water quality parameters such as turbidity, dissolved oxygen, or trace contaminant
concentrations at sanctuary boundaries. Based on sediment footprint modeling studies for each
alternative site (see Sections 4.2 and 4.4), dredged material would not be deposited in
detectable thicknesses within any of the sanctuary boundaries.
Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are located at least 25 nmi from the Farallon Islands and
approximately 50 nmi from any mainland beach or shoreline (Figure 2.1-1). Therefore, dredged
material disposal activities are not likely to cause effects to these resource or amenity areas.
Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are not located within or adjacent to a geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery.
Study Area 2 is located entirely within the MBNMS (Figure 2.1-1) and therefore could not
meet the criterion of avoiding any significant water quality changes within a sanctuary. Also,
2-26
-------
an important fisheries area exists on the continental shelf off San Francisco and encompasses
Study Area 2 and the shoreward portion of Study Area 3.
2.2.2.3 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(c)
If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined that existing
disposal sites presently approved on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of such sites will
be terminated as soon as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.
The MPRSA site selection process is designed to identify a preferred alternative that minimizes
or avoids unacceptable impacts to the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment.
The continued use of a designated disposal site will be evaluated as part of the site
management and monitoring program administered jointly by EPA Region IX and the COE,
San Francisco District (see Section 4.6).
2.2.2.4 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(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 implementation of effective
monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size,
configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal
site evaluation or designation study.
The sizes and configurations of the three alternative sites are based on the results of footprint
and water quality modeling studies to identify potential areas of significant sediment
accumulation and plume dispersion from dredged material disposal (Sections 4.2 and 4.4). In
general, site size will be limited, yet will encompass modeled regions of detectable sediment
deposition, based on one year of disposal activity. The site locations are chosen to coincide
with low-energy depositional zones, identified by survey results (Section 3.2), where
resuspension and dispersion of the deposited dredged material will be minimized and
monitoring of long-term effects will be facilitated. Water quality modeling results indicate that
disposal within any of the alternative sites would result in probabilities of less than 5% that
any class of suspended particles would be transported into a sanctuary (Sections 4.2 and 4.4).
Evaluation of the continued acceptability of a designated site will be conducted in accordance
with the SMMP.
2.2.2.5 General Criterion 40 CFR 228.5(e)
EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the
continental shelf and other such sites that have been historically used.
Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are located on the continental slope, beyond the edge of the
continental shelf.
2-27
-------
The only study area that has been used for disposal is Study Area 5 (which contains Alternative
Site 5). From 1951-54, the general Study Area 5 region, particularly the southeast area,
received sealed containers of low-level radioactive wastes from defense-related, commercial,
and laboratory activities (Section 3.1). Additionally, from approximately 1958 to the late
1960s, chemical and conventional munitions were disposed in the northern portion of the study
area by the U.S. Navy (Section 3.1). It is not known how much of this waste material is
present within the boundaries of Alternative Site 5.
Prior to 1993, no dredged material had been disposed at Alternative Site 5. However, between
May 1993 and December 1994 the U.S. Navy will discharge approximately 1.2 million yd3 of
dredged material within the NODS, corresponding to the approximate location of Alternative
Site 5, under a project-specific MPRSA Section 103 permit (Navy 1993). Thus, Alternative
Site 5 also has been used previously as a dredged material disposal site.
Study Area 2 is the only study area located on the continental shelf, in water depths less than
approximately 200 m (Figure 2.1-1). The BIB site, located within Study Area 2, was used in
1988 for limited dredged material disposal (approximately 18,000 yd3) (Section 3.1). Thus,
this site could be considered a historically used site. However, it now lies within the MBNMS
and, therefore, will not be designated as an ODMDS.
2.2.3 Comparison of the Alternatives to EPA's 11 Specific Criteria for Site Selection
40 CFR 228.6(a)
The characteristics of Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 (as well as Study Area 2) with respect to
EPA's 11 specific criteria for site selection are compared in Table 2.2-1. These comparisons
are used as the basis for selection of the preferred alternative as discussed in Section 2.2.4.
Detailed information on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment and potential
impacts of the proposed action are presented in Chapters 3 and 4.
2.2.4 Selection of the Preferred Alternative
Based on comparisons of the alternative sites to the specific site selection criteria. Alternative
Site 5 has been selected by EPA and the LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group as the preferred
alternative. This site was selected for the following reasons:
• Bathymetric and sediment surveys indicate Alternative Site 5 is located in
a depositional area which, because of existing topographic containment
features, is likely to retain dredged material which reaches the sea floor.
This is similar to the containment potential at Alternative Site 3 but greater
than that at Alternative Site 4;
• No significant impacts to other resources or amenity areas (e.g., marine
sanctuaries) are expected to result from designation of Alternative Site 5;
2-28
-------
• Existing and potential Fisheries resources within Alternative Site 5 are
minimal and the site is removed from more important fishing grounds
located near Alternative Sites 3 and 4;
• Potential impacts to bottom-dwelling organisms are considered significant at
all of the alternative sites, but the magnitude of the impacts varies because
of differences in site-specific densities. Abundances and biomass of
demersal fishes and megafaunal invertebrates, and the abundances and
diversity of infaunal invertebrates, at Alternative Site 5 are lower than those
at Alternative Sites 3 and 4. Thus, the relative magnitude of impacts at
Alternative Site 5 are expected to be less than those at Alternative Sites 3
and 4.
• Potential impacts to other surface and mid-water dwelling organisms (e.g.,
seabirds, mammals, and midwater organisms) are expected to be insignificant
regardless of which of the alternative sites is used for dredged material
disposal;
• Disposal of low-level radioactive wastes and chemical and conventional
munitions occurred historically in the vicinity of Alternative Site 5.
(Disposal within the site of 1.2 million yd3 of dredged material will occur
during May 1993 through December 1994 as part of the Navy MPRSA
Section 103 project). No waste disposal has occurred previously within
Alternative Sites 3 or 4.
2-29
-------
Table 2.2-1. Comparison of the Three Alternative Ocean Disposal Sites and Study Area 2 Based on the 11 Specific Criteria
at 40 CFR 228.6(a).
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
1. Geographical position,
depth ot water, bottom
topography and distance
from coast.
• Lower Continental Slope site,
approx. 50 nmi from coast and
47.12 nmi from Golden Gate*;
5 nmi N of Pioneer Canyon,
and 5 nmi E of Pioneer
Seamount (Figure 2.1-2).
• Lower Continental Slope site,
approx. 50 nmi from coast and
54.95 nmi from Golden Gate*;
10 nmi S of Pioneer Canyon,
and 15 nmi SE of Pioneer
Seamount (Figure 2.1-2).
• Lower Continental Slope site,
approx. 60 nmi from coast and
49.23 nmi from Golden Gate'
(Figure 2.1-2).
* Continental Shelf site,
appro*. 10-25 nmi from
' coast and 26 nmi from
Golden Gate (Figure 2.1-2).
• Depths range from approx.
1400 to 1900 m.
• Depths range from approx.
1900 to 2100 m.
• Depths range from approx.
2500 to 3000 m.
• Depths range from approx.
70 to 90 m.
• Located in a topographic low
that is bounded to the west by
Pioneer Seamount and to the
east by a moderately steep
slope.
• Moderately sloping bottom that
is unbounded (as compared to
Alternative Site 3).
• Same as Alternative Site 4.
• Gently sloping bottom.
• Sediments comprised mostly
of silt-sized sediments; no
known hard-bottom features
occur within the site.
• Sediments comprised mostly
of sand and silt-sized
sediments; no known hard-
bottom features occur within
the site.
• Sediments comprised mostly
of fine grained silts and clays;
no known hard-bottom
features occur within the site.
• Sediments comprised mostly
of sands with some silts; no
known hard-bottom features
occur within the site.
'Assumes barges would be required lo stay within westbound traffic lanes (COE 1992c).
AK0017.W51 (1 0(8)
-------
Table 2.2-1.
Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
2. Location in relation to
breeding, spawning,
nursery, feeding or
passage areas of living
resources in adult or
juvenile stages.
• Low numbers of demersal fish
species and abundances (as
compared to Study Area 2).
• Moderate numbers of
megafaunal invertebrate
species and abundances.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Lower numbers of demersal
species and abundances than
those at Alternative Sites 3
and 4.
• Lower overall abundances but
higher number of megafaunal
invertebrate species than
those at Alternative Sites 3
and 4.
• Important fisheries area of
general shelf region.
~ Low abundances of
megafaunal invertebrates,
although high abundances of
juvenile Oungeness crabs
have been reported
historically in the vicmity.
• Moderate apparent use by
marine birds and mammals.
• Low apparent use by marine
birds and mammals (as
compared to Alternative Sites
3 and 5).
• High apparent use by marine
birds and mammals (as
compared to Alternative Sites
3 and 4).
• Same as Alternative Site 5.
• Moderate abundances of
midwater fish species including
juvenile rockfishes.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• High seasonal abundances of
some midwater species
including juvenile rockfishes
(as compared to Alternative
Sites 3 and 4).
~ Same as Alternative Site 5.
• Infauna community very
diverse and abundant.
• Located approx. 5 nmi from
Pioneer Canyon and Pioneer
Seamount; both reportedly
characterized by hard-bottom
communities; currents move
away from Canyon.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Located approx. 10 nmi South
of Pioneer Canyon but
transport of dredged material
would be towards Canyon
based on generally northward-
flowing currents.
• Infauna community with
relatively lower diversity and
abundance (as compared to
Alternative Sites 3 and 4).
• Located approximately 30 nmi
from Pioneer Canyon; currents
move away from Canyon.
• Typical shelf correnunity but
very high abundances and
moderate diversity.
AK0017.W51 <2
-------
Table 2.2-1.
Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
3. Location in relation to
beaches and other
amenity areas.
• Located at least 50 nmi from
coastal resources and amenity
areas (Figure 2.1-1); therefore
unlikely to be of concern.
• Located approx. 10 and 15
nmi from MBNMS and
GOFNMS, respectively, and
30 nmi from the Farallon
Islands. Therefore, limited
concern based on water
quality modeling results
(Section 4.4).
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Located approx. 10 and 30
nmi from MBNMS and
GOFNMS, respectively, and 45
nmi from the Farallon Islands.
Therefore, limited concern
based on water quality
modeling results (Section 4.4).
• Located at least 60 nmi from
coastal resources and amenity
areas (Figure 2.1-1); therefore
unlikely to be of concern.
• Located approx. 10 and 30
nmi from GOFNMS and the
Farallon Islands, respectively.
Therefore, limited concern
based on water quality
modeling results (Section 4.2).
• Located at least 15 nmi from
coastal resources and
amenity areas (Figure 2.1-1);
therefore unlikely to be of
concern.
• Located within MBNMS,
adjacent to the GOFNMS,
and approx. 15-30 nmi from
the Farallon Islands.
Primary concern related to
within-sanctuary location.
4. Types and quantities of
wastes proposed to be
disposed ol, and proposed
methods of release,
including methods of
packing the waste, if any.
Composition of dredged material
is expected to range between two
types: predominantly 'clay-silt*
(74% clay, 5% silt, 21% sand)
versus 'mostly sand* (76% sand,
21% clay, 3% silt).
Site use over a 50-year period
could total 400 million yd3, with
approx. 6 million yd3 per year and
between 1,000-6,000 yd3 per
barge trip. Split-hull barges
towed by ocean-going tugboats
are most likely disposal method.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
Not applicable.
-------
Table 2.2-1.
Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
5. Feasibility ol surveillance
and monitoring.
• USCG has surveillance
responsibility; radar not
feasible; ODSS-like system
feasible.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• USCG has surveillance
responsibility; radar or
ODSS-like system feasible.
• Monitoring feasible but difficult
because of deep water depths
and subsequent greater
dispersion of dredged material,
and limited knowledge of
potential impacts to deep-
water communities.
• Same as Alternative Site 3;
however, Alternative Site 4's
location near Disused
Explosives Sites #1 and #2
may represent some additional
potential for hazards during
monitoring of bottom
conditions.
• Feasibility will be determined
partly based on the Section
103 permit activities at NODS.
Monitoring feasible but may be
more difficult because of
greater water depths,
somewhat larger footprint,
lirrited knowledge of deep-
water communities, and some
potential hazards from
historical disposal of
radioactive waste containers
and chemical and conventional
munitions.
• Monitoring would be
simpfified due to shallow
depths, but material would
be resuspended and
dispersed farfter than at
deeper sites, making impact
assessment more difficult.
6. Dispersal, horizontal,
transport and vertical
mixing characteristics of
the area, including
prevailing current direction
and velocity, if any.
• Flows primarily to northwest in
upper 800-900 m, although
periodic reversals in flow
occur. Currents below
1,000 m generally weaker than
near-surface currents. Near-
bottom flows may be
enhanced by tidal influences
and topography. Sediment
resuspension within Site
expected to be minimal.
• Similar to Alternative Site 3.
• Similar to Alternative Site 3.
• High energy area; frequent
. bottom scouring and rapid
dispersal of sediments.
AK0017.WS1 (4 of 9)
-------
Table 2.2-1. Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
7. Existence and effects of
current and previous
discharges and dumping
in the area (including
cumulative effects).
• No current or previous
disposal activities.
• The site is within approx. 5
nmi of Disused Explosives Site
#2 (Figure 2.1-6); however,
there are no known effects.
• No current or previous
disposal activities.
• Tho site adjoins Disused
Explosives Site #2 and is
within approx. 5 nmi of
Disused Explosives Site #1
(Figure 2.1-6); however, there
are no known effects.
• The Navy is discharging up to
1.2 million yd3 of dredged
material at NODS under an
MPRSA Section 103 permit.
• No other documented disposal
within the site; however
disposal of radioactive waste
containers was conducted in
the general Study Area region
from 1951-54. Chemical and
conventional munitions were
disposed from approx. 1968 to
late 1960s at the Chemical
Munitions Disposal Area.
Potential environmental effects
are unknown, but there was
no evidence during recent
surveys of residual
contamination. Therefore,
potentials for cumulative
impacts are considered
unlikely.
• No current disposal
activities.
* Limited historical dredged
material disposal (18,000
yd5) in 1988; this small
volume is unlikely to have
caused any significant
effects.
AK0017 WSI (5 o) S)
-------
Table 2.2-1.
Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
8. Interference with shipping,
fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination,
fish and shellfish culture,
areas of special scientific
importance and other
legitimate uses of the
ocean.
• Only slight potential for
interference with other uses of
the ocean, including shipping,
fishing, recreation, and areas
of special scientific importance
(such as the Farallon Islands),
is likely.
• NMFS has a sablefish study
area within Study Area 3 but it
is shallower than the
alternative site.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Potential interferences with
recreational and scientific boat
traffic, particularly near the
Farallon Islands, will be
minimized by requirements
that barges remain at least 3
nmi from Islands. Under
normal conditions, no inter-
ference with areas of special
importance is expected;
however, accidents resulting in
releases of material near the
Farallones may be a concern.
This will also be mitigated by
requiring barges to remain 3
nmi from Islands.
• Relatively greater
interference (as compared to
other alternative sites) with
shipping, fisheries, and
recreation due to location on
Continental Shelf. No
significant interference with
other uses of the ocean is
expected.
AK0017.W5I (So) 8)
-------
Table 2.2-1.
Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
9. Existing water quality and
ecology of the site as
determined by available
data or by trend
assessment or baseline
surveys.
• Good water quality.
• Sediments contain background
levels or low concentrations of
trace metal and organic
contaminants.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
* Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Good water quality, although
turbidity may be high (as
compared to the alternative
sites) due to influence of
San Francisco Say outflow.
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
* Demersal fish community has
low (as compared to Study
Area 2) numbers of species
and abundances (raltails,
Ihomyhead nocklish, eelpcuts).
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
« Demersal Fish cormiunity has
lower numbers of species and
abundances (raltails, eelpouts,
finescale codling) than
Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
• Fish community diverse and
abundant (e.g., flatfishes and
rockfishes).
• Moderate number of
megafaunal invertebrate
species and abundances (sea
cucumbers, seastars,
briltlestars).
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Moderate number of
megafaunal invertebrate
species but lower overall
abundances (sea cucumbers,
brittlestars, sea pens) than
Alternative Sites 3 and 4
• Megafaunal invertebrates
sparse.
AK0017 W51 (7 ol B>
-------
Table 2.2-1.
Continued.
Criteria
Alternative Site 3
(Study Area 3)
Alternative Site 4
(Study Area 4)
Alternative Site 5
(Study Area 5)
Study Area 2
9. Continued.
• Infaunal invertebrates very
diverse and abundant
(polychaetes, amphipods,
tanaids, isopods).
• Infaunal invertebrates same as
Alternative Site 3, but fewer
amphipods.
• Infaunal invertebrates lower
diversity and abundance
(polychaetes, amphipods,
isopods, tanaids) compared to
Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
• Infaunal invertebrates very
high abundances and
moderate diversity
(polychaetes, amphipods,
gastropods).
• Moderate apparent use area
by marine birds and mammals
(as compared to Alternative
Site 5 and Study Area 2).
• Low apparent use area by
marine birds and mammals (as
compared to Alternative
Site 3).
• Higher apparent use by
marine birds and mammals
compared to Alternative Sites
3 and 4.
• High use area by marine
birds and mammals (as
compared to Alternative
Sites 3 and 4).
• Juvenile rockfishes less
abundant seasonally (as
compared to Alternative Site 5
and Study Area 2).
• Same as Alternative Site 3.
• Mid-water organisms, including
juvenile rockfishes, abundant
seasonally (as compared to
Alternative Sites 3 and 4).
• Juvenile rockfishes abundant
seasonally (as compared to
Alternative Sites 3 and 4).
10. Potentiality for the
development of nuisance
species at the disposal
site.
Unlikely to recruit nuisance
species from dredged material
due to significant differences in
water depth and environment at
the disposal site as compared to
dredging site; no other disposal
site impacts are expected that
would result in nuisance species.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
11. Existence at or in close
proximity to the site of any
significant natural or
cultural features of
historical importance.
There are no known significant
natural or cultural features.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
Same as Alternative Site 3.
AK00I7.W51 (8 ot 8)
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-38
-------
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes ocean disposal site characteristics, and the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic characteristics of the LTMS study areas and alternative sites (Sections 3.1 through
3.4, respectively). This information provides the basis for evaluating the environmental
consequences of the proposed action (Chapter 4) and for evaluating the specific alternatives
(Chapter 2). The information regarding disposal site characteristics also addresses elements from
several of the general and specific ocean disposal selection criteria (Table 1.1-1).
3.1 Ocean Disposal Site Characteristics
This section addresses historical uses of the LTMS study areas (Section 3.1.1); types and
quantities of materials to be disposed of (Section 3.1.2); existence and effects of current and
previous disposal operations in the study region (Section 3.1.3); and the feasibility of surveillance
and monitoring of alternative sites (Section 3.1.4).
3.1.1 Historical Use of the Study Region [40 CFR 228.5(e)]
3.1.1.1 Dredged Material Disposal
Routine dredged material disposal operations have not occurred within any of the study areas.
However, limited dredged material disposal activities have occurred at Site BIB located within
Study Area 2 (Figure 3.1-1). Historically, three ocean sites outside of the study areas have
received dredged material from San Francisco Bay. These sites include (1) the nearshore Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) site; (2) the 100-Fathom site; and (3) the COE experimental site
(Figure 3.1-1). The Channel Bar Site is used routinely for disposal of dredged material from the
entrance to San Francisco Bay, but because of differences in grain size is not designated for
disposal of sediments from within the Bay. The historical uses of these sites for dredged material
disposal are summarized in Table 3.1-1.
The BIB site, located within Study Area 2, was used between May 12 through 16, 1988 for
disposal of 18,000 yd3 (six hopper barge loads) of sediments from the Port of Oakland Harbor
Deepening Project. Disposal operations at this site were enjoined due to a lawsuit and a State
Court injunction (COE 1989). Additionally, the BIB site is located within the boundaries of the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS).
The BART site received dredged material, primarily mud-sized sediments, generated during 1966
and 1967 from construction of the Trans-Bay Tube. The site was located inshore from the
3-1
-------
Legend
1
BIB Dredged Material Disposal Site 7
Cannery Waste Disposal Site
2
BART Dredged Material Disposal Site 8
Rad. Waste Site A'
3A
100 Fathom Dredged Material Dsposal Site Original Location (1975-78) 9
Rad. Waste Site B'
3B
100 Fathom Site Repositioned Location 10
Rad. Waste Site C"
4
COE Experimental Dredged Material Disposal Sue 11
Chemical Munitions Dumping Area
5
Channel Bar Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 12
Disused Explosives Site 01
6
Acid Waste Disposal Site 13
Disused Explosives Site #2
~ Indicates precise disposal site coordinates
* The polygon around sites B-10 defines the disposal area (or radioactive waste (Joseph 1957).
Figure 3.1-1. Locations of Previously Used Ocean Waste Disposal Sites Within the
LTMS Study Region.
The 50m, 200m, 500m, 1,500m, and 2,500m contours correspond to the 28, 110, 275, 825,
and 1,375 fathom contours, respectively.
Sources: EC 1973; EPA 1975; Dyer 1976; NOAA 1980; MMS 1987; Delgado and Haller
1989; Colombo and Kendig 1990.
AK0069
3-2
-------
Table 3.1-1. Summary of Dredged Material Disposal Site Locations and Disposal Activities
Within the LTMS Study Region.
SITE
NAME
DEPTH (m)
DATE &
DURATION
OF USE
ESTIMATED
VOLUME
DISPOSED
LATITUDE,
LONGITUDE
Channel Bar
Site1,2
18.3
Maintenance Work
(1959-present)
New Projects
(1972-1976)
Total Maintenance
(1976-present)
600,000 ytfVyr
8,800,000 yd3
9,079,533 yd3
37°45'N, 122°36"W
BART Site3
20.1-25.6
1966-1967
2,300,000 yd3
37°46.5'N, 122°32.5'W
100 Fathom
Original
Location14
183
1975
1977
1978
unknown
20,000 yd3
60,000 yd3
37°32'N, 122°59'W
100 Fathom
Repositioned
Location4
183
unknown
unknown
37°31'N, 122°57W
COE Test
Site5
183
1974
4,000 yd3
37°41'N, 123°7.5'W
B1B4
69.5-87.8
1988
18,000 yd3
37°29'N, 122°48'W
Sources: 1 EPA 1982
2 T. Bruch (COE), pers. comm. 1992
3 Ebert and Cordier 1966
4 COE 1989
s COE 1975
AK00I8 »51
3-3
-------
Channel Bar Site and 0.9-5.6 km from shore. The quantities of sediments generated from this
project were estimated to be 2.3 million yd3 (Ebert and Cordier 1966). However, this site also
is located near the boundaries of the MBNMS.
The 100-Fathom site was used in 1975 for disposal of an unspecified volume of material from
Oakland Harbor that was considered too contaminated for disposal within the Bay (COE 1989).
An additional 20,000 yd3 and 60,000 yd3 of muds from Oakland Inner and Outer Harbors were
reportedly discharged at this site in 1977 and 1978, respectively (EPA 1982). The site was then
moved five kilometers closer to shore to allow radar surveillance of the disposal operations.
However, there is no record that the new site was ever used for dredged material disposal. The
site was canceled in 1983 upon establishment of the GOFNMS (48 FR 5558, February 7, 1983).
The COE experimental site was located approximately 20 km northwest of the 100-Fathom site.
The experimental site was used in 1974 for a test disposal of 4,000 yd3 of muddy sediment from
San Francisco Bay (COE 1975). The purpose of the test was to provide a qualitative description
of the general dispersion of dredged material disposed at the continental shelf break. Post-
disposal monitoring determined the amount of dredged material successfully placed at the site.
This new location was selected to avoid interactions with previous disposal operations at the
100-Fathom site that could compromise test results. Results from the post-disposal survey are
described in COE (1975).
The Channel Bar Site has been used since 1959 for maintenance dredged material from the main
San Francisco shipping channel. The original site was located 0.5 nmi south of the main ship
channel (EPA 1982). In 1972, the site was moved from its original location to a site 1.0 nmi
south of the main ship channel to reduce the possibility that discharged sediments could be
transported back into the channel. Present channel maintenance programs generate approximately
900,000 cubic yards (yd3) of dredged material per year which are disposed of at this site (T.
Wakeman, COE, pers. comm. 1992). Estimated maintenance volumes (272,300 yd3) from fiscal
year 1991 were lower than anticipated due to drought conditions (T. Bruch, COE, pers. comm.
1992). In addition to maintenance dredging volumes, an estimated 8.8 million yd3 from Phase
I of the J.F. Baldwin Ship Channel project (D. Myers, COE, pers. comm. 1992) also were placed
at the site between 1972 and 1976 (EPA 1982).
The general site selection criterion at 40 CFR 228.5(c) specifies that "EPA will, wherever
feasible, designate ocean dumping sites ... that have been used historically." With the exception
of the Channel Bar Site, historical use of the other dredged material sites was episodic, and none
of them received final designation for continued disposal of dredged material from San Francisco
Bay. The Channel Bar Site, the BART site, and the BIB site are near or within the boundaries
of the MBNMS. Both of the COE experimental sites and the 100-Fathom site are within the
GOFNMS. Designation of a new ODMDS within the boundaries of a National Marine Sanctuary
is not allowed. Therefore, none of the five historically used dredged material disposal sites in
the LTMS study region remain under consideration as a potential alternative in this FEIS for
designation as a permanent site for disposal of dredged material from San Francisco Bay. In
3-4
-------
recent years, due in part to the absence of an acceptable ocean disposal site, most dredged
materia] disposal has occurred at sites within San Francisco Bay.
3.1.1.2 Other Waste Disposal
Other waste disposal operations have occurred since 1946 at several sites within the Gulf of the
Farallones. However, it is difficult to identify and characterize all of the waste materials and the
extent of the disposal operations because of the following:
• Lack of regulations at the time of some disposal events;
• Involvement of numerous agencies and organizations in some disposal
operations;
• Generally poor record-keeping for many of these activities;
• Security classification of military operations; and
• Problems in monitoring the exact location of some disposal activities.
The types of waste materials disposed of in the vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones include the
following (IEC 1973):
• Acid waste
• Cannery waste
• Low-level radioactive waste
• Conventional and chemical munitions
• Refinery waste
• Vessels and dry dock materials.
These historical waste disposal operations are summarized in Table 3.1-2 and are described
below. Estimated locations of disposal site areas are shown in Figure 3.1-1. Anecdotal
information (Anon. 1980) suggests that some waste disposal occurred outside of intended sites
due to operational problems (e.g., bad weather) or indiscriminate disposal practices. These
historical waste disposal operations, including the presence of residual low-level radioactive
wastes, chemical munitions, and vessel/dry dock sections within the vicinity of the LTMS study
areas, represent a possibility for cumulative environmental effects in combination with proposed
dredged material disposal operations.
3-5
-------
Table 3.1-2. Summary of Waste Disposal in the LTMS Study Region.
Waste
Category
Responsible
Agency/Company
Period
of
Activity
Estimated
Annual
Quantity
Estimated
Total
Latitude, Longitude
Acid waste1
USSC
1948-1971
10M gal
240M gal
37°38'N, 122°40'W
Cannery waste1
OSC
1961 - 1972
22,000 tons
246,000 tons
37°39'N, 122° 50'W
Radioactive waste1,2
AEC
1946 - 1965
varied
47,500 containers
See Table 3.1-3
Munitions1
USN
1958 - 1969
varied
746 tons
See Table 3.1-4
Dredged material3
COE
1976 - Present
900,000 yd3
9,079,533 yd3
See Table 3.1-1
Refinery waste'
Standard Oil,
Shell Oil
1966- 1972
> 45M gal
315M gal
Three generalized
locations: approximately
5 miles offshore; 1-3 miles
west of the Gulf of the
Farallones; and 50-100
miles from shore.
Vessels and drydock
materials4
See Table 3.1-5
1951-1987
varied
unknown
See Table 3.1-5
USSC = United Slates Steel Company Sources: 'IEC1973
OSC = Oakland Scavenger Company JEPA 1975, Dyer 1976
AEC = Atomic Energy Commission *T. Wakeman, T. Bruch, COE, pers. comm. 1992
USN = United States Navy 4P. Cotter, EPA, pers. comm. 1991
COE = United States Army Corps of
Engineers
AK0019 W5I
-------
3.1.1.3
Acid Waste
Between 1948 and 1971, the United States Steel Corporation (USSC) annually discharged
approximately 10 million gallons of steel pickling waste acids (hydrochloric and sulfuric acids)
in an area located approximately 22.5 km southwest of the Golden Gate Bridge, 14.5 km
offshore, at a water depth of approximately 40 m (IEC 1973). Exact coordinates for the disposal
area are unknown due to incorrect documentation of these disposal activities. However, the site
coordinates have been estimated based on reported distances from the Golden Gate Bridge and
from shore (IEC 1973) (Table 3.1-2).
3.1.1.4 Cannery Wastes
Cannery wastes generated by six East Bay fruit and vegetable canneries were disposed of 32.2
km offshore of San Francisco at depths of approximately 80 m. These wastes consisted of solid
residuals (i.e., fruit and vegetable pulp) from canning processes. Estimated weights of 22,000
tons per year were discharged from 1961 to 1972, at which time concerns over increased costs,
monitoring requirements, and environmental issues led to termination of further disposal activities
(IEC 1973).
3.1.1.5 Radioactive Waste
Disposal of low-level radioactive waste materials off the coast of San Francisco occurred between
1946 and 1965. Waste materials originated from several agencies and organizations including:
Nuclear Engineering Company; Ocean Transport Company; Chevron Research; U.S. Naval
Radiation Development Laboratory; Atomic Energy Commission; University of California
Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley; and Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory (IEC 1974;
U.S. Army 1987; Colombo and Kendig 1990). Waste disposal operations were performed by the
U.S. Navy until 1959. After 1959, disposal was conducted by private disposal companies under
a license from the Atomic Energy Commission (Colombo and Kendig 1990).
At least three different radioactive waste disposal site locations have been identified. The
reported site coordinates and quantities of wastes are listed in Table 3.1-3. Exact coordinates of
the actual disposal events are unknown; Joseph (1957) suggested that the disposal area can be
defined as an irregular polygon bounded by the coordinates 37° 26'N to 37° 43'N and 122° 48'W
to 123° 25'W, representing an area exceeding 650 square kilometers (Figure 3.1-1).
Radioactive Waste Site A was used briefly in 1946 for disposal of three barge-loads (an
estimated 150 containers) of material. This site was occupied because the orders supplied to the
disposal vessel operators contained a typographical error (IEC 1973). Radioactive Waste Site B
was used between late 1946 and 1951 and from 1954 to 1965 (EPA 1975). Radioactive Waste
Site C was used between 1951 and 1954. The majority of the wastes (approximately 44,000
containers) was discharged at Site B. The reason(s) for switching to Site C is unknown, although
the concurrent use of Site B for the disposal of chemical munitions waste and the greater distance
from shore probably were contributing factors (Colombo and Kendig 1990). Isolated disposal
3-7
-------
Table 3.1-3. Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites in the Gulf of the Farallones.
SITE
DEPTH (m)
NO. OF WASTE
CONTAINERS
DURATION
OF USE
LATITUDE,
LONGITUDE
Rad. Waste Site A
90
150
1946
37° 38'N, 122° 58'W
Rad. Waste Site B
1,800
44,000
1946-51,
1954-65
37° 37'N, 123° 18'W
Rad. Waste Site C
900
3,600
1951-54
37° 39'N. 123° 09'W
Source: EPA 1975, Dyer 1976
AK0G2O.W51
3-8
-------
of low-level radioactive wastes also may have occurred closer to shore, due primarily to
inclement weather (EC 1974). Ocean disposal of radioactive wastes was discontinued around
1965 when land disposal sites were licensed to receive the wastes. In 1970, the U.S. terminated
all ocean disposal of radioactive waste materials (EPA 1992a).
It is not possible to determine accurately the amounts of low-level radioactive wastes disposed
of by these operations because the characteristics of the waste materials and associated
radioactivity were poorly documented. Nevertheless, the total quantity of radioactive waste
materials disposed of at these sites was estimated at 44,500 to 47,500 containers. The wastes
represented a mix of liquid and solid materials, with a wide variety of chemical and physical
properties, generated from defense-related, commercial, and medical laboratory activities. The
low-level solid wastes included contaminated laboratory equipment and supplies, clothing, rubber
gloves, shoes, animal bones, and grease (U.S. Army 1987). Liquid wastes included evaporator
concentrates, solvents, and aqueous solutions (Colombo and Kendig 1990). The wastes contained
an estimated total activity of 14,500 curies, primarily associated with thorium, uranium,
transuranic and other activation-produced radionuclides, and mixed fission products with
half-lives greater than one year (Colombo and Kendig 1990).
The radioactive waste materials were packaged prior to disposal, typically by "encapsulation in
concrete" within 55-gallon (210 liter) drums or in large (1.5x2x2.5 m), steel-reinforced, concrete
"vaults." Beginning in 1951-1952, the waste containers incorporated a wire-rope or steel bar
lifting eye. The ends of the wire rope or steel bar were encased in the concrete end caps, and
the exposed portions were shaped into an eye or loop that could be used for lifting and handling
the drums. This packaging method was useful for distinguishing and dating individual waste
containers during subsequent site surveys. Reports from the post-disposal surveys at these
disposal sites (e.g., IEC 1974; EPA 1975; Dyer 1976; Colombo and Kendig 1990) and the
testimony of recreational divers, who encountered a package in relatively shallow waters (60 to
165 feet) near the Farallon Islands (Anon. 1980) indicate that the condition of the drums and
vaults varied. Some containers were intact, whereas others had imploded, ruptured, or split.
Thus, presumably some radioactive waste materials were not completely encapsulated because
the packaging was compromised.
3.1.1.6 Chemical and Conventional Munitions Waste
Although there are numerous munitions disposal sites surrounding the Farallon Islands and in the
Gulf of the Farallones, most aspects of the military's disposal operations remain classified. The
U.S. Army has discharged both chemical and conventional munitions at offshore sites since the
late 1950s (Table 3.1-4). From 1958 through 1969, the Army and Navy occupied several ocean
sites off San Francisco for the purpose of munitions disposal (U.S. Army 1987). One of the sites
used for waste munitions was near radioactive waste disposal Site B and within the present Study
Area 5. Munitions waste discharges were made at this site through 1968 and 1969, usually by
towing barges of one-ton containers and unloading the containers overboard. Two other
munitions sites described as containing both explosive and toxic chemical ammunitions (MMS
3-9
-------
Table 3.1-4. Summary of Munitions Discharges in the LTMS Study Region.
Operation
Year
Cargo
Total
Cargo
Latitude,
Longitude
S.S. WILLIAM
RALSTON1
1958
M70 bombs (mustard)
Containers (lewisite)
301,000
1,497
37°40'N, 125°00'W
SEA LION1-2
(barge)
1958
M47 bombs (mustard)
Containers (lewisite)
Containers (mustard)
Projectiles (mustard)
6
335
11
2
37°40'N, 125°00'W
S.S. JOHN F.
SHAFROTH3
1964
40 mm ammunition
cartridges
Unspecified bombs
Torpedo warheads
Unspecified mines
Unspecified projectiles
Fuses, detonators
Polaris boosters
Contaminated
"cake-mix"
30,000 lb
37°40'N, 123°25'W
Chemical Munitions
Dumping Area
(CMDA)4
1968-69
Conventional munitions
510 tons5
37°41'N, 123°25'W
Explosives"
Site #1
Nl
Explosive and toxic
chemical ammunition
37°10'N, 123°03'W
Explosives5
Site #2
Nl
Explosive and toxic
chemical ammunition
—
37°10'N, 123°23'W
(-) = Unknown quantity
Nl = No information
Sources: ' U.S. Army 1988
2 U.S. Army 1987
3 EPA 1971
4 NOAA Chart No. 18680 1984
5 U.S. Navy 1993
AK0021.W5I
3-10
-------
1986) are located to the east and west of Study Area 4 (Figure 3.1-1). No additional information
about these sites was available.
In 1958, the Army loaded 8,000 tons of aged mustard and lewisite chemical agents aboard the
S.S. WILLIAM RALSTON, which then was towed to a site 190 km off San Francisco and
scuttled at a depth of about 6,500 m. Five years later, the Army initiated the "CHASE" (Cut
Holes And Sink 'Em) program, similar to the earlier sinking of the RALSTON. The CHASE
program used obsolete World War II cargo ships to dispose of large amounts of old munitions
at offshore sites. The ships were loaded with munitions, towed offshore, then sunk at deepwater
sites (EPA 1971). Chemical weapons were disposed of during only four of the twelve CHASE
operations, and none of the vessels were scuttled at any of the Gulf of the Farallones munitions
disposal sites. However, the S.S. JOHN F. SHAFROTH, containing approximately 236 tons of
explosives and ammunition, was scuttled approximately 30 km west of the Farallon Islands,
within the boundaries of Study Area 5.
3.1.1.7 Refinery Waste
Standard Oil Company discharged approximately 45 million gallons of refinery waste annually
from 1966 to 1972 in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands (IEC 1973). Specific information on
the chemical composition of the waste is not available, although it is likely that it consisted of
solvents, petroleum by-products, and residual petroleum fractions. Similarly, specific coordinates
for the waste disposal site were not identified. The site initially was listed as "at least five miles
offshore" (IEC 1973), but then was relocated in 1970 to an area one to three miles beyond (i.e.,
to the west of) the Gulf of the Farallones. Refinery wastes also were discharged by Shell Oil
Company until 1971, although no information on annual discharge volumes or disposal frequency
is available. The discharge site was described as an area approximately 81 to 161 km offshore
from San Francisco (IEC 1973).
3.1.1.8 Vessel and Dry Dock Sections
From 1951 to 1987, several damaged or derelict vessels and dry dock sections were disposed of
in the LTMS study region. A summary of these disposal operations is presented in Table 3.1-5.
Discarded items consisted primarily of metal or wooden hulls and associated equipment of the
vessels and dry dock sections. As required by EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations issued in 1977
(40 CFR 229.3), the fuel and lube tanks, pipes, pumps, and bilges were emptied and flushed and
the other equipment which potentially was capable of resurfacing was removed prior to sinking.
Therefore, the environmental consequences of the majority of these vessel disposal operations
are expected to be minimal.
In contrast, sinkings of the USS INDEPENDENCE and T/V PUERTO RICAN introduced
potentially hazardous materials to the ocean environment. The hull of the USS
INDEPENDENCE was characterized as a highly radioactive hulk after serving as a target vessel
for the Bikini Atoll atomic bomb testing in 1946 (U.S. Navy 1968). The vessel was sunk in
1951 during further weapons testing at an unspecified location off the coast of California (U.S.
3-11
-------
Table 3.1-5. Summary of Vessel and Dry Dock Disposal in the Vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones.
u>
l
K>
Date
Vessel/Dry Dock Origin
and Responsible
Agency/Company
Location
Comments
1951
USS INDEPENDENCE; U.S. Navy.
37"2a.4'N; 123°7.6'W (unconfirmed
side scan sonar coordinates2).
Aircraft carrier whose hull was characterized as highly
contaminated from radiation exposures during weapons
testing; sunk during further weapons tests.
1960
4 tugboats/towing vessels (M/V SEA
KING, M/V SEA PRINCE, M/V SEA
ROBIN, M/V SEA CLOUD); Crowley
Maritime Corporation.*
37°31,0'N; 122°52.0'W (approximately
12.5 miles SE of the Southeast
Farallon Light, in approximately 94 m).
Four identical hulls (127* x 29'); vessels taken out of service.
1981
AGGATU; Crowley Maritime
Corporation.®
37-31.0'N; 122°52.0,W (same location
as the site used lor disposal ol 4
tugboats in 1980).
Rail barge (206' x 99') damaged in "casualty"; the hull was
split into 2 sections.
1981
M/V ISLANDER; U.S. Coast Guard.®
37°30'N; 122°52.0'W
A vessel in immediate danger of sinking at the San Francisco
Coast Guard Base, thus posing a threat to navigation.
1964
TN PUERTO RICAN; U.S. Coast
Guard/Carter and Desmares, Inc.1
37'30.6'N; 123°00.7'W
An oil and chemical carrier damaged by an explosion and fire
while transporting lubrication oil and bunker oil. The stern
section containing bunker oil sank in 450 m.
1985
YFD-19; Todd Shipyards
Corporation.3
Five sections sunk within area;
37°34.9' - 37°37'N;
123°16.0' - 123'18'W.
Floating dry dock disposed as 77' x 144' sections; weighted
with 600 tons of concrete and flooded at locations off the shed
(1,600 m).
1987
LADY ELEANOR: Valley Engineers.3
37°23.5'N; 122°53.1'W
Pontoon construction platform with crane (120' x 101' x 100');
scuttled/emergency disposal after capsizing off Half Moon Bay.
Sources: 1U.S. Navy 1968
iKari 1992
3P. Cotter, EPA. pers. comm. 1991
AK0022WJI
-------
Navy 1968). Recent side-scan sonar investigations in the Gulf of the Farallones have identified
a structure believed to be the USS INDEPENDENCE at 37° 28.4'N, 123° 7.6'W (north of Study
Area 3 and southeast of Study Area 5); positive verification has not yet been made (Karl 1992).
The extent of any potential environmental impacts associated with the sinking of the USS
INDEPENDENCE is unknown.
The T/V PUERTO RICAN was transporting 91,984 barrels of lubrication oil and 8.500 barrels
of bunker fuel when an explosion and fire damaged the vessel approximately 13 km off the
Golden Gate in October 1984. The disabled vessel was towed seaward to minimize potential
impacts from leaking fuels to sensitive biological habitats within the GOFNMS. However, the
vessel later broke into two sections, and the stem section, containing 8,500 barrels of oil, sank
at a location approximately 25 km due south of South Farallon Island in a depth of approximately
450 m. The remains have been surveyed using side-scan sonar, and, as of 1989, oil continued
to leak slowly from the vessel (Delgado and Haller 1989). Assessments of the environmental
impacts associated with the oil spill were prepared by Herz and Kopec (1985), Robilliard (1985),
PRJBO (1985), and James Dobbins Associates, Inc. (1986).
3.1.1.9 Summary of Historical Disposal in Relation to the LTMS Study Areas
According to site selection general criteria, EPA will designate ocean dumping sites that have
been used historically. A summary of historically used disposal sites indicates that limited
dredged material disposal has occurred within Study Area 2 (BIB site), and radioactive and
chemical munitions wastes were disposed of in Study Area 5. Study Area 4 lies between two
sites previously designated for explosives disposal (Figure 3.1-1); disposal of dredged material
within the explosives sites is not desirable. Historically used dredged material disposal sites such
as the BIB, COE experimental, and 100-Fathom sites lie within designated National Marine
Sanctuary boundaries and therefore cannot be considered for future disposal activities. Similarly,
the Channel Bar Site (Study Area 1) is suitable for disposal of sandy materials only, and is not
under consideration as an alternative site. Radioactive Waste Sites A, B, and C lie within the
boundaries of the GOFNMS.
3.1.2 Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be Disposed of [40 CFR
228.6(a)(4)]
The proposed ODMDS will be used for disposal of acceptable sediments from projects in the San
Francisco Bay area, including maintenance dredging and new construction projects. Presently
planned projects are listed in Table 1.2-1. Site use is expected to extend for fifty years,
beginning in 1994; the projected 50-year dredging volume would total 400 million yards' (COE
1992a). The COE (1992c) estimated that 6 million yards3 per year could be disposed of at the
ODMDS. However, the specific volumes will depend on the characteristics of the dredged
materials (evaluated on a project-specific basis), potential disposal restrictions in the site
management plan, and the range of alternative disposal options developed by the LTMS (see
Chapter 2).
3-13
-------
The physical and chemical characteristics of the dredged materials planned for ocean disposal are
expected to vary considerably depending on the locations of the dredging operations. The
possible range in grain-size characteristics of the dredged material is expected to be broad, and
will vary on a project/site-specific basis (Tetra Tech 1992). However, the most prevalent
sediment composites planned for disposal are expected to range between two grain size classes:
"mostly sand" (76% sand, 21% clay, and 3% silt) and "clay-silt" (74% silt, 5% clay, and 21%
sand) (Tetra Tech 1992). Dredged material will not be packaged prior to disposal.
The COE expects that an ODMDS could be used throughout the year, except when wave heights
exceed 3 meters and wave periods are 9 seconds or less (approximately 10% of the lime,
typically from February through May; Tetra Tech 1987). However, seasonal restrictions on
dredging activities imposed by biological events such as migration, spawning, and nesting
activities may also affect the scheduling of ODMDS use. For example, the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recommends that dredging activities within the Bay be
restricted during peak herring spawning periods (December 1 to March 1) (J. Turner, CDFG,
pers. comm. 1991). In addition, to ensure high survivorship of Dungeness crab juveniles that
utilize the Bay as a nursery ground, CDFG recommends that suction dredging in parts of north
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays be prohibited from May 1 to August 1. Mitigation of
potential impacts from individual projects will be specified in permit conditions. The goals and
objectives of the site management and monitoring plan are summarized in Section 4.6.2. The
complete site management and monitoring plan will be prepared in conjunction with, and
referenced in, the Final Rule and Coastal Consistency Determination for the site.
3.1.3 Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharge and Dumping in the
Area [40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)]
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, four locations have been used previously for ocean disposal of
sediments from San Francisco Bay. However, use of these ocean sites for dredged material
disposal has been intermittent, and the disposal volumes have been relatively small (except for
the BART site).
The nature and extent of post-disposal effects at these locations are unknown because no
systematic baseline and post-disposal studies have been performed. A brief biological survey of
an area adjacent to the BART site was conducted prior to disposal of dredged material from the
BART construction project (Ebert and Cordier 1966); however, no post-disposal study was
conducted. A series of baseline biological and sediment surveys, and a one-year current meter
study were initiated at the BIB site before the disposal of Oakland Harbor dredged material (KLI
1991). However, no post-disposal effects studies were conducted at this site other than a
continuation of the current meter study. With the exception of a brief qualitative study of the
COE experimental site following a small test discharge of approximately 4,000 yd3 of dredged
material (COE 1975), no studies of the environmental impacts of dredged material disposal have
been conducted at any of the offshore sites.
3-14
-------
Similarly, studies of the environmental impacts from disposal of other waste materials in the
vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones generally have been limited to reconnaissance surveys of
the radioactive waste disposal sites (e.g., EPA 1975, Dyer 1976; Noshkin el al. 1978; Dayal et
al. 1979; Schell and Sugai 1980; Melzian etal. 1987; Booth etal. 1989; Suchanek and Lagunas-
Solar 1991), and investigations of potential effects associated with the sinking of the T/V
PUERTO RICAN (Robilliard 1985; PRBO 1985; Herz and Kopec 1985). Thus, the specific
effects from these previous waste discharges are poorly known, although NOAA and EPA are
presently evaluating environmental impacts from disposal of low-level radioactive waste material
in the Gulf of the Farallones.
3.1.4 Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring [40 CFR 228.5(d) and 228.6(a)(5)]
3.1.4.1 Surveillance
The United States Coast Guard, EPA, and the COE are responsible for surveillance and enforce-
ment of ocean disposal activities. This includes navigational surveillance and deterrence of
unauthorized disposal.
The Coast Guard's marine radar, Offshore Vessel Movement Reporting System, has an
operational range of approximately 45 km (27 nmi) from Point Bonita (i.e., the approximate
distance to the Farallon Islands). Vessel visibility on the radar screen is affected by the size of
the contact, vessel aspect, and weather. Thus, under conditions where distances are greater than
45 km or inclement weather prevails, vessels may not be visible continuously using the radar
surveillance system. Portions of Study Area 2 and all of Study Areas 3 through 5 are greater
than 45 km from Point Bonita. For these reasons, other methods of navigational surveillance,
such as Ocean Dumping Surveillance System (ODSS)-like black boxes, overflights,
navigation/operation log audits, or checks by on-board ship riders would be necessary for
surveillance at Alternative Sites 3 through 5.
3.1.4.2 Monitoring
The EPA and the COE are responsible for the development of a site management and monitoring
plans for the ODMDS. The purposes of monitoring an offshore disposal site are to:
• Document compliance with all permit requirements;
• Confirm predictions of dredged material dispersion and resuspension; and
• Evaluate the ecological impacts and consequences of dredged material disposal.
Elements of a disposal site monitoring program may include evaluation of; sediment chemistry,
demersal fisheries, benthic organisms, bathymetric conditions, bioaccumulation potential, and
oceanographic conditions. A site monitoring plan designed to detect and minimize adverse
impacts through appropriate management options will be prepared in conjunction with, and
referenced in, the Final Rule and the Coastal Consistency Determination. The goals and
objectives of the monitoring plan are summarized in Section 4.6-2.
3-15
-------
Assuming appropriate sampling equipment and survey vessels are available, as well as contin-
gencies associated with inclement weather and sea conditions, it is expected that monitoring of
environmental effects associated with dredged material disposal operations can be performed at
any of the alternative sites. However, depending on specific monitoring requirements, some sites
may be more difficult to monitor, due to greater depths or residual contamination from historical
waste disposal. Impacts to benthic communities at deeper sites may be more difficult to assess
because less information about benthic community structure and disturbance response is available.
3-16
-------
3.2
Physical Environment
This section addresses the physical characteristics of the affected environment: meteorology and
air quality (Section 3.2.1); physical oceanography (Section 3.2.2); water column characteristics
(Section 3.2.3); geology (Section 3.2.4); and sediment characteristics (Section 3.2.5). These
characteristics are addressed in the general and site-specific criteria applied to evaluations of
project alternatives Section 2.2.
3.2.1 Meteorology and Air Quality
The primary meteorological and air quality parameters relevant to ODMDS designation are the
regional climate, winds, and air quality in the vicinity of the alternative sites.
The coastal environment off San Francisco has a maritime climate characterized by a general lack
of weather extremes (Williams et al. 1980), with cool summers and mild, wet winters. The area
has experienced drought conditions for at least five years through 1991, which has reduced the
frequency and amount of seasonal rainfall. Weather conditions are most stable in summer and
autumn, with moderate but persistent winds diminishing to calmer conditions through the
mid-autumn period. Variable weather conditions occur during winter when series of storms
produce strong winds and high seas in the Gulf of the Farallones. Spring has fewer frontal
rainstorms and less extreme conditions, but it usually is the windiest period of the year. Typical
meteorological conditions for the coastal area off San Francisco are summarized in Table 3.2-1.
Fog occurs off the coast throughout the year, but it is most persistent during summer. Upwelling
in the waters off San Francisco tends to cool the relatively warm, moist air masses moving
eastward and results in the formation of fog off the coast The presence of fog often reduces
visibility; for example, the visibility at Southeast Farallon Island is less than 3 km 24% of the
time in July, compared to 11% of the time in January (Williams et al. 1980).
Winds are an important influence on water column characteristics and currents over the
continental shelf and upper continental slope (Winant et al. 1987). For example, the strong north
to northwest winds in spring and early summer promote offshore-directed flow of surface waters
and upwelling of cool, saline, nutrient-rich waters along the coast. Relaxation periods of weak
or calm winds can result in reversals in the surface currents (Halliwell and Allen 1987). The
wind field in the region exhibits a seasonal cycle. Summer winds are driven by the pressure
gradients of the North Pacific subtropical high pressure and southwestern U.S. thermal low
pressure systems (Halliwell and Allen 1987). Coastal atmospheric boundary layer processes
modify the wind patterns within 100-200 km of the coast such that wind fluctuations are strongly
polarized in directions parallel to the coastline. The cross-shelf component of the winds in the
region is weak (Chelton et al. 1987). The mean summer winds have an equatorward alongshore
component that is relatively strong (approximately 20 knots) along the California coast (Halliwell
and Allen 1987). The strongest equatorward winds occur in April and May (Chelton et al. 1987).
Winds exhibit greater spatial and temporal variability in the winter than in the summer (Halliwell
3-17
-------
Table 3.2-1.
Meteorological Conditions for the Coastal Area off San Francisco.
Wddher Elements
Jan
Feb
Mar-
Apr
Ma/
Jim
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annua!
Wind a 34 knots (%)
1.5
2.5
is
2.4
2.5
1.9
0.8
S 0.5
1.1
1.7
1.4
2.7
1.7
Wave Height £ 10 feet (%)
15.6
13.1
16.4
22.2
18.3
8.7
7.9
4.9
6 2
• 10.7
14.9
18.0
12.5
Precipitation (%)
9.9
6.9
7.6
4.5
3.2
3.5
32
2.7
2.4
2.9
5.4
8.0
4.9
Temperature S 29°C (%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean Temperature (°C)
11.7
11.9
118
12.0
12.9
14.0
14.8
15.6
16.0
15.4
142
13.0
13.7
Temperature s 0°C (%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean Relative Humidity (%)
82
82
80
81
82
86
87
88
86
84
83
81
84
Sky Overcast or Obscured (%)
33.2
29.4
28.2
28.9
32.5
37.3
54.3
45.1
34.0
29.2
27.7
28.3
34.5
Mean Cloud Cover (eighths)
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.7
4.6
5.4
4.9
4.3
3.3
4.5
4.5
4.6
Prevailing Wind Direction
NNW
NNW
NW
NNW
NNW
NW
NNW
NW
NNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
Boundaries: Between 36°N and 38°N, and from 126°W eastward to coast. These data are based on observations mads by ships in passage, and biased towards good weather observations.
Source: U.S. Coast Pilot #7,1976.
A1M023.W5I
-------
and Allen 1987). The greater variability in the winter winds is due to the passage of atmospheric
cyclones and anticyclones moving onshore from over the Pacific Ocean. Storm-driven winds
occur approximately 2% of the time with average velocities of approximately 14 m/sec (35 knots;
Table 3.2-1).
Wind measurements in 1991 from four National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) buoys off central
California, including Bodega Bay (38.2°N, 123.3°W), Gulf of the Farallones (37.8°N, 122.7°W),
Halfmoon Bay (37.4°N, 122.7°W), and Monterey Bay (36.8°N, 122.4°W) were analyzed by Ramp
et al. (1992). The surface wind vectors for 1991 (Figure 3.2-1) indicated distinct seasonal
patterns. From January through early April, the winds were variable in both speed and direction.
During the summer months, upwelling-favorable, northwest winds of 10 to 15 m/sec
predominated. Winds during autumn were still mainly equatorward, but weaker than those during
summer. Some wind reversals occurred, but they usually were weak and lasted only one day.
After the beginning of November, winter conditions were similar to those in the beginning of the
year, with strong, frequent reversals (Noble et al. 1992).
The large-scale wind patterns were similar at the four buoy locations; however, some small-scale
differences were apparent that reflect potentially important variations in the mesoscale forcing
lo the coastal ocean. In particular, the winds measured in the Gulf of the Farallones tended to be
weaker and directed more in an eastward direction than the winds to the north and south (Ramp
et al. 1992). These differences have implications for the location and intensity of upwelling and
the subsequent advection of upwelled water along the coast (Schwing et al. 1991; see Section
3.2.2).
The air quality in most of central California is considered good. Annual summaries of air
pollutants at selected stations in the central San Francisco Bay Area and listings of the
corresponding National and California standards are presented in Table 3.2-2. During
1988-1991, concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), and sulfur
dioxide (S02) typically were below the National and California standards, whereas, concentrations
of particulate matter (PM) in San Francisco exceeded the California standard up to 15 days per
year. Air pollutants were not monitored in the vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones (M. Basso,
BAAQMD, pers. comm. 1992). However, because the offshore regions including Study Areas
2, 3, 4 and 5 are upwind from the urbanized areas of San Francisco Bay (Holzworth 1959), the
study areas are expected to have relatively lower concentrations of air pollutants than those
measured at stations around the central parts of the Bay.
3.2.2 Physical Oceanography 40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)
Physical oceanographic parameters that are important for evaluation of an ODMDS designation
are regional and site-specific current patterns, waves, and tides, and the effects of these forces
on the transport and dispersion of dredged material. In particular, site-specific current
measurements in the vicinity of the alternative sites are used to evaluate the predicted dispersion
in the water column, and initial deposition on the sea floor, of dredged material discharged at
these sites (Sections 4.2 and 4.4). In this section, the regional current patterns are characterized
3-19
-------
NDBC BUOY WINDS -1991
>
i
10 M/SEC
V
I L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
DAY CF YEAR
Figure 3.2-1. Surface Wind Vectors at Four NDBC Buoys in the Vicinity of the Gulf
of the Fprallones During 1991.
Source: Ramp et al. 1992.
AK0070
3-20
-------
Table 3.2-2. A. Annual Air Pollutant Summary for Central San Francisco Bay Stations During 1988-1991; and
B. California and National Standards for Individual Pollutants.
The units and standards for pollutants are described in the Explanatory Notes.
u>
l
ro
A. Annual Air Pollutant Summffly
OZONE
CO
NO,
so.
PM*
Ytar/Staildft
Max.
Hr.
Matfonal
Sid.
California .
Sid.
3-Yr.
Av9-
Max.
;8-Hr.
Days
Ngfonal
Sid.
Max.
Hr.
Days
California
3d..
Max
24-Hr.
Days
Cafifomta
Std.
Annual
Mean
Days
Nationd
Std.
California
»d.
1991
San Francisco
5
0
0
0.0
6.5
0
10
0
13
0
29.6
0
15
San Rafael
8
0
0
0.0
5.6
0
9
0
-
-
26.4
0
10
Richmond
5
0
0
0.0
4.6
0
8
0
16
0
24.4
0
9
Oakland
6
0
0
0.0
6.8
0
-
-
-
-
-
¦
-
1990
San Francisco
6
0
0
0.0
5.6
0
11
0
11
0
27.7
1
12
San Rafael
6
0
0
0.0
5.0
0
7
0
-
•
22.5
0
4
Richmond
6
0
0
0.0
4.0
0
8
0
12
0
22.9
0
5
Oakland
6
0
0
0.0
6.1
0
-
0
-
-
•
-
-
1989
San Francisco
8
0
0
0.0
7.0
0
12
0
15
0
31.8
0
13
San Rafael
8
0
0
0.0
4.0
0
10
0
-
¦
27.3
0
8
Richmond
10
0
1
0.0
4.1
0
11
0
14
0
-
-
5
Oakland
8
0
0
0.0
7.5
0
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
AK0024.W3I
-------
Table 3.2-2. Continued.
A. Annual Air Pollutant Summary
OZONE
CO
NO,
so,
. PM» .
Year/Swfon
Max.
Hr.
Natbnal
Sid.
Cafornia
Sid. .
3-Vr.
Avg.
Max.
8-Hr.
Days
Nttffanal
Sid.
Max.
Hr.
Days
California
Sid.
Max
24-Hr.
Days
Caiornia
Sid.
Annual
Mean
Days
Naiiontf
Std.
Cafifomia
Std.
1988
San Francisco
9
0
0
0.0
12.8
1
12
0
12
0
29.7
0
7
San Rafael
10
0
1
0.0
5.0
0
9
0
7
0
27.6
0
2
Richmond
10
0
2
0.0
5.0
0
11
0
7
0
-
-
-
Oakland
10
0
1
0.0
6.0
0
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
I
to
to
AK0024.W3I
-------
Table 3.2-2. Continued.
B. California and National Standards
Pollutant
Averaging Time
California Standard
National Standard
Ozone
1 hour (hr)
9 pphm
12 pphm
CO
8 hours
9 ppm
9 ppm
1 hour
20 ppm
35 ppm
no2
Annual Avg.
-
5.3 pphm
1 hour
25 pphm
-
S02
Annual Avg.
-
30 ppb
24 hours
50 ppb
140 ppb
PM
Annual Avg.
30 ng/m3
50 ng/m3
24 hours
50 |ig/m3
150 jig/m
Explanatory Notes
The units for the maximums and means in the summary table are in parts per hundred million (pphm) for
ozone and nitrogen dioxide, parts per million (ppm) for carbon monoxide, parts per billion (ppb) for sulfur
dioxide, and micrograms per cubic meter (jig/m3) for suspended particulate matter (PM10). "Days" columns
give the number of days per year on which an air quality standard was exceeded: National for CO; California
for N02 and S02; and both for Ozone and PM10. The California and National standards vaiy sharply for
ozone and PM10; the California standards are 25% more stringent on ozone and 67% more stringent on 24-
hour suspended particulate matter (PM10).
Generally, the particulate measurements are taken on the National systematic 6-day schedule. The 6-day
occurrences are reported for days exceeding the California 24-hour standards.
Source: BAAQMD 1988,1989,1990,1991
AK0025.W5I
3-23
-------
from historical data, followed by a summary of the results from recent, EPA-sponsored studies
of the cunrents within the LTMS study region.
3.2.2.1 Regional Current Patterns
The LTMS study areas are located within the California Current system, an eastern boundary
current that forms the eastern portion of the North Pacific subtropical gyre. The seasonal patterns
in the large-scale surface (upper 250 m) currents generally are divided into two seasons: an
upwelling period from March to August; and the winter or Davidson Current period from October
to February. September is a transition month and may be more like one season or the other
depending on the year being studied. The spring and summer upwelling season is characterized
by fluctuating flows with a net southward component. During October through November and
February through March, nearshore flows over the shelf and upper slope south of Cape
Mendocino move northward against weak, northerly, prevailing winds. At the same time, the
southward flow of the California Current weakens and moves offshore. Winter is a period of
storms that can produce large, storm-generated surface waves and strong fluctuating currents that
can last for 2 to 10 days. During any particular month, the flow pattern may differ significantly
from the seasonal mean conditions. Much of this variability is attributable to small-scale features
(e.g., eddies and filaments) with short time scales and interannual variability with large spatial
and temporal scales (Chelton et al. 1987).
The California Current is a broad surface flow approximately 100 to 1,000 km from shore. This
current is driven primarily by wind stress over the North Pacific Ocean, and it transports cold,
low salinity, subarctic waters. The typical mean flow in the upper few hundred meters is
equatorward (i.e., towards the southeast) at speeds less than 10 cm/sec. Satellite-tracked drifter
observations (Brink et al. 1991) show slow, equatorward movement of surface waters that is
superimposed on an energetic mesoscale eddy field, displacing the flow 200 to 400 km to the east
and west as it moves slowly towards the south.
Within the California Current system are two poleward flows: the Coastal Countercurrent and
the California Undercurrent (Hickey 1979; Chelton 1984; Neshyba et al. 1989). The Coastal
Countercurrent flows northward over the continental shelf, inshore from the California Current.
The countercurrent typically is only 10 to 20 km wide, with velocities less than 30 cm/sec (Kosro
1987). It is broader and stronger in the winter (October through early March), when it
occasionally covers the entire continental shelf and is referred to as the Davidson Current;
however, it remains strongest nearshore (Huyer et al. 1978). The Coastal Countercurrent has
been observed both north and south of the study region. Observations north of the Gulf of the
Farallones were made by the Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiment (CODE; Beardsley and Lentz
1987) during 1981-1982 along a relatively straight stretch of coast between Point Arena and
Point Reyes, California. During the upwelling season, the countercurrent appeared whenever
equatorward, upwelling-favorable winds relaxed and disappeared when the winds were unusually
strong (Send et al. 1987; Winant et al. 1987).
3-24
-------
The California Undercurrent is a strong poleward flow over the slope. This current has been
observed off southern California (Lynn and Simpson 1990), Point Conception and Point Sur
(Chelton et al. 1988; Tisch et al. 1992), Northern California (Freitag and Halpern 1981), Oregon
(Huyer et al. 1984; Huyer and Smith 1985), Washington (Hickey 1979), and Vancouver Island,
British Columbia (Freeland et al. 1984). The position, strength, and core velocity of the
undercurrent vary spatially and at different times of the year, although a maximum poleward
velocity of around 30 cm/sec typically occurs between 150 to 300 m depth in slope waters 500
to 1,000 m deep.
All the currents described above are mean flows that are fairly steady over periods of many
months. However, the characteristics of the mean flows are subject to considerable interannual
variability. El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events can alter the mean current field on a
year-to-year basis; evidence from the tropical Pacific indicates that 1991-1992 was an ENSO
year. ENSO events can cause anomalous atmospheric conditions and anomalous oceanic
conditions in the northeast Pacific. Weakened equatorward or poleward winds may cause
weakened upwelling and onshore transport, which leads to warmer than usual water temperatures.
The ENSO events also can produce very low frequency wave motions at low latitudes which then
propagate poleward into the northern hemisphere along the continental shelf and slope. Huyer
and Smith (1985) showed that the northward flow over the continental shelf was twice as strong
during the El Nino winter of 1982-83 than during the preceding and subsequent "normal" years.
A basic feature of the circulation along the entire central coast is coastal upwelling, which causes
continental shelf water to exchange with slope water. An "upwelling front" forms between the
upwelled water and the warmer, less dense water further offshore. North of Cape Blanco,
Oregon, the upwelling front is fairly straight along the coast, but to the south, large meanders
develop and form "cold filaments" of recently upwelled water that can extend more than 200 km
offshore. Filaments are observed most commonly near coastal promontories such as Cape
Mendocino, Point Arena, Point Reyes, and Point Sur. The Point Arena filament was observed
in six different surveys during July and August 1988 (Huyer et al. 1991). Offshore velocities
along the northern side of the filament approached 100 cm/sec (2 knots), which is far greater than
the large scale mean flow towards the south. The Point Reyes filament is less studied and less
well understood, but it is expected that large cross-shore transport is associated with the Point
Reyes feature as well, which potentially can affect suspended particle transport in the vicinity of
the alternative sites. Because the filaments are associated with upwelling, they are not commonly
seen during winter.
Mixed semidiurnal tides occur on the west coast in the vicinity of San Francisco. The strongest
tidal current component is either the principal lunar or the luni-solar diurnal tide, which have
periods of 12.4 hours and 23.9 hours, respectively. Diurnal tides are strongest on the shelf in the
Gulf of the Farallones (Noble and Gelfenbaum 1990), with tidal amplitudes between 6 and 9
cm/sec. Lunar tidal currents are strongest on the slope adjacent to the Gulf of the Farallones,
with amplitudes from 2.3 to 4.4 cm/sec near Study Area 5 (Noble and Kinoshita 1992).
Semidiurnal and diurnal tides together account for 35 to 60% of the total variability in the current
records on the shelf, and from 15 to 33% of the variability on the slope. These tidal currents
3-25
-------
may promote the resuspension of material deposited on the seabed and dispersion of material
suspended in the water column.
Wave observations at a buoy 7 nmi southwest of the Golden Gate Bridge (37.62°N; 122.95°W)
are summarized by wave period and wave height in Table 3.2-3. Bottom current motions
associated with large, storm waves can affect scouring and resuspension of sediments, particularly
on the continental shelf. Also, severe wave conditions (e.g., heights greater than 3 m with
periods less than 11.7 seconds or wave heights greater than 5 m) can limit or restrict dredged
material barge transit to the alternative sites (Section 3.1.2; Tetra Tech 1987).
3.2.2.2 Study Region-Specific Currents
Beginning in 1991, EPA sponsored a one-year study of the circulation in the Gulf of the
Farallones and over the adjacent continental slope to develop a better understanding of the
physical processes and support predictive modeling of the deposition and fate of dredged material
at the LTMS study areas (see Section 4.4). The following, modified from Noble et al. (1992),
summarizes the information relative to the study area locations.
The EPA study included a main line of moorings, which contained Stations A through D, to
monitor the changes with water depth in the physical oceanographic parameters (Figure 3.2-2).
Changes in water depth typically cause the largest spatial gradients in the circulation and
sediment transport pathways. Station A was on the shelf in 92 m of water, Station B was on the
upper slope in 400 m between Study Areas 2 and 3, and Stations C and D were on the mid- and
lower-slope at depths of 800 m and 1,400 m adjacent to the southern boundary of Study Area 3.
Stations E and F represented a secondary mooring line in the array. Station E was located along
the eastern edge of Study Area 5, and Station F was shoreward of Study Area 5. Data from these
moorings were used to determine how the circulation patterns changed with distance along the
isobaths. Each mooring in the array had between three to six instruments that measured current
speed, direction, and temperature at specific locations in the water column (Noble et al. 1992).
3.2.2.3 Outer Shelf (Study Area 2) Currents
Currents over the outer shelf were measured at Station A, located within Study Area 2
(Figure 3.2-3). Evaluations of currents at Site A are obscured by gaps in the data, but the
available data suggest a vertically coherent flow during the first half of the year. Fluctuations
in the alongshore component were quite similar and nearly uniform in magnitude with depth,
weakening only slightly towards the bottom. There was a tendency for the along-isobath flow
at mid-depth to veer toward the coast. The average mid-depth, cross-shelf flow had a mean
speed of 2.4 cm/sec. However, shoreward flow was not observed near the surface or 12 m above
the sea floor (approximately 80 m depth).
Tidal currents were the other strong component of the currents measured over the shelf. The
principal diurnal tides and the principal semidiurnal tides each can have speeds of 8 to 9 cm/sec
(Kinoshita et al. 1992). Hence, the tidal and lower frequency (subtidal) currents can combine
3-26
-------
Table 3.2-3. Wave Observations (Percent Occurrence) Based on U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) Wave
Data at Station 20 (Dates Unspecified), Located Approximately 7 nm southwest of the Golden Gate
Bridge, San Francisco, California. Bold numbers represent percentage of total observations
exceeding criteria (1) wave heights exceed three meters (9.8 ft.) and wave periods are less than 11.7
seconds; and (2) wave height exceeds 5 meters (16.4 ft) regardless of wave period.
Wave Height
(m)
4.4-6.0
6.1-8.0
8.1-9.5
9.6-10.5
Wave Period (seconds)
10.6-11.7 11.8-13.3
13.4-15 3
15.4-18.1
i 8.2-222
0-0.9
0.16
0.49
0.52
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.0-1.9
1.73
3.97
8.56
5.35
2.68
0.72
0.04
0.06
0.00
2.0-2.9
2.04
2.71
4.76
7.14
11.01
7.84
1.26
0.10
0.02
3.0-3.9
0.05
0.96
1.15
1.07
3.89
11.14
4.84
0.35
0.00
4.0-4.9
0.00
0.17
0.46
0.32
0.58
3.35
5.48
0.56
0.00
5.0-5.9
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.13
0.21
0.39
1.81
0.80
0.00
6.0-6.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.29
0.44
0.00
7.0-7.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.09
0.00
8.0-8.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
9.0-9.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
10.0+
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
T0TAL%
3.97
8.31
15.54
14.06
18.41
23.48
13.76
2.46
0.02
Source: Modified from COE (1987).
AK0O26.W5I
-------
D Moored station ran Wind station Sea level station
Figure 3.2-2. Locations of Current Meter Stations A Through F.
Source: Noble et al. 1992.
AK0071
3-28
-------
Station A
©
"O ^
H E
p o
30-i 10 meters
-30
u>
I
K>
v©
©
"a
if
E 3,
ca
30
©
¦o
3 (/}
f 1
E 2*
co
-30
30
-30
50 meters
80 meters
Mar
1991
I I
May
July
Sept
I I
Nov
Jan
1992
Figure 3.2-3. Subtidal Currents at Station A.
Each line represents the magnitude and orientation of the current vector. A line pointing
toward the top of the page represents poleward flow along the shelf. Currents flowing
toward the coast point to the right.
Source: Noble et al. 1992.
-------
to generate strong currents. Maximum current speeds over the shelf ranged between 40 to 60
cm/sec, and the maximum speed near the seabed was 47 cm/sec. These currents would be strong
enough to move fine sand (see Section 3.2.4.2).
3.2.2.4 Slope (Study Areas 3 through 5) Currents
Slope cutTents in the region of the Gulf of the Farallones during 1991 and 1992 can be grouped
by depth ranges. Near-surface currents are those above 75 m depth. Mid-depth currents are
between 75 and 800 m and at least 50 m above the seabed. Deep currents are below 800 m and
at least 50 m above the seabed, and near-bottom currents are 10 to 15 m above the seabed. The
currents within these different depth ranges share similar characteristics, and the coupling among
currents is much stronger within discrete depth ranges than the coupling between currents in
separate depth ranges.
3.2.2.5 Near-Surface Currents Over the Slope
Near-surface currents over the slope are well studied only at Station C. Spring currents at this
station were characterized by a strong equatorward event during April which reached a depth of
at least 250 m. This event likely was due to an anticyclonic (clockwise) eddy or a southward
flowing upwelling filament, and not attributable to wind. Similar equatorward events also were
observed at this time at Stations D and E to depths exceeding 800 m. The strength and duration
of the event at 250 m depth was about the same at Stations C and D.
At times, the flow at Station C at 10 m depth was poleward at speeds greater than 30 cm/sec.
A portion of this flow likely represented a surfacing of the California Undercurrent which is
common during autumn and winter (Section 3.2.2.1). The near-surface diurnal and semidiurnal
tidal currents have velocities up to 5 or 6 cm/sec (Kinoshita et al. 1992), which are not sufficient
to reverse the dominant flow direction of the near-surface currents. The tidal currents can act
to disperse materials suspended in the near-surface water; however, being rotational in nature,
they would not cause large changes in the fate of those materials in the water column or in the
region of deposition (Noble et al. 1992).
3.2.2.6 Mid-Depth Currents Over the Slope
A wedge-shaped region, generally including Study Areas 3, 4, and 5, can be described where
mid-depth currents along the isobaths are strongly correlated both horizontally and vertically
(Figure 3.2-4). The California Undercurrent traditionally has been observed in this region. The
offshore boundary of this flow field extended seaward of the study region and was not well
delineated.
3-30
-------
-123°30'w -123°w
Figure 3.2-4. Schematic Representation of the Three-Dimensional Structure of the
"Wedge-Shaped" Region of Coherent Mid-Depth Flow Over the Slope.
Source: Noble et al. 1992.
AK0073
3-31
-------
Station E
30 -
0-
30
250 m
*v«
dt
v •
30 -|
0 -
30
400 m
„. , sit
30 — 1^00 m
0 -
30-
30-, 1987 m
OH
30-
>^ii i< ¦> »¦««"<
Mar
1991
May
July
Sept
Nov
Jan
1992
Subtidal Currents at Station E.
Each line represents the magnitude and orientation of the current vector. A line pointing
toward the top of the page represents poleward flow along the shelf. Currents flowing
toward the coast point to the right.
Source: Nobel et al. 1992.
-------
The persistent patterns in mid-depth currents that flow throughout the wedge-shaped region were
not observed at Station F, located shoreward of Study Area 5. Currents at Station F were weak
and disorganized, with a much higher variability than currents observed over the continental slope
at locations elsewhere along the California coast. Current speeds in 150 m at Station F were
slower than the equivalent currents at Station B, even though both flow toward the northwest in
the spring and early summer, and the poleward currents at Station F do not extend to 250 m.
These characteristics suggest that Station F was just east of the inshore boundary of the
correlated, wedge-shaped flow field observed at the other stations on the slope.
The most prominent feature of the mid-depth currents over the slope is a burst of strong poleward
flow lasting from mid-April to September. Similar bursts of poleward flow have been observed
in three-year records over the slope off Point Sur (Ramp et al. 1991). Such burst events are not
seasonal. Hence, it is not clear if the poleward bursts observed in the EPA data records are part
of a seasonal cycle or if they appear randomly at different times in other years.
Both the persistent poleward flow and the strong vertical correlations in the alongslope currents
weakened as the year progressed. The amplitude of the mid-depth flow was reduced at all
stations, and the direction became more erratic from mid-August through mid-November. A
partial return to the strong poleward flow occurred after mid-November.
The daily, mid-depth, tidal currents have combined amplitudes less than 5 cm/sec (Kinoshita et
al. 1992). The semidiurnal, mid-depth, tidal currents are slightly stronger, with a combined
amplitude that can reach 10 cm/sec, but which generally are less than 8 cm/sec. Hence, neither
of these tidal constituents can significantly alter the lower frequency current regime described
above. The main effect of the tidal components is to increase the cross-slope flow and dispersion
of material suspended in the water column across isobaths.
3.2.2.7 Deep Currents Over the Slope
Current measurements in water depths of 1,420 m at Station E suggest that deep currents over
the slope are weak and variable (Figure 3.2-5). The deep currents are parallel to bottom
contours, but the velocities tend to be less than 10 cm/sec. The mean current speed is 1 cm/sec
toward the northwest (Kinoshita et al. 1992). The tidal currents have amplitudes less than 4
cm/sec, which are somewhat smaller than those at shallower depths. Because the lower
frequency currents also are small, the tidal currents can act to reverse both the net along- and
cross-slope flow (Kinoshita et al. 1992).
3.2.2.8 Near-bed Currents Over the Slope
Characteristics of currents within 20 m of the seabed cannot be predicted reliably from
measurements made in the overlying water column. Near-bed currents also were different at each
of the stations, A-F. For example, near-bed currents at Station B appear unrelated to near-bed
currents at Station C even though currents in the overlying water column share similar
characteristics. Near-bed currents flow along the isobaths, but their amplitudes are much smaller
3-33
-------
than flows in the overlying water column at most stations on the slope. Bottom currents at
Stations B (400 m) and C (800 m) range from 10 to 15 cm/sec, whereas currents at 250 m depths
at these stations reach speeds of 30 cm/sec or more. These differences occur because near-bed
currents are more strongly controlled by topographic features than currents higher in the water
column.
In contrast to the overlying flow, the near-bed currents at Stations B and D have no definite
seasonal or temporal patterns. The mean current directions at Stations B and D are weakly
equatorward, at speeds of 0.7 and 0.2 cm/sec, respectively (Kinoshita et al. 1992). In addition,
particular flow events in the near-bed currents last only a few days, which is much shorter than
the duration of events in the overlying water column. Near-bed flow at Station C was poleward
for most of the observation period, although current flow to the southeast was observed during
a few short periods. Near-bed currents at Station E were small but had a steady flow to the
northeast up a small unnamed submarine canyon, and across the local isobaths. This shoreward,
near-bed flow at Station E may be caused by interactions between the tidal current and local
topography (Noble et al. 1992).
One of the most notable features of the tidal currents over the slope was the increase in
amplitude of both the diurnal and semidiurnal tidal constituents towards the bottom at some
locations (Kinoshita et al. 1992). Amplification of diurnal and semidiurnal tides can result in
tidal currents which are two to three times stronger at the bottom than in overlying waters. This
difference may promote resuspension and transport of larger grain sized sediment than would
otherwise occur in the absence of "bottom trapping". Enhancement of tides by topographic
features also can result in unusually strong mean flows which can result in unidirectional
sediment transport This may occur at Station E, where a steady up-canyon flow was observed.
However, amplification of bottom tidal currents was not observed at Station F, possibly due to
the relatively steep bottom slope that does not allow this condition to occur. Bottom trapping
of the tidal currents has been observed previously over the continental shelf off Point Sur
(Sielbeck 1991).
3.2.2.9 Summary of Observed Currents
The circulation over the continental shelf and slope near the Farallon Islands was not strongly
coupled. Over the continental shelf and inshore of the Farallon Islands, the observed flow was
coupled closely with the local surface wind stress. The flow was equatorward when the wind
was equatorward, and poleward when the wind was slack or poleward. The flow also may be
affected by outflow from the San Francisco Bay. This aspect of the flow has not been studied
previously; hence, the magnitude of the effect is unknown. On average, the mean surface
circulation from the shelf break seaward is likely equatorward during the upwelling season, with
a velocity less than 10 cm/sec. Surface currents were variable in the other seasons, with speeds
and directions changing partially in response to variable surface wind stresses.
Over the continental slope, at depths between 100 and 1,000 m, the flow likely is poleward due
to the presence of the California Undercurrent. These currents probably flow poleward
3-34
-------
throughout the year, but their velocities vary due to conditions not yet fully understood. Strong,
persistent bursts (greater than 40 cm/sec) can occur during all seasons for periods of four months
or more. The basic flow patterns will be perturbed occasionally by the Point Reyes coastal
upwelling jet, which, based on satellite observations of sea surface temperature, sometimes
swings southward and crosses the northern corner of the region, and also by mesoscale eddies
that move into the area. The frequency of such events is unknown, but at least one such event
per year is likely. The upwelling process, which moves water in the upper layers from the slope
to the shelf, is weaker here than at other sites on the California coast. The tidal currents over
the continental shelf are strongly diurnal and are relatively more important than tidal currents
near the continental slope (Noble and Kinoshita 1992). Because wave-induced currents generated
during winter storms can reach depths of 100 m or more, fine grained material likely will be
resuspended over most areas of the shelf (Noble et al. 1992). The general absence of fine-
grained sediments, and the presence of sand ripples throughout Study Area 2 (SAIC 1992c; see
Section 3.2.4.2) support these indications of strong current-sediment interactions. The mean
currents will carry suspended materials mainly along the isobaths. The jets, eddies, and tidal
currents will disperse the suspended materials across isobaths.
3.2.3 Water Column Characteristics 40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)
Water column characteristics include temperature, salinity, hydrogen ion concentration (pH),
turbidity/light transmittance, dissolved oxygen, and concentrations of major nutrients, trace
metals, and trace organic contaminants.
3.2.3.1 Temperature-Salinity Properties
Recent hydrographic and current measurements indicate that the outer shelf and slope regions of
the Gulf of the Farallones are a dynamic area (Ramp et al. 1992). Current and water mass
variability occurs on time scales from days to months, corresponding to meteorological and
mesoscale events and seasonal patterns. Surface waters show a great deal of variability in
temperature-salinity (T-S) properties. For example, during recent EPA-sponsored surveys (Ramp
et al. 1992), near-surface waters represented a mixture of three primary water types: (1) recently
upwelled water from a source primarily to the north of Point Reyes; (2) offshore water from the
large-scale California Current system; and (3) outflow from San Francisco Bay. The
characteristics and importance of each water type in the Gulf vary seasonally and on shorter (i.e.,
event-related) time scales.
Water discharged from San Francisco Bay into the Gulf of the Farallones has a higher
temperature and lower salinity, and therefore lower density, than water in the Gulf. The long-term
average salinity at S.E. Farallon Island is 33.4 ppt, whereas, at Fort Point on the south side of
the Golden Gate, the average salinity is 29.9 ppt (Peterson et al. 1989). Historically, salinities
at both locations are lowest during winter and spring when the Delta outflow is highest. Due to
its lower density than ambient waters, the outflow from San Francisco Bay is confined in the
Gulf of the Farallones to the surface layer.
3-35
-------
In the vicinity of the alternative sites, a typical temperature-versus-depth profile during summer
consists of an isothermal surface layer that is tens of meters thick. Beneath the surface mixed
layer is a region of rapidly changing temperatures referred to as the thermocline. Below the
thermocline, the water temperature changes gradually with depth, becoming nearly isothermal
again. The depth of the surface mixed layer and the degree of vertical temperature and salinity
(density) stratification in the Gulf of the Farallones varies depending on the characteristics and
extent of mixing of the various water masses.
Water temperatures below 4.0°C with salinities greater than 34.5 parts per thousand (ppt) are
associated with Pacific Common Water, which has a stable T-S relationship throughout the North
Pacific. Contrasting T-S properties associated with Subarctic Intermediate Water (found offshore
in the California Current) and Equatorial Water (over the continental slope in the California
Undercurrent) are found at temperatures between 4.8 and 7.0°C. Subarctic waters also are
evident, and although the horizontal scale of this intrusion of Subarctic water was not resolved,
it is indicative of the active mixing which must occur in the region at these depths.
Considerable seasonal variability in surface water temperatures and salinites reflect large-scale
current patterns, outflow from the Bay, and the presence of mesoscale features. Figure 3.2-6
shows satellite images of surface water temperatures during winter (February 1991) and spring
(May 1991) and illustrates the variability in surface temperatures. The presence of numerous
mesoscale features in both the water mass distribution and currents demonstrates that there was
no overall persistent pattern among the study areas. However, it was apparent that the outflow
from San Francisco Bay was confined to the inner continental shelf and did not influence the
water column at the study areas (Ramp et al. 1992).
3.2.3.2 Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH)
The pH of seawater within the LTMS study areas was not measured during the recent EPA
surveys, but is expected to be within the range of 7.8 to 8.3 measured previously in other areas
of the Gulf of the Farallones (e.g., Nybakken et al. 1984; IEC 1982). Seawater pH values likely
are similar at all of the LTMS study areas, although some minor spatial differences may be
related to localized effects from primary production by plankton.
3.2.3.3 Turbidity
Water turbidity or light transmittance properties on the continental shelf near the Golden Gate
are affected by seasonal and tidal flows of turbid waters from San Francisco Bay. The location
and aerial extent of the outflow plume in the nearshore surface waters off San Francisco change
seasonally. During recent hydrographic surveys of the region (Ramp et al. 1992), outflow from
San Francisco Bay was observed to the north of the Golden Gate during August, directly off the
Golden Gate during November, and to the south and farther offshore during February 1991. The
distribution of the outflow plume may have been influenced by prevailing nearshore wind stress.
None of the observed plumes extended very far offshore, likely due to limited freshwater runoff
associated with drought conditions. However, previous studies noted a plume of turbid water
3-36
-------
Color figures follow.
Figure 3.2-6.
AK0I60A.W31
p. I of 4
3-37
-------
Figure 3.2-6. Satellite Images of Sea Surface Temperatures Within the LTMS Study
Region During February 16,1991.
Temperature ranges are indicated by different colors; red to white represents the wannest
water, dark blue represents the coldest
Source: Noble et al. 1992.
AK0160
p. 2 0(4
3-38
-------
Figure 3.2-6. Satellite Images of Sea Surface Temperatures Within the LTMS Study
Region During May 15, 1991.
Temperature ranges are indicated by different colors; .red to white represents the warmest
water; dark blue represents the coldest
Source: Noble et al. 1992.
AK0160
p. 3 erf 4
3-39
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 3.2-6. Continued.
AK0I6GD.W51
p 4 of 4
3-40
-------
extending approximately 46 km offshore during peak spring flows from the Bay (Carlson and
McCulloch 1974). The relative spatial extent of the plume is reduced in summer when flows
from the Bay are minimal.
In waters over the continental shelf off Point Reyes to Point Arena (i.e., the CODE study region),
Drake and Cacchione (1987) measured light transmittance values of 65-90 percent transmittance
per meter (%/m) throughout the water column. Depth-related patterns in light transmittance
suggested the presence of a subsurface lens and bottom layers of turbid (nepheloid) waters. The
development of these subsurface lenses may be associated with previously upwelled waters
containing high plankton concentrations that sink during periods of relaxation of
upwelling-favorable winds. Turbid waters containing high plankton concentrations occur along
the front between low density surface water offshore and recently upwelled water over the
continental shelf. The location of the front may then move in an onshore or offshore direction
in response to local alongshore winds.
Within the LTMS study areas, turbidity probably is affected by seasonal changes in suspended
particle concentrations related to primary productivity, surface current patterns and the presence
of fronts, and the extent of bottom sediment resuspension on the shelf or at the shelf break.
Light transmissivity measurements made at Study Area 5 in September 1991 showed values of
88-90 %/m throughout the water column; there was no evidence of a turbid nepheloid layer in
any of the sampled water layers (SAIC 1992a). Similarly, Nybakken et al. (1984) measured
80-90 %/m light transmittance throughout the water column at a shelf-edge location (Station 2;
see Figure 2.1-3), whereas, lower values of 10-80 %/m were measured at a site over the
continental shelf. The low transmittance levels at the continental shelf site may be related to
resuspension of sediments near the bottom and inorganic suspended particles or phytoplankton
within the near-surface mixed layer (Nybakken et al. 1984).
Few measurements of suspended solids concentrations have been made within the region, and no
measurements of total suspended solids (TSS) were performed within the LTMS study areas
during the EPA surveys. However, IEC (1982) measured TSS concentrations of 0.08 to 2.5 mg/1
in waters near the shelf-break (the 100-Fathom disposal site) in April 1980, and Gordon (1980)
measured TSS concentrations of 0.3 to 2.9 mg/1 within the surface 25 m at two continental shelf
sites in the Gulf of the Farallones during March and August 1979. Nearshore areas affected by
the plume from San Francisco Bay are expected to have significantly higher water column
concentrations of TSS and associated higher turbidity levels than waters further from shore.
3.2.3.4 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are important because depressed oxygen levels can affect the
diversity and abundances of marine organisms. In upwelling areas, such as the central California
coastal zone region, organic material associated with high primary production settles through the
water column and consumes oxygen via microbial respiration as it sinks. The depletion of
dissolved oxygen at depths of about 500 to 900 m can produce an oxygen minimum zone (OMZ)
(Broenkow and Green 1981). Intersection of the OMZ with the sea floor potentially can affect
3-41
-------
the distribution of oxygen-sensitive taxa. Whereas the cores of some OMZ are faunally
depauperate (Rhoads et al. 1991), the edges of the OMZ are known to be highly productive,
especially with respect to bacteria (Mullins et al. 1985; Rhoads et al. 1991).
Composite profiles of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations measured in July and
September 1991 within Study Areas 3 and 5 are shown in Figure 3.2-7. The DO concentrations
in surface waters are approximately 8 mg/1. Concentrations decline through the mixed layer, and
reach minimum values of about 0.5 mg/1 at a depth of 800 m. Below 800 m. DO concentrations
increase to over 3 mg/1 at depths greater than 2,000 m. This DO concentration/depth pattern is
similar to those reported for other portions of the central California continental margin (e.g.,
Thompson et al. 1985). Nybakken et al. (1984) measured dissolved oxygen concentrations of
approximately 5.1-8.6 mg/1 over the continental shelf and shelf edge in the Gulf of the
Farallones; surface waters were supersaturated with oxygen, while bottom waters were at about
45% saturated. Similarly, dissolved oxygen concentrations averaged over a period of 18 years
for CalCOFI Station 60052 (37°51.8N; 123°03.8W; offshore from Point Reyes and north of the
Farallon Islands) over the continental shelf ranged from 8.7-10.1 mg/1 at the surface to 5.3-7.3
mg/1 at 50 m. The higher concentrations typically were measured in January and lower
concentrations occurred in October.
3.2.3.5 Nutrients
Nutrient concentrations in marine ecosystems are influenced by seasonal current patterns,
upwelling, and biological uptake by marine plants (e.g., phytoplankton). Outflow of water from
San Francisco Bay may represent an additional source of nutrients to nearshore waters.
Typically, nutrient concentrations increase with depth due to surface depletion by phytoplankton
and settling of detritus followed by subsurface remineralization and release of nutrients.
However, upwelling of deeper waters transports nutrients into the surface mixed layers.
Measurements from CalCOFI surveys in the vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones indicate that
phosphate concentrations in surface waters (10 m depth) typically range from 0.25 to 2.0
micromoles per liter (pM/liter). Concentrations increase with depth below the surface mixed
layer; concentrations up to about 4 ^xM/liter occur at depths greater than 1,000 m. Nitrate
concentrations in surface (10 m) and mid-depth (100 m) waters range from < 1 to 20 |iM/liter
and from 10 to 30 |iM/liter, respectively. Silicate concentrations in surface and mid-depth waters
range from 1 to 40 (iM/liter and from 20 to 50 |iM/liter, respectively. Profiles of nitrate,
phosphate, and silicate concentrations measured at CalCOFI Station 60060 (37°36.8'N,
123°36.5'W; southwest from the Farallon Islands and Study Area 5) over the continental slope
during July 1984 are shown in Figure 3.2-8.
No measurements of nutrient concentrations were performed during the EPA surveys of the
LTMS study areas. Differences in nutrient concentrations between Study Areas 3 through 5 are
expected to be minimal, especially within the subsurface layers, although localized upwelling
events and small-scale variability in phytoplankton productivity may result in some short-term
spatial differences within surface waters. As mentioned, nutrient concentrations within the shelf
3-42
-------
400
800
_ 1200
'u>
©
©
£ 1600^
a
©
G
2000
2400
2800
3200
~
ffl
a-
ID
*
i i i i
—U
*¦ X
OMZ
~
*
*
B-7
X-
~
MX
B-4
5
Oxic
Dysoxic
Oxic
-3r
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I ll I I I I I I I I I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
X B3-5 (9/91)
X Leg I (7/91)
+ B3-9 (9/91) * B3-14 (9/91)
~ Leg II (7/91)
Figure 3.2-7.
AX007G
A Composite Profile of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the Water
Column Over the Continental Slope off San Francisco and the Gulf of
the Farallones.
Data were collected at Study Area 5 in July 1991 and at Study Area 3 in September 1991
^ygen concentrations in the oxic zones are > 2.8 mg/l and in the dysoxic zone range from
U.Zo-2.o mg/l.
Source: SAIC 1992c.
3-43
-------
Concentration (UM/L)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
¦ SI03 * PCM N03
Figure 3.2-8. Vertical Profiles of Silicate, Phosphate, and Nitrate Concentrations at
CalCOFI Station 60060 (37°36.8'N, 123°36.5'W) in July 1984.
Source: CalCOFI Database (1991).
AK0077
3-44
-------
region, including Study Area 2, are expected to be influenced to a greater extent by the Point
Reyes upwelling filament and outflow from San Francisco Bay than are Study Areas 3 through 5.
3.2.3.6 Trace Metals
Trace metal concentrations in seawater within the LTMS study areas were not measured during
the EPA and Navy surveys. However, data from previous measurements of seawater trace metal
concentrations in the vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones are presented in Table 3.2-4.
Concentrations of individual trace metals in the surface waters of the Gulf of the Farallones are
characterized by pronounced spatial and temporal variability (Nybakken et al. 1984). These
differences are expected to reflect upwelling patterns, transport and mixing of outflow from San
Francisco Bay, resuspension of bottom sediments by currents and wave action, and atmospheric
deposition of anthropogenic metals (e.g., lead from gasoline additives). Large differences
between Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 in the seawater trace metal concentrations would not be
expected. Relatively higher concentrations of selected metals may occur within Study Area 2,
depending on Bay outflow and current conditions.
The NOAA National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program and California "Mussel Watch"
Program measured contaminant concentrations in tissues of intertidal mussels (Mytilus spp.) as
an indicator of water quality trends. Waters near the Farallon Islands typically contain low
concentrations of most trace metals as compared to sites along the California coast located near
urban areas or discrete sources of pollutants. However, the Farallon Islands mussels historically
contained high lead concentrations relative to concentrations in mussels from several central
California locations. The source of the lead is unknown; however, the location of the Farallon
Islands upwind from potential combustion sources would minimize atmospheric deposition
sources (Farrington et al. 1983; Goldberg and Martin 1983). Elevated concentrations of some
elements (including cadmium in mussels at the Farallon Islands) probably are related to upwelling
of subsurface waters that are relatively enriched with these elements (Farrington et al. 1983;
Bruland et al. 1991).
3.2.3.7 Hydrocarbons
Petroleum and synthetic (anthropogenic) hydrocarbon concentrations in waters within the LTMS
study areas were not measured during the EPA and Navy surveys. However, concentrations are
expected to reflect current transport and mixing with outflow from San Francisco Bay,
atmospheric deposition, particularly of combustion-derived compounds, and episodic inputs from
oil/petroleum product spills (e.g., the T/V PUERTO RICAN) or vessel discharges. Nevertheless,
appreciable differences in hydrocarbon concentrations between Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 would
not be expected. Slightly higher concentrations of hydrocarbons may occur within Study Area 2,
depending on Bay outflow and current patterns.
Nybakken et al. (1984) reported very low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (140-280
ng/liter) in outer continental shelf waters (Station 2; see Figure 2.1-5). Similarly, deLappe et al.
(1980) reported that the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) phenanthrene and pyrene in
3-45
-------
Table 3.2-4. Trace Metal Concentrations in Seawater in the Vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones.
Study Area
(Source)
Depth (m)
Concentration (mgflJer)
Cd
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
Hg
Continental Shelf and
Shelf Edge
(Nybakken et a11904)
10
0.02
0.14-0.15
0.51-1.4
< 0.005-0.01
0.42-0.53
<0.6
0.52-0.53
20
0.01-0.04
< 0.005-0.07
0.59-1.1
0.21-0.51
0.17-0.23
<0.6
< O.OOS-fl.16
40
0.03-0.05
0.03-027
1.5-2.7
< 0.005-1.5
0.29-0.48
<0.6
0.33-2.1
100
0.02-0.04
0.07-0.13
0.17-0.59
0.01-0.10
023-0.39
<0.6
< 0.005-0.27
Continental Sheff
(Gordon 1980)'
2
0.047
0.16
0.41
024
0.15
021
6
0.030
0.16
0.99
0.34
0.028
0.12
20
0.046
0.14
0.39
021
0.049
0.095
25
0.045
0.10
0.60
0.33
0.020
0.17
100-Fathom Site
(IEC 1982)'
55
0.060-0.61
022-0.38
0.018-0.019
AK0027.W5I
-------
Table 3.2-4.
Continued.
Study Area
(Source)
Depth (m)
Concentration (mg/Liter)
Cd
Cu
Mn
N)
Pb
Zn
Hg
Continental Slope
(Bruland 1980)
25
0.0066
0.084
0.217
0.016
50
0.0064
0.085
0507
0.014
100
0.037
0.082
0563
0.054
250
0.082
0.081
0.358
0.160
750
0.115
0.119
0.522
0.363
1,500
0.107
0.135
0.620
0.507
3,000
0.100
0221
0.627
0.574
'Dissolved and particulate fraction concentration
AK0027.W51
-------
waters near the Farallon Islands were below analytical detection limits. Organochlorine
compounds measured by IEC (1982) in seawater collected at the 100-Fathom site were
nondetectable. However, Nybakken et al. (1984) measured concentrations of total (dissolved and
particulate) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) of 24-105 ng/liter, dichloro-
diphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) of 4.6-27 ng/liter, and trace amounts (less than 500 ng/liter) of
chlordane, hexachlorocyclohexane, dieldrin, and toxaphene in waters over the continental shelf
and shelf edge.
3.2.4 Regional Geology
The regional geology characterization includes bottom topography, presence and location of large
geologic structures such as submarine canyons and seamounts, and sediment transport pathways.
3.2.4.1 Topography
The LTMS study region is located in the physiographic province called the Farallones
Escarpment. Within this province are two geomorphic areas: a northern segment where the
escarpment is about 35 km wide with a slope of six degrees and more, and a southern segment
where the width of the escarpment is about 75 km wide with a slope of about two degrees (Karl
1992). The approximate boundary between the northern and southern geomorphic areas is
37°30'N, which also separates Study Areas 2, 3, and 4 to the south from Study Area 5 to the
north.
In 1990, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a geological, geophysical, and
geotechnical study of the 3,400 km2 LTMS study region ranging in depths from 200 to 3,200 m.
Regional geologic data were used to evaluate bottom stability and sediment transport, as well as
other physical and benthic processes, and to identify areas of sediment erosion, bypass, and
accumulation (Karl 1992). The regional geological setting as determined from the USGS survey
is described below.
The northern segment of the escarpment has the most rugged topographic relief. This relatively
narrow part of the escarpment is transected by numerous gullies and canyons that dissect the
slope from the shelf-slope break to the lower slope and/or basin floor. These topographic
features are oriented roughly perpendicular to the regional trend (generally northwest-to-
southeast) of the Farallones Escarpment. A canyon within Study Area 5 represents one of these
slope features. Between the gullies and canyons are steep intercanyon ridges that consist of
barren rock outcrops of consolidated or hardened strata and crystalline basalt (Chin et al. 1992).
Within the gullies and canyons, unconsolidated muds have accumulated to thicknesses up to 5 m.
Although the northern area has a rugged topography and relatively steep slopes, few examples
of massive down-slope movement could be detected from either sidescan or subbottom acoustic
records. If slump structures exist in this area, they are of small spatial dimensions and represent
only thin intervals of sediment (Chin et al. 1992).
3-48
-------
The southern segment of the escarpment is wider than the northern segment with a mean slope
of about one-third that of the northern area. The major topographic features consist of Pioneer
Canyon and Pioneer, Guide, and Mulburry Seamounts at the base of the slope. Pioneer Canyon
is located between Study Areas 3 and 4, and Pioneer Seamount is immediately west of Study
Area 3. Sidescan sonar records show that these features consist of volcanic basement rock
covered with hemipelagic (i.e., predominantly from oceanic or planktonic origins with little
terrigenous material) sediment.
The topography within both Study Area 3 and Study Area 4 is relatively featureless (Karl 1992).
Study Area 3 is located to the north of Pioneer Canyon on a gently sloping, featureless plain that
is covered by a thin and variable sediment layer. Study Area 4 is located south of Pioneer
Canyon on a gently sloping area where the sediment cover is sparse and patchy. Outcrops of
volcanic rock are present within both study areas and in Pioneer Canyon. Subbottom acoustic
profiles show a thin, discontinuous layer of unconsolidated sediment covering older sedimentary
strata or crystalline bedrock. Soft sediment is 5 to 15 m thick over the southern escarpment. The
thin layer of soft sediment makes it difficult to observe small-scale acoustic features that are
diagnostic of slumping, soft sediment deformation, and faulting.
Geotechnical analysis of sediment cores collected in both the north and south escarpment areas
showed that the upper 3 m of the sediment column appear to be physically stable under
conditions of static gravitational loading. A stability model predicted that the equilibrium
thickness for sediments deposited on a slope of one to five degrees should be 5 to 15 m thick
(Edwards et al. 1992). Subbottom profiling results from the USGS survey confirm this
prediction, as sediment cover falls within this thickness range. However, the surficial sediment
cover becomes marginally stable under conditions of seismic loading as modeled from extreme
earthquake events. These slope stability predictions only apply to existing slope sediment, and
extrapolation or extension of these conclusions to dredged material that may be rapidly loaded
onto the ambient bottom are not warranted (Edwards et al. 1992).
3.2.4.2 Sediment Transport
Interactions of strong bottom currents and surface waves can generate bottom shear stresses that
are sufficient to suspend and initiate bedload transport of bottom sediments over the continental
shelf (Cacchione et al. 1987; Grant et al. 1984). Mass sediment movement in the form of
turbidity currents and submarine avalanches also may occur on the slope in response to
downwelling, internal waves, or earthquakes. Some downslope and offshore movement of
sediments may be indicated by results from recent EPA surveys showing onshore to offshore
gradients in sediment grain size, sediment organic content, and concentrations of some trace
sediment chemical parameters (SAIC 1992a,c).
3-49
-------
Study Area 2
Of the four areas investigated during the EPA and Navy surveys, Study Area 2 has the greatest
potential for resuspension and transport of sediment The bottom sediments within Study Area
2 are extensively rippled (Figure 3.2-9) indicating active bedload transport of sand. At the
shelf-slope transition (180 to 200 m) south of Pioneer Canyon, a coarser sand zone
(Figure 3.2-10) lies within a depth zone coincident with the pycnocline (water density
stratification layer) (Vercoutere et al. 1987). This may represent an area where shoaling internal
waves intersect and scour the bottom. The surface component of the California Current and
Undercurrent also can affect bottom stresses in this zone, resulting in downslope movement of
shelf sands. No low kinetic energy regions were identified within Study Area 2. (The low
kinetic energy area indicated in Figure 3.2-9 likely is an artifact of high biological activity
obscuring sand ripples; SAIC 1992c). Thus, dredged material discharged at this shelf location
would not be expected to remain in place for any prolonged period of time.
Study Areas 3 and 4
Study Areas 3 and 4 share several attributes related to sediment transport. Mapped distributions
of rippled and scoured bottoms within the shallower depths of Study Area 3 and regions
shoreward of Study Area 4 (Figure 3.2-9) appear to be affected episodically by bottom scour
related to occasional "benthic storms" (SAIC 1992c). Between these strong flow events, the
bottom may experience low kinetic energy periods when fine-grained sediments and organic
"fluff" layers can accumulate until they are resuspended and transported by the next storm event.
The periodicity of these benthic storms is unknown. These conclusions are based on sediment
patterns observed within depth zones of approximately 200 to 500 m that lie within areas affected
by the nearshore California Undercurrent. This current has a mean velocity of about 5 to 10
cm/sec (Vercoutere et al. 1987). However, "bursts" within this current regime of up to 40 cm/sec
have been measured (see Section 3.2.2). Near-bottom flow velocities of 5 to 10 cm/sec are too
weak to erode and transport large quantities of fine-grained sediments, whereas velocities over
25 cm/sec are capable of initiating bed erosion (Rhoads and Boyer 1982).
Within the depth range of 600 to 800 m, where the slope flattens from 8 to 4%, the mud (silt and
clay) content of the sediment increases from 12 to 55%. This is called the "mud line" or the mud
transition (Vercoutere et al. 1987) that generally separates nondepositional or erosional bottoms
above this depth range from more depositional regimes below this depth range. However, as
noted above, the depositional regimes below 600 to 800 m also may experience episodic
scouring.
Depositional, low kinetic sites corresponding to Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are located in Study
Areas 3 and 4 (designated as Sites "B" and "C," respectively, in Figure 3.2-10) below depths of
approximately 1,400 m. These are the only study area sites that consist of muddy sediments with
biogenic features such as fecal mounds, feeding pits, and pelletal layers at the sediment-water
interface. The presence of these delicate structures is strong evidence that sediment transport is
not taking place. Thus, dredged material deposited within these two areas likely will remain
3-50
-------
1ZT15CDW
izroodow
i2r<5(»w
I
0 NAUTICAL MILES '0
KWM = Rippled/scoured bottoms
I = Lower kinetic energy bottoms
Figure 3.2-9. Mapped Distribution of Ripples and Scour Lag Deposits (High Kinetic
Energy Bottoms) and Sediments Dominated by Biogenic Features (Low
Kinetic Energy Bottoms).
Source: SAIC 1992c.
-------
Figure 3.2-10. Mapped Distribution of Major Modal Grain Size (phi units).
Areas A, B, and C identify silt-clay deposilional sites.
Source: SAIC 1992c.
-------
undisturbed for relatively longer periods of time than material discharged into the shallower
portions of Study Areas 3 and 4 or within Study Area 2.
Pioneer Canyon
The Pioneer Canyon sediments have less evidence of rippling and scouring than the adjacent
portions of Study Areas 3 and 4 (Figure 3.2-9). Because Pioneer Canyon is incised into the
Farallones escarpment, it apparently is less affected by the California Undercurrent than areas at
comparable depths in Study Areas 3 and 4. The major transport direction is along the axis of
the canyon. A "pool" of mud has been mapped extending from 1,100 m to deeper than 1,400
m. This low kinetic energy area is designated as Site "A" in Figure 3.2-10.
Study Area 5
Study Area 5 contains a geological environment where sediments entering the escarpment from
the continental shelf are flushed through numerous canyons. However, sediments probably do
not accumulate over the long term until they reach the continental rise, west of Study Area 5.
The floors of gullies and canyons contain unconsolidated sediment, but these deposits may be
only temporary repositories. No unequivocal evidence of mass sediment movement within the
study area was found (SAIC 1992a). All evidence of slumping is limited to steep slopes and
walls of submarine canyons. The intercanyon ridges and sides of gullies and canyons are largely
experiencing erosion. However, a low kinetic energy (depositional) area occurs at depths
between 2,200 to 3,000 m in the trough axis and extends to the western portion of the study area
(Figure 3.2-11). The depositional area (corresponding to part of Alternative Site 5) within Study
Area 5 is at a greater depth than depositional areas (corresponding to Alternative Sites 3 and 4,
respectively) within Study Areas 3 and 4.
3.2.5 Sediment Characteristics
Sediment characteristics considered for an ODMDS designation include grain size, mineralogy,
organic content, and chemical contaminant concentrations. In the Gulf of the Farallones, many
of these parameters show depth-related trends (e.g., SAIC 1992a,c; Booth et al. 1989) which
reflect the sources of . sediments and particulate matter, transport pathways, and
erosional/depositional characteristics of the specific locations within the region.
3.2.5.1 Grain Size
Sediment grain size generally decreases with increasing depth, from predominantly sand-sized
sediments on the continental shelf to fine-grained muds on the continental slope (Figure 3.2-12).
The sand-to-sandy mud transition occurs at depths of 600 to 800 m (SAIC 1992c). Above this
transition depth, waves and the California Undercurrent can scour the bottom, preferentially
removing the finer-grained sediments. At depths below this range the scouring effects are
attenuated and fine-grained sediments have longer residence times on the bottom (Vercoutere et
al. 1987). However, some localized areas of relatively coarser and relatively finer grained
3-53
-------
123'30'W 123'28'W 12326*W 123'24'W 123'22'W
——— FORMER CUOA BOUNDARY
® BOX-CORE AMI SEDIMENT-PROFILE IMAGE STATIONS. 1#»0
• SOMMEHT-PRomt MACE STATIONS
Figure 3.2-11. Low Kinetic Energy Zones in LTMS Study Area 5.
Source: SAIC 1992a.
-------
depth (m)
Figure 3.2-12. Patterns in Sediment Grain Size (mean phi) with Depth Within the
LTMS Study Region.
Symbols indicate the origins of the composite samples.
Source: SAIC 1992c.
-------
sediments were observed in Study Areas 3 through 5 which reflect small-scale differences in the
kinetic energy or erosional/depositional characteristics of the specific location. Additionally, the
Farallon Islands may contribute a local source of relatively coarser sediments to adjacent areas
(Hanna 1952).
The results of sediment grain size and organic content measurements from the EPA surveys are
listed in Table 3.2-5. Grain size characteristics are summarized for each of the LTMS study
areas in the following sections. The mineralogical and organic content of sediments in the study
areas are summarized in Sections 3.2.5.2 and 3.2.5.3, respectively. Trace metal, hydrocarbon,
and radionuclide characteristics are discussed in Sections 3.2.5.4 through 3.2.5.6, respectively.
Study Area 2
Sediment grain size measurements from the EPA surveys show that sediments in Study Area 2
are primarily sandy (89%) with some silt (10%; Figure 3.2-13), a low organic carbon content
(0.4%), and low carbonate concentration relative to sediments in Study Areas 3, 4, and 5. Study
Area 2 sediments are relatively coarse with a mean phi (negative log2 of particle grain size in
mm) of 3.6 and a range of 3.5 to 3.9 phi (SAIC 1992c). Study Area 2 sediments are compact
with a high total solids (TS) content (72%), which is related to the large sand fraction. Similar
sediment grain size distributions were reported from previous surveys of the continental shelf area
by Kinnetics (Parr et al. 1987), IEC (1982), and Nybakken et al. (1984). Temporal and spatial
variability in grain size are expected due to seasonal and annual differences in current velocities,
wave conditions, and variations in the input of fine-grained sediments associated with outflow
from San Francisco Bay (Parr et al. 1987).
Sand waves and ripples that likely extend throughout most of the area indicate that this is a high
energy sedimentary regime (Figure 3.2-9). Study Area 2 bottom sediments also are mixed
vertically through bioturbation by infaunal organisms. However, in spite of the high mixing by
currents and bioturbation, the sediments appear to have a high oxygen demand as no apparent
redox potential discontinuity (RPD) depth was observed at most stations located below a depth
of 80 m (SAIC 1992c). The high oxygen demand is likely related to a high flux of organic
material which is produced in the surface water layer and subsequently sinks as large organic
particles to the bottom.
Study Area 3
Sediments in Study Area 3 range from sandy sediments at the eastern edge below the shelf break
to silty sediments at the deeper western end. The average sediment composition throughout the
study area consists of 44% sand and 50% silt (Table 3.2-5). Organic matter concentrations are
quite low in the eastern part of Study Area 3, but are higher in sediments in the deeper western
end where finer-grained sediments are more prevalent Variations in sediment composition from
the northern to the southern parts of the study area also are apparent. Sediments along the
northern edge are sandy, rippled, and contain lower organic carbon concentrations than the sillier
sediments that occur to the south along the same isobath. A sand outcrop occurs at about 1,400
3-56
-------
Table 3.2-5. Descriptive Statistics for Sediment Parameters from Study Areas 2, 3, 4,
and 5.
Mean, minimum, maximum, range of values (difference between maximum and minimum),
and number of samples are shown for the study areas, deep stations (DS) west of Study Area
4, and Pioneer Canyon. All concentrations are on a dry-weight basis. Percentage of Total
Solids (TS), as well as various other sediment types, is presented.
Area
Depth
-------
Table 3.2-5.
Continued.
Area
Depth
(m)
%TS
Avg.
Phi
%
Gravel
%
Sand
%
sa
%
Clay
%
Carbonate
%C
C/N
Study Area 5*
Mean
2759
30.9
5.33
1.2
13.0
76.1
9.9
1.4
3.50
0.45
9.07
Minimum
2385
21.7
3.95
0.3
2.1
48.5
7.6
1.2
2.70
0.34
8.85
Maximum
3085
43.9
5.78
6.4
37.1
90.3
15.2
1.6
3.86
0.49
9.25
Range
700
22.2
1.83
6.1
35.0
41.8
7.6
0.4
1.16
0.15
0.40
No. Samples
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
DS~
Mean
2604
37.9
5.32
0
16.1
75.4
8.6
1.1
3.13
0.41
8.91
Minimum
2205
35.3
4.80
0
2.1
51.7
2.3
0.9
2.63
0.34
8.75
Maximum
3060
39.5
5.87
0
41.3
90.4
14.8
1.3
3.77
0.48
9.06
Range
855
4.2
1.07
0
39.2
38.7
12.5
0.4
1.14
0.14
0.31
No. Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pioneer Canyon***
Mean
1376
45.3
4.74
0.1
32.8
60.8
6.3
1.6
2.06
0.26
9.03
Minimum
550
35.0
4.47
0
19.3
47.0
3.1
0.5
0.98
0.12
8.76
Maximum
2065
60.7
5.02
0.3
47.7
69.2
11.5
2.3
2.81
0.36
9.34
Range
1515
25.7
0.55
0.3
28.4
22.2
8.4
1.8
1.83
0.24
0.58
No. Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Sources:
Stations MO. 20 (SAIC 1992a).
Four deep stations west of Study Area 4 (SAIC 1992a,c).
Pioneer Canyon (SAIC 1992a,c).
AK0028.W31
3-58
-------
L»J
Ut
v£>
100
80 -
U)
60
>*
la
u
(/)
40 -
20 -
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
depth (m)
3,000
Area 2
~
Area 3
A
Area 4
O
Deep
Stations
¦
Pioneer
Cannon
Area 5
•
Area 5
Border
*
3,500
Figure 3.2-13. Patterns in Sediment Silt Content with Depth Within the LTMS
Study Region.
Symbols indicate the origins of the composite samples.
Source: SAIC 1992c.
-------
m depth, and probably continues to the southeast through the center of Study Area 4. crossing
Study Area 4 from the northwest to the southeast. The sediment characteristics within Study
Area 3 indicate that the average kinetic energy may be intermediate between that noted for shelf
depths within Study Area 2 and that indicated for the deeper sites west of Study Area 4 and
Pioneer Canyon (SAIC 1992c).
Study Area 4
Overall, Study Area 4 had the second coarsest sediments (Table 3.2-5), with an average 62.5%
sand and relatively low silt (33.4%) and organic carbon (1.3%) content. Study Area 4 ranked
between Study Areas 2 and 3 in average kinetic energy based on grain size (SAIC 1992c).
Fine-grained sediments and organic matter generally increased as with increased depth. A sandy
outcrop at about 1,400 m, extending from the southeast to the northwest portion of the study area,
may be laterally correlated with a similar outcrop seen in Study Area 3. Below 1,400 m, a low
kinetic energy bottom exists with sediment properties characteristic of a depositional zone
(Figure 3.2-9).
Study Area 5
Sediments within this study area were the finest of all the study areas, including those collected
from deep sites west of Study Area 4 (Table 3.2-5). In addition, Study Area 5 sediments had
higher percentages of carbon and nitrogen than sediments from the other areas. Although the
high mean phi value corresponds to fine-grained sediments, some gravel sized material occurred
on a knoll just south of Study Area 5 that showed other features typical of erosional areas
including a high percentage of total solids and low carbon and nitrogen concentrations. In
general, the gully area surveyed by SAIC (1992a) in the northern Farallones Escarpment shares
many features, although on a smaller scale, with Pioneer Canyon. The characteristics of both
features indicate that the axes of the depressions are collecting fine-grained sediments and organic
matter. Results from the USGS surveys of the area suggested that sediments accumulating in the
axes of the gullies may be temporary, and that the long-term depositional sites for sediments may
be the basin floor to the west of these features (Karl 1992). Earthquakes and/or density currents
periodically may initiate movement of accumulated sediment in a downslope direction.
3.2.5.2 Mineralogy
The clay mineralogy of the continental shelf sediments off California was described by Griggs
and Hein (1980). Booth et al. (1989) reported trends with depth in mineralogical patterns; in
general, the quantity of clay minerals increased while the nonclay minerals—primarily feldspar,
quartz, and heavy minerals (amphibole)—decreased with depth. Smectite is the predominant clay
mineral in the continental shelf sediments, with lesser amounts of chlorite, kaolinite, and illite.
Booth et al. (1989) suggested that there is a similarity between the clay mineral assemblage from
the low-level radioactive waste sites (i.e., Study Area 5) and that of the Russian River sediments
(north of San Francisco Bay). This observation strongly suggests that sediment input to the Gulf
slope regions is from areas to the north.
3-60
-------
Vercoutere et al. (1987) described the mineralogical attributes of sediments in a portion of Study
Areas 2, 3, and 4 at depths less than 1,200 m. However, mineralogical data for the low kinetic
energy depositional areas at depths below 1,400 m (including depositional Sites "A" in Pioneer
Canyon, "B" in Study Area 3, and "C" in Study Area 4) were not included in their study.
Sediment characteristics at depths corresponding to the cone of the OMZ (500 to 900 m) appear
to be different from those of the upper and lower edges of the OMZ. The upper boundary has
abundant glauconite and foraminiferal carbonate, whereas the lower boundary has abundant fecal
pellets, high mica content, high foraminiferal carbonate, low concentrations of quartz and
feldspar, and no glauconite. The core of the OMZ has an increased content of mica, lower
carbonate, and a higher relative percentage of quartz and feldspar; glauconite and fecal pellets
are only minor components (Vercoutere et al. 1987).
Sediments within Study Area 5 contained high organic carbon concentrations (2.7 to 3.8% dry
wt.), reflecting high productivity of the overlying water (SAIC 1992a). This high surface
productivity also is reflected in biogenic carbonate which is contributed mainly by
coccolithophores (1 to 2% by wt.); no foraminifera were observed. Biogenic opal also is present
in the form of diatom frustules. The bulk of the minerals is contributed by clay (phyllosilicate)
minerals, dominated by illite and chlorite. Smectite and kaolinite are present but less common.
Clays range from 24 to 73% of the total minerals present Quartz is the next most abundant
mineral (20 to 36% of total minerals), and feldspar ranges from 6 to 52% of total minerals
(SAIC 1992a).
3.2.5.3 Sediment Organic Content
Concentrations of organic carbon and organic nitrogen in sediments from the study areas are
presented in Table 3.2.5. In general, the concentrations of organic carbon and nitrogen increase
with increasing depth (Figure 3.2-14) and with decreasing grain size (i.e., higher phi,
Figure 3.2-12). As discussed above for the individual study areas, these trends also are correlated
with regional trends in the fine fractions of sediments. Trends in the organic content of the
sediments may influence the spatial trends of concentrations of trace metals and trace organic
contaminants (Sections 3.2.5.4 and 3.2.5.5). Positive correlations between inventories of metals,
organic matter, and grain size are well known (Forstner and Wittman 1983).
3.2.5.4 Sediment Trace Metals
Concentrations of the selected sediment trace metals measured during the EPA and Navy surveys
of Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5, and Pioneer Canyon (SAIC 1992a,c) are summarized in
Table 3.2-6. For comparison, data for sediments from San Francisco Bay and NS&T Program
sites, for deep-sea sediments (primarily clay and carbonate sediments), and for local bedrock are
presented in Table 3.2-7. The local bedrock of the Franciscan Complex, which consists of basalts
and shales, is a likely source of sediments to the offshore region (Yamamoto 1987; Murray et
al. 1991) and, therefore, represents the natural or background concentrations of sediment metals.
3-61
-------
5.0
4.0 -
.c
o>
'Q)
£
v_
U
0s
C
o
-O
o 1.0
3.0 -
2.0 -
0.0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
depth (m)
Area 2
~
Area 3
A
Area 4
O
Deep
Stations
¦
Pioneer
Cai^on
Area 5
•
Area 5
Border
*
3,500
Figure 3.2-14. Patterns in Sediment Total Organic Carbon Concentrations with
Depth Within the LTMS Study Region.
Symbols indicate the origins of the composite samples.
Source: SAIC 1992a,c.
-------
Table 3.2-6. Trace Metal Concentrations in Sediments for Study Areas 2, 3, 4,
and 5, and Pioneer Canyon.
Metal concentrations are in ppm (dry weight) except for aluminum (Al) which is in
percent (dry weight). Range is the difference between the maximum and minimum value.
Area
Ag
Al
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hfl
Ni
Pb
Study Area 2
Mean
0.115
6.83
0.854
189
11.7
0.04
54.5
15.7
Minimum
0.101
6.77
0.829
141
11.6
0.03
54.4
15.6
Maximum
0.129
6.89
0.678
236
11.7
0.04
54.5
15.7
Range
0.028
0.12
0.049
95
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.1
No. Samples
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Study Area 3
Mean
0.518
6.47
0.373
168
24.3
0.08
66.3
13.8
Minimum
0.191
6.17
0.172
156
15.8
0.05
61.0
12.1
Maximum
0.687
6.83
0.770
173
34.1
0.12
73
14.8
Range
0.496
0.66
0.598
17
18.3
0.07
12.0
2.7
No. Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Study Area 4
Mean
0.403
5.92
0.188
162
27.4
0.06
65.1
15.1
Minimum
0.250
4.85
0.144
117
17.3
<0.01
54.1
10.3
Maximum
0.526
6.72
0284
185
42.6
0.12
75.7
24.9
Range
0.276
1.87
0.140
68
25.3
0.12
21.6
14.6
No. Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Study Area 5
Mean
0.55
6.67
0.31
149
41.9
0.20
92.2
10.4
Minimum
0.45
5.90
0.24
127
19.8
0.13
77.0
9.6
Maximum
0.64
7.61
0.38
168
62.5
0.36
115.0
12.0
Range
0.19
1.71
0.14
41
42.7
0.23
38.0
2.4
No. Samples
4
13
4
13
13
11
13
4
AK0029.W51
3-63
-------
Table 3.2-6.
Continued.
Area
Ag
A1
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Pioneer Canyon
Mean
0.713
6.62
0.462
151
28.1
0.06
71.1
12.5
Minimum
0.186
6.24
0.185
143
15.8
<0.01
55.7
12.0
Maximum
1.070
7.01
1.060
164
38.3
0.10
85.5
13.1
Range
0.884
0.77
0.875
21
22.5
0.10
29.8
1.1
No. Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Source: SAIC (1992a,c).
AK0029.W31
3-64
-------
Table 3.2-7.
Trace Metals in Sediments from the Study Areas and Comparison Data.
Study Areas 2.3, md 4*
NOAA NS&T Program?
Deep-Sea Sediments*
Average Franciscan
Complex*
San Francisco Bay Sites
Ail U.S.
Sites
Fs*Sed8
(> 20% with phi > 4.0)
Coarse Seds
(> 20% wfth
phi <4.0)
. Metis (ppm dry M):
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Range
Clay
Carbonate
Chert
Shale
Aluminum (%)
6.42
4.85-7.01
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
8.40
2.00
1.4
122
Cadmium
0.41
0.14-1.06
0.42
0.18-0.81
0.28
0.01-11.3
0.42
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
Chromium
164
117-236
425
185-1,587
259
52-3,374
90
11
9.5
90
Copper
24.7
11.6-42.8
69.4
49.9-93.7
13.7
0.4-319
250
30
(NA)
(NA)
Lead
13.9
10.3-24.9
40.8
21.4-84.9
52
0.9-280
80
9
25
78
Mercury
0.06
< 0.01-0.12
0.32
0.03-0.54
0.05
0.007-4.31
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
Nickel
66.0
54.1-65.5
151.6
103.4-252.1
72.1
1-252
225
30
16
70
Silver
0.50
0.10-1.07
0.5
0.08-0.87
0.44
0.01-11.6
0.11
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
'Data are from 16 composite samples (SAIC 1992c).
'NOAA (1908).
Turekian and Wedepohl (1961).
^ala from the Franciscan Complex (Central belt) in Sausalito (CA), 1.5 km north of the Golden Gate Bridge are from Yamamoto (1987).
NA = not available
AK0030 W5I
-------
10
H 8
a>
o>
$
o
°L
E 4
c
E
2
ca
aluminum
6
Ao" Al
o
¦**
*
Area g ('91)
Area^('91)
Area £ ('91)
Pioneer
Cai^on
Area ('91)
Area 5 ('91)
Bonier
Area g ('90)
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
depth (m)
2,500
3,000
3,500
cadmium
1,000
1,500 2,000
depth (m)
2,500
3,000
3,500
Figure 3.2-15. Sediment Concentrations of: (A) Aluminum; (B) Cadmium; (C)
Chromium, and (D) Copper Within the LTMS Study Region.
Symbols indicate tbe origins or the composite samples.
Source: SAIC 1992a,c.
AK00B4
p. 1 0(2
3-66
-------
300
.250 -
g>
'a)
5 200
¦O
E
a.
a.
150 -
E
.2 100 -
E
o
I.
O 50
chromium
o
A
A A
Om
_L
_L
*
~
*
• •• •
JL
1 **
Area g ('91)
Area£('91)
Area £ ('91)
Pioneer
Ca^on
Area ^('91)
Area 5 ('91)
Boater
Area ^ ('90)
500 1,000 1.500 2,000
depth (m)
2,500
3,000
3,500
copper
*
Area g ('91)
-
Area£('91)
¦
• *
•
Area £('91)
-
* *
Pioneer
.
° i
Cai^on
¦
A A
Area^('91)
Li •
¦ ¦ *
Area 5 ("91)
A A O
Boater
A
¦ 0
Area £ ('90)
"
: .
-
! 1 I .
i
60
£50
gj
a)
^ 40
¦D
q. 30
Q.
-------
The concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel in sediments from the study
areas are comparable to those in deep-sea sediments and to the Franciscan Complex. In contrast,
concentrations for chromium and silver are higher in samples from the study areas. Comparative
data for silver and mercury concentrations in deep-sea sediments or the Franciscan Complex are
limited. However, measured concentrations of these metals generally are comparable to those
reported in sediments from other coastal areas (e.g., Bruland et al. 1974). Nevertheless, mean
concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, mercury and nickel in sediments from the study areas
are lower than those in sediments in San Francisco Bay as measured in the NS&T Program.
Trends in concentrations of trace metals with water depth are illustrated in Figure 3.2-15. Values
represent the composite sediment samples and the average depth of the locations sampled for
each composite sample during the EPA and Navy surveys. In general, concentrations of copper,
mercury, nickel, and silver increase with depth over the study region (Figure 3.2- 15D). These
trends also follow the trends for decreasing TS content and increasing organic carbon and
nitrogen concentrations and decreasing sediment grain size. In contrast, cadmium concentrations
decrease with increasing depth (Figure 3.2-15B), whereas, distinct trends with depth are not
apparent for aluminum, chromium, and lead (Figure 3.2-15A,C).
The association of relatively higher concentrations of metals in sediments with finer grain size
has been reported from other geographic regions (Forstner and Wittman 1983). The observed
differences between study areas in the sediment trace metal concentrations generally are
consistent with spatial patterns of sediment grain size and organic content. There is no evidence
of elevated sediment metals concentrations (i.e., unsupported by higher percentages of
fine-grained sediments) indicative of significant anthropogenic contaminations over the study
region.
Study Area 2
Sediments from Study Area 2 generally contained relatively high concentrations of cadmium and
chromium, but lower concentrations of silver and copper, compared to those in the other study
areas (Table 3.2-6). The mean cadmium concentration (0.854 ppm) is approximately two to five
times higher than mean concentrations for the other study areas, but is comparable to
concentrations measured in shelf sediments by Nybakken et al. (1984) and to concentrations in
sediments at similar depths in a relatively pristine area of the Santa Maria Basin, California
(Steinhauer and Imamura 1990). The chromium concentration (mean=189 ppm) was higher than
average concentrations for Santa Maria Basin sediments (45-102 ppm; Steinhauer et al. 1991)
and concentrations in local source rocks (Table 3.2-7). It is possible that enriched chromium
concentrations in the study area sediments are from weathering of bedrock sources containing
chromite minerals. Although the mean silver (0.115 ppm) and copper (11.7 ppm) concentrations
were relatively low, they were similar to average concentrations in Santa Maria Basin sediments
(0.15 and 13 ppm, respectively).
Concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, and mercury measured in shelf sediments by
Nybakken et al. (1984) were up to several times lower than those measured in Study Area 2
3-68
-------
sediments during the EPA surveys. The relatively lower concentrations reported by Nybakken
et al. likely were due to differences in analytical methodologies (sediment digestion procedures)
rather than to spatial or temporal changes.
Study Area 3
Concentrations of cadmium in Study Area 3 sediments were lower than those at Study Area 2
and decreased with increasing depth. The concentrations generally were greater than those at
Study Area 4, except at depths greater than 1,500 m (region of Alternative Sites 3 and 4), where
the concentrations were comparable. All measured cadmium concentrations are less than those
found in southern California slope sediments (1.45 ppm) and average deep-sea clays
(Table 3.2-7). Chromium concentrations were relatively uniform but somewhat high (mean=168
ppm). The average silver concentration in Study Area 3 was 0.518 ppm, which is greater than
that found in typical southern California slope or shelf sediments, crustal rocks, average shales,
and deep-sea clays and carbonates. Concentrations increased with depth to a maximum of
approximately 0.7 ppm. The average copper concentration in the study area was 24.3 ppm,
which is intermediate to those of the southern California slope (31 ppm) and continental shelf
(13 ppm). While the higher copper concentrations occur in deeper water, the range of
concentrations in Study Area 3 falls within the values cited above for other California slope and
shelf regions.
Study Area 4
The cadmium concentrations in Study Area 4 generally were low and uniform with few
exceptions. Concentrations for all other metals were similar to those in Study Area 3.
Pioneer Canyon
Pioneer Canyon sediments contained higher silver concentrations (mean=0.713 ppm) than any of
the study areas. The source of the silver, above natural background concentrations, is unknown.
Other trace metal concentrations generally were similar to those in Study Area 3.
Study Area 5
Concentrations of silver, chromium, lead, and aluminum in Study Area 5 (SAIC 1992a) were
similar to those at Study Areas 3 and 4. Cadmium concentrations were similar to those at Study
Area 3. Concentrations of copper (mean=41.9 ppm), mercury (mean=0.20 ppm), and nickel
(mean=92.2 ppm) were higher than those from the other study areas.
Although some differences between the study areas in the concentrations of individual trace
metals were apparent, the observed trends may relate to differences in sediment grain size and
organic content. The magnitudes of the concentrations of individual metals generally are
comparable to expected natural or background levels. With the possible exception of silver
concentrations in Pioneer Canyon sediments and mercury concentrations in the Study Area 5
3-69
-------
sediments, there is no strong evidence of unusually high or enriched trace metal concentrations
suggestive of contamination from historical waste disposal operations or other anthropogenic
sources.
3.2.5.5 Sediment Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons in sediments include a variety of organic compound classes such as
non-chlorinated aliphatics (i.e., saturates), non-chlorinated aromatics, chlorinated pesticides, and
PCBs. Many aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons may be derived from a variety of natural (e.g.,
oil seeps), anthropogenic, and biogenic sources. For example, saturated and aromatic
hydrocarbons are principal components in residues of both crude and refined petroleum products.
In addition to direct inputs from spills of petroleum products and diagenetic sources (i.e., in situ
processes associated with marine sediments such as submarine oil seeps), inputs to marine
sediments of aliphatic and aromatic compounds of oil-related origin can result from atmospheric
fallout of combustion products. Certain hydrocarbons are produced naturally by marine as well
as terrestrial biota, although the variety of biogenic compounds is limited relative to oil-derived
hydrocarbons. The general composition of these biogenic hydrocarbons is quite different from
oil-derived hydrocarbons; these differences can be utilized to distinguish between sources of
hydrocarbons. For example, n-alkanes in oil have approximately equal concentrations of
compounds with odd and even numbers of carbon atoms (i.e., an odd to even ratio of
approximately 1). In contrast, biologically-produced n-alkanes have a predominance of n-alkanes
with odd numbers of carbon atoms (i.e., odd to even ratio substantially greater than 1).
Consequently, the overall composition of hydrocarbon classes such as n-alkanes can be used to
identify the generic source of compounds in sediment samples.
Concentrations of total n-alkanes and PAHs in sediments from the LTMS study areas are
summarized in Table 3.2-8 and shown in Figure 3.2-16. The values in the figure are from the
sixteen composite samples from Study Areas 2, 3, and 4, and from Pioneer Canyon.
Concentrations of both n-alkanes and PAHs generally increase with increasing depth in the study
areas. As noted, total organic carbon also increases with depth throughout the study areas
(Figure 3.2-14). Figure 3.2-17 shows concentrations for total n-alkanes and PAHs in the
individual composites and the corresponding concentrations of total organic carbon, and indicates
a close correspondence between these parameters. Consequently, the levels of total n-alkanes and
PAHs in sediment samples from the study areas appear to be related to transport processes that
also affect the overall organic content of sediments in the study areas. Similar correlations
between concentrations for total hydrocarbons and organic carbon content have been reported in
surface sediments from the Gulf of Mexico (Boehm 1987).
Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs are synthetic compounds that are not native to the marine
environment. These classes of compounds can derive from surface runoff, aerial fallout, and
disposal of contaminated wastes. Concentrations of total chlorinated pesticides and total PCBs
are summarized in Table 3.2-8, and concentrations of total DDT and total PCBs are plotted in
Figure 3.2-18.
3-70
-------
Table 3.2-8. Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Sediments for Study Areas 2,3, and 4,
and Pioneer Canyon.
Hydrocarbon concentrations are in ppb (dry weight) except for the Unresolved Complex
Mixture which is in ppm (dry weight). Range is the difference between the maximum and
minimum values.
Area
Alphatic
Hydrocaibons
Alkanes
Potynudear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Unresolved
Complex Mbthffe
Total
Pesticides
Total PCBs*
Study Area 2
Mean
414
127
1.2
1.61
15.0
Minimum
414
123
1.1
1.50
14.8
Maximum
414
131
1.3
1.71
15.1
Range
0.1
8.21
0.2
0.21
0.03
No. Samples
2
2
2
2
2
Study Area 3
Mean
1,200
317
4.9
3.81
28.4
Minimum
752
211
3.6
2.34
15.5
Maximum
1.440
390
6.3
4.51
68.1
Range
6912
180
2.7
2.17
52.6
No. Samples
5
5
5
5
5
Study Area 4
Mean
1,300
349
6.3
3.40
18.8
Minimum
704.5
200
2.4
2.14
14.8
Maximum
2,060
585
13.3
4.84
23.1
Range
1,360
385
10.9
2.70
8.3
No. Samples
4
4
4
4
4
Pioneer Canyon
Mean
1,745
446
10.1
4.61
18.8
Minimum
964
257
5.0
220
15.7
Maximum
2,290
610
16.1
5.98
21.4
Range
1,320
353
11.1
3.78
5.7
No. Samples
5
5
5
5
5
"The method detection lim# for total PCB concentrations is approximately 20 ppb; values below 20 ppb should be considered estimates
Source: SAIC (1992c)
AK0C31.W5I
3-71
-------
2,500
gj 2.000
0
5
"a
-O
a.
CL
1,500
tn
a>
c 1,000
(0
ca
¦
£ 500
o
¦ A
A O
A o A
~ ~
_L
_L
500
1,000 1,500
depth (m)
2,000
2,500
600
_500 ~
x:
O)
a>
$ 400 h
¦D
q.300
I
<200
aj
o
Ary 2
Ar^ 3
Ar^i 4
Pioneer
Cai^on
100 -
B
_L
500
1,000 1,500
depth (m)
2,000
2,500
Figure 3.2-16. Sediment Concentrations of: (A) Total n-alkanes and (B) Total
PAHs Within the LTMS Study Region.
Symbols indicate the origins of the composite samples.
Source: SA1C 1992c.
AK0085 3_72
-------
total n-alkanes and organic carbon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
composite sample ID
total PAH and organic carbon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
composite sample ID
Figure 3.2-17. Sediment Concentrations of: (A) Total n-alkanes and Organic
Carbon and (B) Total PAH and Organic Carbon Within the LTMS
Study Region.
Source: SAIC 1992c.
AKOOB6
3-73
-------
total DDT
1,000 1,500
depth (m)
2,000
2,500
total PCB
80
70
o> „
'a) 60
-D 50
_Q
Q.
^40
CO
o
— 30
«3
20
10
500
1,000 1,500
depth (m)
2,000
2.500
Figure 3.2-18.
Sediment Concentrations of Total DDT and Total PCBs Within the
LTMS Study Region.
Symbols indicate the origins of the composite samples.
Source: SAIC 1992c.
AK0087
3-74
-------
Study Areas 2, 3, and 4
Summaries of the concentrations of organic compounds in sediments from Study Areas 2, 3, and
4, and from Pioneer Canyon, are presented in Table 3.2-8. Study Area 3 had two to three times
the concentration of organic compounds as Study Area 2. However, except for pesticides and
total PCBs, the mean concentrations of other hydrocarbons were less than those in Study Area
4 or in Pioneer Canyon. Except for total PCBs, the concentrations of all organic compounds
were highest in the Pioneer Canyon, which probably reflects depositional focusing and transport
of sediments at this location.
Although samples from the study areas were analyzed for a variety of chlorinated pesticides, only
DDT analogs and isomers (particularly 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDD, and 2,4'-DDE) were routinely
detected; other chlorinated pesticides were not detected in the sediments. Individual PCBs
(congeners) were detected in the sediments, but at concentrations typically at or near the
analytical detection limits. Plots of concentrations for total DDT and total PCBs for the
composite samples are presented in Figure 3.2-18. Concentrations of total DDT generally
increase with depth along with the organic content of the sediments. These trends suggest that
DDT concentrations also are related to transport processes, reflecting the overall organic content
of sediments in the study areas.
Concentrations of total PCBs typically were at or below the analytical detection limits, with the
exception of measurable amounts of PCBs in sediments composited from three stations along the
1,000 m isobath in the northern portion of Study Area 3. Consequently, the sediment PCB
concentrations appear to be relatively uniform throughout the study areas, and no correlation
between PCB concentrations and organic carbon content is evident. The relatively elevated
concentration for PCBs in the single composite sample from Study Area 3 presumably reflects
a localized input of PCBs to the area.
Study Area 5
Hydrocarbons and other trace organic contaminants were not detected (i.e., were less than the
analytical detection limits) in sediments collected in Study Area 5 during the Navy surveys
(SAIC 1991,1992a). However, these samples were analyzed using different methods, with lower
analytical sensitivity (i.e., higher detection limits), than those used for sediments from Study
Areas 2, 3, and 4. Also, the concentrations of n-alkanes and many of the PAHs were not
analyzed in Study Area 5 sediments. Only the PCB Aroclor 1221 was present in concentrations
near the detection limit. The pesticide Lindane (=Gamma-BHC) also was detected in Study Area
5 sediments; whereas, this compound was not found in any of the samples from Areas 2, 3, 4,
and the Pioneer Canyon.
3-75
-------
Regional Summary
In general, a trend in increasing concentrations of hydrocarbon compounds with depth over the
study region is apparent. This relationship likely is not related to historical waste discharges or
proximity to source inputs. Rather, the magnitudes, composition, and spatial distributions reflect
correlations between sediment hydrocarbons, fine grain size, and higher organic contents as
observed in other marine environments.
Hydrocarbon data for sediments from San Francisco Bay and sites from the NS&T Program are
summarized in Table 3.2-9. Concentrations of hydrocarbons in sediments from the study areas
generally are lower than concentrations in San Francisco Bay sediments, although substantially
lower and higher concentrations for PAHs, DDT, and PCBs occur in coastal sediments from other
locations throughout the U.S.
Previous measurements of sediment hydrocarbons within the region indicated trace concentrations
of DDE (2.1-3.2 ng/g), DDD (up to 0.1 ng/g), and chlordane (2.2-2.8 ng/g) in sediments at the
100-Fathom site; PCBs were not detected (IEC 1982). Nybakken et al. (1984) reported similar
concentrations of DDE (0.2-1.6 ng/g), along with trace quantities of PCBs (0.2-0.5 ng/g), alpha-
and gamma-chlordanes (0.01-0.6 ng/g), and selected PAHs (1-74 ng/g phenanthrene, 1-49 ng/g
fluoranthene, and 1-56 ng/g pyrene) in sediments from the continental shelf and shelf edge. The
PAHs probably are derived primarily from particle discharges from San Francisco Bay and
atmospheric deposition of combustion-derived products.
With the exception of the relatively elevated concentration of total PCBs in the one composite
sample from Study Area 3, there was no evidence from the recent EPA surveys of significant
anthropogenic sediment contamination within the LTMS study areas. In a previous study,
Melzian et al. (1987) reported relatively high concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT
and PCBs) in the liver tissues of Dover sole (Microstomas pacificus) and sablefish (Anoplopoma
fimbria) collected at depths of 500 m and 1,000 m in the vicinities of the former low-level
radioactive and chemical munitions disposal sites. Although the source(s) of the chlorinated
organics in the fish liver tissues could not be discerned, Melzian et al. suggested that historical
wastes may represent a source for one or more of these contaminants.
3.2.5.6 Sediment Radionuclides
As discussed in Section 3.1, low-level radioactive wastes were disposed historically at several
locations within the Gulf of the Farallones. Several studies (PDC 1961; Dyer 1976; Noshkin et
al. 1978; Shell and Sugai 1980; Suchanek and Lagunas-Solar 1991) have been conducted to
determine whether the historical discharges have resulted in elevated radionuclide concentrations
in waters, sediments, or organism tissues. NOAA (1990) estimated that studies conducted
between 1960 and 1977 have collected over 900 water samples, 30 sediment cores, and 400 biota
samples, primarily near disposal sites A, B, and C (see Table 3.1-3).
3-76
-------
Table 3.2-9.
Hydrocarbons in Sediments from the Study Areas and Comparison
Data.
Study Areas 2,3, and 4'
NOAA NS&T Program'
San Francisco Bay Sites
AVU.S.
Sites
Fine Seds
(> 20% with phi > 4.0)
Coarse Seds
(>20* with
phi < 4.0)
Organtcs (ppb dry wt):
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Range
Total PAH
318
111-572
2,166
491-5230
799
2-57,800
Total DDT
3.42
1.40-5.54
15.8
3.0-44.9
0.33
0.04-6,891
Total PCB
21.3
14.6-68.1
62.6
33.3-82.8
10.5
0.3-2,069
'Data are from 16 composite samples (SAIC 1992c).
'NOAA (1988).
AK0032.W51
3-77
-------
Detectable amounts of several radionuclides, primarily cesium-137 (131Cs) and plutonium-239/240
^23
-------
3.3
Biological Environment
3.3.1 Plankton Community
This section presents information on plankton and their distributions and abundances in the
general vicinity of LTMS Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Plankton are free-floating organisms that typically drift with ocean currents, in contrast to
actively swimming species such as fish. In general, plankton can be divided into three broad
categories: prokaryotic bacterioplankton; phytoplankton, representing single-celled plants that
are capable of photosynthesis and which form an important base for many marine systems; and
zooplankton, which include animals that are a primary link in many food webs between
phytoplankton and larger marine organisms such as fish, sea birds, and marine mammals.
Zooplankton includes animals that remain planktonic throughout their life (holoplankton) as well
as larval stages of benthic invertebrates (meroplankton) and fish (ichthyoplankton). Plankton
distributions are characterized by high spatial patchiness, strong seasonal and inter-annual
variation, and direct responses to oceanic circulation (McGowan and Miller 1980). The basic
circulation pattern along the central California coast consists of the southward-flowing California
Current to depths of a few hundred meters and the northward-flowing California Undercurrent,
which often becomes a surface current during winter (Noble et al. 1992; Hayward and Mantyla
1990). This general pattern for coastal circulation can be modified by local topography and wind
fields, and can change considerably on time scales of a few days (Breaker and Mooers 1986).
Satellite imagery indicates that the Gulf of the Farallones is an area of high planktonic activity,
due to the combination of seasonal upwelling characteristic of the entire California coast (Barber
and Smith 1981), local effects of nutrient inputs from San Francisco Bay (KLI 1991), and such
features as the Point Reyes coastal upwelling jet (Noble et al. 1992). Detailed information on
seasonal patterns of production, abundance, and species composition for the LTMS study areas
is not available; however, a general description of the plankton community can be summarized
from studies along the central California coast Bence et al. (1992) present a study area-specific
review of plankton data available from NMFS, CDFG and CalCOFI research, and from CalCOFI
plankton atlases. The NMFS data focus on midwater trawl surveys and one ichthyoplankton
survey. The CDFG data consist of zooplankton samples collected between 1975 and 1980 during
a study of Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister). The CalCOFI data emphasizes ichthyoplankton
counts and plankton volume.
3.3.1.1 Phytoplankton
The predominant members of the phytoplankton community are diatoms, silicoflagellates,
coccolithophores (Chrysophyta), and dinoflagellates (Pyrrophyta). Three parameters commonly
used to describe phytoplankton communities are the following: (1) productivity, reflecting the
amount of new plant material formed per unit of time; (2) standing crop, representing the amount
of plant material present, usually expressed as concentrations of chlorophyll or cell number; and
3-79
-------
(3) species composition. Inter-annual variation and seasonal cycles of productivity and standing
crop reflect variations in the upwelling regime along the central and northern coast of California,
including the general study areas for this program. During the upwelling season, phytoplankton
blooms in northern California generally occur between March and August (Welch 1967). Diatom
growth is sparse in years of weak upwelling, while intermittent upwelling stimulates diatom
growth (Bolin and Abbott 1963).
The combination of seasonal coastal upwelling events and nutrient inputs from San Francisco Bay
promotes high primary productivity throughout the study area (KLI 1991). CalCOFI data indicate
that both chlorophyll a and phaeopigments are highest in continental shelf waters, which suggests
that standing stocks of phytoplankton are higher in nearshore areas (e.g., water depths similar to
Study Area 2 and the shallow portion of Study Area 3) than in offshore regions (Bence et al.
1992). Highest productivity levels between Point Sur and the Gulf of the Farallones occur within
approximately 50 km of the coast (Owen 1974). Average productivity values in the latter study
ranged from 342 to 586 mg carbon/m2/day over the course of a year. The maximum productivity
(1,300 mg carbon/m2/day) was reported for a site within 50 km of the Golden Gate during
August-September. The minimum productivity (256 mg carbon/m2/day) was observed during
a May-June cruise.
Standing crop lagged behind the cycle of productivity by about two months. Surface chlorophyll
concentrations ranged from less than 0.5 mg/m3 during July-September to 2-8 mg/m3 during
October-December (Owen 1974). Although Garrison (1976) reported similar values from waters
near the mouth of Monterey Bay, Ambler et al. (1985) measured chlorophyll concentrations
ranging from less than 1 mg/m3 between October and January to nearly 5 mg/m3 in April and
June. Differences in measurements of chlorophyll concentrations among studies may be related
to the time lag required for phytoplankton growth (Abbott and Zion 1985). Phytoplankton
initially respond to nutrient input with increased primary production, leading to increased
population size after a time lag, and resulting in a dynamic biological structure (Denman and
Abbott 1988).
Species composition of phytoplankton communities also varies seasonally. The spring/summer
phytoplankton bloom, coincident with upwelling events, is dominated by diatoms, specifically
species of Chaetoceros and Rhizosolenia. During non-upwelling periods, dinoflagellates of the
genera Ceratium and Peridinium dominate (Bolin and Abbott 1963; Welch 1967). A similar
seasonal pattern of species composition was observed along the central coast (Malone 1971) and
approximately 200 km south of the study area near Diablo Canyon (Icanberry and Warrick 1978).
In summary, several studies on phytoplankton along the central California coast indicate seasonal
cycles of productivity, standing crop, and species composition. It is anticipated that
phytoplankton within the LTMS study areas will exhibit the same general cycles, although factors
such as upwelling, the complex topography of the Gulf of the Farallones, and nutrient inputs
from San Francisco Bay may have significant localized effects. Productivity and standing crop
appear to be highest in continental shelf waters including Study Area 2 and the shallow portion
3-80
-------
of Study Area 3. Potential impacts to phytoplankton communities from dredged material disposal
activities are expected to be temporary (Section 4.4).
3.3.1.2 Zooplankton
An estimated 546 invertebrate zooplankton species occur in the California Current system
(Kramer and Smith 1972). Copepods and euphausiids, an important food source for many
organisms, including juvenile fish, dominate the holoplankton in terms of numbers and biomass,
although thalacians (salps), chaetognaths (arrow worms), and pelagic molluscs also are abundant
(Table 3.3.1-1). Common species in the California Current include the euphausiid Euphausia
pacifica, copepods of genera Calanus, Neocalanus, Eucalanus, and Acartia, and salps. Based on
CalCOFI data, Bence et al. (1992) classified 34 holoplankton species that are common to the
California Current into nearshore or offshore distribution categories (Table 3.3.1-1). Various
species of copepods, euphausiids, and chaetognaths were found in both nearshore and offshore
waters, whereas thaliaceans and pelagic molluscs occurred primarily offshore.
The CalCOFI summary was supplemented by results of zooplankton studies conducted by
Hatfield (1983) and Tasto et al. (1981). These latter samples were collected as part of a CDFG
study on Dungeness crabs. Hatfield identified inshore and offshore zooplankton groups of both
holoplankton and raeroplankton (Table 3.3.1-1) from oblique tows collected in spring 1976,
winter and spring 1977, and March 1979. Few of the holoplankton species identified from the
CalCOFI atlases were reported by Hatfield, possibly due to different sampling techniques and/or
sampling schedules. Further, Hatfield (1983) noted substantial differences in spatial distributions
and abundances of a number of zooplankton species associated with upwelling and seasonal and
localized current patterns. For example, plankton species that are characteristic of more northerly
latitudes were rare in the Gulf of the Farallones. Additionally, in the winter of 1977 when the
Davidson Current dominated the area, species typically seen nearshore were found farther
offshore and mixed with offshore forms.
Holoplankton and meroplankton species (Tasto et al. 1981) were characterized as nearshore and
offshore species (Table 3.3.1-1) by Bence et al. (1992). Examples of peak densities for certain
forms of zooplankton include the following: the copepod Acartia clausi (15,000/100m3), Cancer
spp. larvae (2,500/100m3), and zoeae stages I-HI for Cancer antennarius (1,200/100m3). There
were few holoplankton species common to the CalCOFI, Hatfield, and Tasto et al. reports. For
example. Table 3.3.1-1 shows that adult euphausiids were present in low abundances in samples
from 1975-1977 (Tasto et al. 1981), but three species (Euphausia pacifica, Nematoscelis
difficilis, and Thysanoessa gregaria) were more abundant in March 1979 samples taken on two
transects off San Francisco Bay (Hatfield 1983).
Using differences in species compositions and distributions that could be identified from CalCOFI
atlases, Hatfield (1983) and Tasto et al. (1981) noted the following characteristics of zooplankton
distributions: (1) the distribution of zooplankton are dynamic in nature due to the complex
hydrography in the California Current system; and (2) the variance between data sets that likely
results from differences in sampling schedules, designs, and collection equipment. In addition,
3-81
-------
Table 3.3.1-1. Dominant Zooplankton in Waters Offshore Central California Based
on a Review of CalCOFI Atlases, Hatfield (1983) and Tasto et al.
(1981; 1975-1977 samples).
Nearshore = continental shelf waters; Offshore = seaward of the continental shelf;
summarized from Bence el al. (1992).
Nearshore
Offshore
CalCOFI (a3 summarized in Bence ef at. 1992)
Holoplankton
Copepods
Acartia tonsa
Acartia danae
Calanus helgolandicus
Calanus gracilis
Clausocalanus pergens
Clausocalanus arcuicomis
Clenocalanus vanus
Gaidius pungens
Metridia luceus
Plueromamma abdominalis
Tortanus discaudatus
Euphausnds
Euphausia pacHica
Euphausia gibboides
Thysanoessa spinfara
Euphausia mutica
Nyctiphanes simple
Euphausia recurva
Thysanoessa gregaria
Chaetognalhs
Sagitta enflata
Sagitta bierii
Sagitta scrippsaJ
Sagitta minima
Sagitta etmeritia?
Eukrohnia hamata
Thaliaceans
DoSoletta gegenbauri
Thalia democratica
Ritteriella pecteti
DoSolum denticulatum
Salpa tusHormii
Molluscs
Carinaria japonica
Limacina helicina
Umaana inflata
Clio pyramidata
Corolla spectabilis
AKOQ33 W5l
3-82
-------
Table 3.3.1-1. Continued.
Neaishore
Offshore
Hatfield (1983)
Holopiankton
Cope pods
Acartia clausi
Candacia bipmnata
Tortanus discaudatus
Euchaeta japonica
Epilabidocera longipedata
Euchaela acuta
Neocalanus cristatus
Neocalanus plunchrvs
Eucalanus bungii
Euphausiids
Thysanoessa spinHera
Nematoscetis difficilis
Thysanoessa gregaria
Chaetognath
Saghta scrippsae
Ctenophore
Pleurobrachia bachei
Meroplankton
Cancer productus zoeae (stages l-lll)
Cancer productus zoeae (stages IV-V)
Cancer antemarius zoeae
Cancer oregonensis zoeae (stages IV-V)
Cancer gracilis zoeae (stages Mil)
Pmnotherid zoeae (commensal aab)
Pagurid megalopa larvae (hermit crab)
Caiianassa spp. larvae (ghost shrimp)
Grapsid crab zoeae (stages IV-V)
PorceBanid larvae (Anomuran decapods)
Upogebia pugettensis larvae
Xanthid zoeae (stages Ml)
Majid zoeae I
AJC0033.W5I
3-83
-------
Table 3.3.1-1.
Continued.
NearshorB
Offshore
Tasto el el. (1981)
Holoplankton
Cope pods
Acartia ctaus?
Acartia longimmii
Calanus pacificus*
Calanus fenu/com/s'
Epilabidocera bngipedata
Eucalanus bungif
Metridia lucens?
Pseudocalanus spp.'
Chaetognath
Sagitta euneriticai1
Mollusc
Limadna helicind
Ctenophore
Pleurobrachia bachei
Meroplankton
Cancer gracilis zoeae (stages Mil)
Cancer gracilis zoeas (stages IV-V)
Cancer spp. larvae
Cancer oregonensis (stages l-lll)
Cancer antennarius zoeae (stages l-lll)
CaSianassa spp. larvae
Poroellanid larvae
Grapsid zoeae (stages l-lll)
Majid zoeae3
'Found only in some years; typically a more southern species.
'Nearly uniform distribution between nearshore and offshore areas.
3Large concentrations occasionally found nearshore/offshore.
AKOQ33.W5I
3-84
-------
taxonomic uncertainties remain for some species. For example, difficulties in the taxonomy of
Acartia may in part explain why A. tonsa and A. danae are identified as the most abundant
copepods in the CalCOFI atlases, while Tasto et al. (1981) identify A. clausi and A. longiremis
as most abundant and do not list A. tonsa and A. danae at all.
Ichthyoplankton
Ichthyoplankton (larval fish) are an important component of the zooplankton and have been the
focus of numerous CalCOFI surveys due to the importance of this group to commercial fishing,
with approximately 1,000 ichthyoplankton species occurring in the California current system
(Kramer and Smith 1972). Bence et al. (1992) summarized data from CalCOFI surveys by
season and depth. The highest ichthyoplankton abundances occurred over shallow water in
winter, with lowest abundances at deep stations in fall (Figure 3.3.1-1). Seasonal differences in
total fish larvae showed some variation among sampling stations, with highest overall values in
winter and spring and lowest values in summer and fall (Figure 3.3.1-1). The CalCOFI data are
supplemented by data on larval Pacific hake and shortbelly rockfish from a single
ichthyoplankton survey conducted by Bence et al. (1992). Preliminary analyses of these data
suggest that at the time of the survey, Pacific hake larvae were relatively more abundant south
of the Farallon Islands at depths greater than 600 m (Figure 21 in Bence et al. 1992). In
contrast, the relative abundance of short belly rockfish was greatest at depths just beyond the
shelf break and at depths greater than 1,800 m (Figure 23 in Bence et al. 1992).
Due to the inherent variability in plankton populations outlined above, the species composition
and distribution of zooplankton can be related to the LTMS study areas in only a general way.
Species common in nearshore waters likely would be present in Study Area 2. These include a
variety of holoplankton, and perhaps more importantly, most of the identified species of
meroplankton and ichthyoplankton, several of which become important to commercial fisheries
as adults. Zooplankton in offshore waters in the vicinity of Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are
primarily holoplankton and late larval stages of Dungeness crab. However, abundances of
Dungeness crab larvae and other meroplankton in offshore study areas are lower than in
nearshore waters. Dominant species contributing to holoplankton populations also are different
in nearshore and offshore waters. Zooplankton serve as primary prey items for other carnivorous
zooplankton, pelagic invertebrates such as squid, adult fish, seabirds, and marine mammals.
Significant disruptions of normal planktonic productivity patterns can negatively impact marine
mammal and seabird populations. For example, a reduction in planktonic productivity levels
caused by the 1982-83 El Nino event coincided with high adult mortality and reproductive failure
among numerous seabirds and marine mammals in the eastern subtropical Pacific Ocean (Barber
and Chavez 1983). This interdependence between lower trophic level organisms and those higher
in the food web demonstrates the ecological importance of plankton within marine communities,
including those in the Gulf of the Farallones. However, effects of dredged material disposal on
plankton populations are expected to be transitory in nature compared to dramatic natural
disturbances such as El Nino.
3-85
-------
O - OPR
• HMB
tx - AMB
Spring
¦ f—
r
•*
900 1800 2700
Bottom Depth (meters)
3600
900 1800 2700
Bottom Depth (meters)
3600
Figure 3.3.1-1. Total Number of Fish Larvae (Abundance) Versus Bottom Depth
(top panel) and by Season (bottom panel).
Shown are least-squares means (LSMs) for loge transformed abundance collected
during CalCOFI surveys for individuals sampling stations (top panels) or by season
(bottom panels). PR = Point Reyes line, HMB = Half Moon Bay line, MB =
Monterey Bay line. Seasons are Dec.-Feb. = winter, March-May = spring, June-Aug.
= summer, Sept.-Nov. = fall. Standard errors of LSMs are indicated by vertical bars.
Source: Bence et al. 1992.
AK008S
3-86
-------
Pequegnat et al. (1978) assessed potential impacts of dredge material disposal in the open ocean
and concluded that, although increased turbidity would occur from dredge material disposal,
reductions of light and resulting impacts to plankton populations are likely to be short-term due
to the temporal and spatial variability of plankton communities. Thus, disposal events in the Gulf
of the Farallones are expected to be short-term and not result in significant impacts to plankton
populations.
3.3.2 Invertebrates
Information on infauna, demersal epifauna, pelagic invertebrates, and commercially important
species within the study region is presented in Sections 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.4, respectively.
3.3.2.1 Benthic Infauna
Benthic infaunal communities, defined generally as small invertebrates such as polychaete worms
and amphipods living within sediments, are described by a number of parameters, such as faunal
composition (what species are present), dominant taxa (which species are most abundant), density
(number of individuals/m2), diversity (number of different species relative to the total number of
individuals), species richness (number of species), and community assemblage patterns (which
species are usually found together in a sample or how similar the samples are to each other).
The following sections describe community parameters for Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5, including
Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5. These descriptions are based primarily on recent EPA and Navy
surveys of the LTMS study region (SAIC 1992a,c).
Study Area 2
The infauna of Study Area 2 was typical of continental shelf habitats along the California coast.
The number of species collected from individual grab samples by SAIC (1992c) ranged from 95
to 131 per 0.1 m2, with a total of 261 species identified from 10 grab samples (Table 3.3.2-1).
Polychaete worms represented 48% of the total species and 76% of all individuals. Two genera
of surface deposit-feeding spionid polychaetes, Prionospio and Spiophanes, contributed 50% of
the individuals. Amphipod crustaceans and gastropod snails were the next most dominant taxa.
Gastropods were much more diverse in Study Area 2 than in any of the other LTMS study areas
surveyed. Major infaunal taxa found only in Study Area 2, and absent from the slope areas,
included decapods, mysids, ostracods, and phoronids. Taxonomic groups typical of the deep sea,
including pogonophorans, aplacophoran molluscs, and isopod and tanaidacean crustaceans, were
either absent or collected infrequently in Study Area 2.
Infauna densities (individuals/m2) were highest in Study Area 2 with spionid and capitellid
polychaetes predominant at stations with the highest densities (Table 3.3.2-2). These high
densities probably are caused by relatively high productivity in the surface waters in this
continental shelf location (see Section 3.2.3). From approximately 75 to 125 m depth, infaunal
densities exceeded approximately 20,000 individuals/m2, decreasing to less than 15,000 near the
shelf break (approximately 200 m depth).
3-87
-------
Table 3.3.2-1. Total Number of Species Belonging to Each Major Taxonomic Group
Collected from Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 (SAIC 1992c,d).
Taxon
Study Area 2
Study Area 3
Study Area 4
Study Area 5
(Number of Samples)
(10)
(18)
(14)
(21)
Porifera
—
—
—
1
Coelenterata
Anthozoa
3
2
2
4
Platyhelminthes
1
1
1
3
Nemertinea
1
8
6
14
Annelida
Hirudinea
1
1
—
—
Oligochaeta
1
1
1
1
Polychaeta
125
232
234
184
Pogonophora
—
1
1
2
Sipuncula
2
5
3
3
Echiura
1
—
—
0
Mollusca
Aplacophora
1
13
13
11
Bivafvia
18
25
23
19
Gastropoda
27
9
15
3
Scaphopoda
2
2
—
1
Arthropoda
Amphipoda
33
33
31
39
Cumacea
13
30
32
21
Decapoda
3
—
—
—
Isopoda
5
45
41
39
Leptostraca
1
1
—
—
Mysidacea
1
—
—
—
Oslracoda
4
—
—
Tanaidacea
1
47
43
23
Phoronida
1
—
—
—
Echinodermata
Asteroidea
—
1
1
Echinoidea
1
2
_
1
Holothuroidea
4
2
3
6
Ophiuroidea
10
12
12
8
Hemichordala
Enteropneusta
—
2
1
1
Urochordata
1
—
—
—
TOTAL
261
475
462
385
AK0034 WS1
3-88
-------
Table 3.3.2-2. Benthic lnfaunal Community Parameters for Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and
5 (SAIC 1992a,c).
Data for Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 are included in parentheses.
(AJiemative Site)
Number of.
Species
Density
(IndJta1)
Hurlbert's rarefaction'
{Species per 100 Ind.)
Shannon-
Wiener
index (K)
Evenness
W
Study Area 2
Range
95-131
12,920-
42,490
26.3-40.6
4.12-5.37
0.626-0.784
K±1 SD
114 ±12.7
26,870
±13,017
32.9 ±4.9
4.67 ±0.43
0.685
±0.058
No. Samples
10
10
10
10
10
Study Area 3
(Alternative
Site 3)1
Range
59-165
(100-165)
3300-19560
(7840-
19,560)
22.9-54.9
(34.7-50.5)
3.55-6.24
(4.02-6.05)
0.534-0.855
(0534-
0.822)
X± 1 SD
115134.6
10,303
±4590
(14,810
±5574)
40.2 ±7.6 (39.5 ±7.6)
4.98 ±0.75
(4.64 ±0.98)
0.649
(0.13)
No. Samples
19(4)
19(4)
19(4)
19(4)
19(4)
Study Area 4
(Alternative
Site 4 f
Range
63-164
(121-143)
4530-
13,190
(9310-
13,190)
332-512
(332-49.5)
4.28-6.34
(428-5.84)
0.619-0.886
(0.619-
0.830)
X±1 SD
118.5
±27.9
(132
±11.0)
8446
±2314
(10,947
±2010)
44.8 ±6.8
(42.6 ±8.43)
5.46 ±0.53
(5.17 ±0.8)
0.798
±0.66
(0.734
±0.107)
No. Samples
14 (3) .
14(3)
14(3)
14(3)
14(3)
AK0035.W5I
3-89
-------
Table 3.3.2-2.
Continued.
Area
(Alternative Site)
Number of
Species
Density
(Ind-An1)
Humbert's rarefr action
{Species per 100 Ind.)
Shannon-
Wiener
Index {H)
Evenness
Study Area 5 (1990)
(Alternative
Site 5)3
Range
77-131
(90-91)
4970-9870
(4970-
5290)
33.3-50.9
(41.9-43.8)
4.35-5.96
(5.31-5.35)
0.694-0.862
(0.818-
0.822)
X±1 SD
105.9
±16.9
(90.5)
7715
±1706
(5130)
44.0 ±5.4
(42.9)
4.94 ±1.58
(5.33)
0.810
±0.51
(.820)
No. Samples
10(2)
10(2)
10(2)
10(2)
10(2)
Study Area 5
(Alternative
SHe 5)4
Range
44-97
(44-73)
750-7540
(750-5790)
27.2-44.5
(29.8-34.5)
3.45-5.23
(3.62-523)
0.582
(0.582)
X±1 SD
74.4115.4
(56 ±15.1)
4450
±1953
(3123
±2533)
37.5 ±5.8
(322)
4.71 ±0.68
(4.47 ±0.81)
0.582-0.959
(0.638-
0.959)
No. Samples
10(3)
10(3)
9(2)
10 (3)
10(3)
1 Alternative Site 3 stations were 3-13, 3-17,3-18, and 3-19 (SAIC 1992c).
2 Alternative Site 4 stations were 4-4,4-6, and 4-11 (SAIC 1992c).
3 Alternative Site 5 stations from the 1990 samples were F-17, K-15, and L-17 (SAIC 1991).
4 Alternative Site 5 stations from the 1991 samples were B-4, B-5, and B-7 (SAIC 1992a).
* Sample size was too small to calculate this parameter.
AK0035 W51
3-90
-------
Species diversity, measured by Hurlbert's rarefaction (number of expected species per 100
individuals) or by the Shannon-Wiener index iff), also was high, although these measures
showed an increase in species diversity with increasing depth within the study area. In contrast,
species richness did not show a depth-related pattern (SAIC 1992c). Similarity analysis showed
that the two deepest stations were different from the remaining stations, indicating a distinct
faunal break between 125 and 180 m depth (SAIC 1992c).
Study Area 3
The number of species collected from individual box core samples within Study Area 3 ranged
from 59 to 165 per 0.1 m2, with a total of 475 species identified from 18 box core samples
(Table 3.3.2-1). Subsurface deposit-feeding polychaete worms of the families Paraonidae,
Cossuridae, and Cirratulidae each contributed between 9 and 11% of the entire infauna, and
represented 49% of the total species collected. Detrital-feeding or scavenging tanaidacean and
isopod crustaceans were the next most dominant taxa, each representing 9% of the total number
of species collected by SAIC (1992c). The filter-feeding amphipod Photis "blind" was extremely
abundant at five stations, and by itself accounted for almost 1&% of the entire fauna. Because
Study Area 3 stations occur over a large depth range (depths from 610 to 2,005 m), half of the
dominant species collected were abundant at only a single station. The subsurface deposit-
feeding polychaetes Tharyx sp. 1, Cossura pygodactylata, Cossura rostrata, and Aricidea ramosa
were the most common species of the taxa that predominated. The most common crustacean was
the tanaidacean Pseudotanais sp. 7, and the most common mollusc was the aplacophoran
Scutopidae sp. 2.
Densities (number of individuals/m2) in Study Area 3 ranged from 3,300 at 800 m to 19,560 at
1,780 m depth, respectively (SAIC 1992c). The highest densities were found at deep stations
(depths greater than 1,780 m) due to dense populations of the amphipod Photis "blind." Elevated
densities at other stations within Study Area 3 were due to dense assemblages of polychaetes in
the families Paraonidae, Cirratulidae, and Cossuridae. The lowest densities were observed at
stations between 800 and 985 m depth, located within the OMZ. These stations were dominated
by oligochaetes, which are frequently associated with low dissolved oxygen, and cossurid or
paraonid polychaetes.
Generally, there was a trend toward increasing species diversity and species richness with
increasing depth across the continental slope stations. The diversity of infauna in Study Area 3
was high, especially at some of the deepest stations (SAIC 1992c). Low diversity at three deep
stations was due to the abundance of Photis "blind."
Species richness was lowest at stations ranging in depth from 800 to 985 m and corresponding
to the lower edge of the OMZ (Figure 3.3.2-1). The number of species per station increased
slightly with depth between 1,000 and 1,500 m, and then showed a pronounced increase at depths
greater than 1,600 m. Similarity analysis for Study Area 3 showed two main clusters that are
defined by depth, with a distinct break at 1,600 m (SAIC 1992c).
3-91
-------
t
VO
K)
180-
160
C
o «<°-
n)
*->
CO
0)
CL
(0
0
O
0
Q.
CD
«~—
o
L_
0
n
120-
100-
80-
4 10
4 13
3 19
3 12
4 15
4 14
44
320
3-3
I .
550 BOO
~rr
4 7
4 3
44
3-11
3-15
3 10
Msll
35
C2
34
010102:
«n3
Ss
u
Moi
4 12
3-tT
-4^-
45
Ism
\t
nr
4 5
3 14 3 IB
4 11
C-7
7a/i frai T/ei 1/aA la*&
T8—DST
OS
DS2
DS3
Imijooi joei
0S4
Jo60
610 812 995 1020 1040 1220 1225 1338 1427 1480 1560 1/30 1745 1/00 1820 1680 1900 2010 2205 2lbi
Depth (m)
Figure 3.3.2-1. Bar Graph of the Total Number of Species at Each Station in LTMS
Study Areas 3, 4, and Pioneer Canyon, Arranged by Depth.
Source: SAIC (1992c)
-------
The infauna at four stations (3-13, 3-17, 3-18, and 3-19; SAIC 1992c) located within the
depositional area (including Alternative Site 3), was characterized by three predominant species
groups, two groups of which were similar to other nearby stations outside the depositional area.
The two similar groups were based on the polychaete Tharyx sp. 1, and the amphipod Photis
"blind." All the stations within Alternative Site 3 were variable in species composition, similar
to the other stations throughout Study Area 3. This is notable considering the more limited depth
range of Alternative Site 3 (1,450-1,900 m) as compared to Study Area 3. The third species
group, represented by Station 3-19 within Alternative Site 3, had the most species (165) of any
station sampled within the entire study region and was characterized by the lack of true dominant
species (Figure 3.3.2-1).
Study Area 4
The number of species collected from individual box core samples within Study Area 4 ranged
from 63 to 164 per 0.1 m2 (Table 3.3.2-2), with a total of 462 species identified from 14 samples
(Figure 3.2.2-1) (SAIC 1992c). Polychaete worms comprised 51% of the total species collected,
while tanaidacean and isopod crustaceans each accounted for 10% (Table 3.3.2-1). Similar to
Study Area 3, the filter-feeding amphipod Photis "blind" was the most abundant crustacean,
accounting for 26% of the individuals collected at Station 4-11 (1,970 m depth). Different
dominant species characterized the individual stations within Study Area 4. Subsurface deposit-
feeding polychaete species including Tharyx sp. 1 ,Aricidea simplex, and Cossura pygodactylata
were predominant Three stations (4-5, 4-12, and 4-13) within Study Area 4 lacked a true
dominant, with the top ranking polychaete comprising less than 10% of the animals collected.
Densities (number of individuals/m2) in Study Area 4 ranged from 4,530 (812 m depth) to 13,190
(1,427 m depth) (SAIC 1992c). The overall range in total density was not as great as that noted
for Study Area 3 (Table 3.3.2-2) even though high Photis densities were observed at Stations
4-10 and 4-11 (1,760 and 1,970 m depth, respectively). Most of the variability observed in
densities at individual stations was due to paraonid, cirratulid, and cossurid polychaetes. Similar
to Study Area 3, the lowest densities in Study Area 4 were found in the OMZ at Station 4-14
(812 m depth). Station 4-4 (1,427 m depth) exhibited the highest density in Study Area 4,
primarily due to high abundances of the polychaetes Paraonella monilaris and Tharyx sp. 1.
Generally, infaunal diversity in Study Area 4 was comparable to that found in Study Area 3,
although both the minimum and maximum values for the Shannon-Wiener index of diversity {IT)
were somewhat higher than for Study Area 3 (Table 3.3.2-2). Some stations having lower
diversities were dominated by exceptionally high numbers of Tharyx sp. 1 (Station 4-4, 1,600 m)
and Photis "blind" (Stations 4-10 and 4-11, 1,900 m).
As in Study Area 3, stations in Study Area 4 located closest to the OMZ (approximately 800 m
depth) had a distinctly lower species richness than stations between 1,000 m and 1,600 m.
Additionally, a pronounced increase in species richness was noted at stations between 1,700 and
2,000 m depth (Figure 3.3.2-1).
3-93
-------
Similarity analysis showed two main species groups defined by proximity to Pioneer Canyon
rather than by depth (SAIC 1992c). One group of stations, dominated by the polychaetes
Cossura pygodactylata and Aricidea simplex, occurred in the northern half (closer to Pioneer
Canyon) of Study Area 4, while the second group included stations in the southwestern part of
this study area (including Alternative Site 4).
Three infauna sampling stations, 4-4, 4-6, and 4-11, ranging in depth from 1,427 to 2,010 m,
were included within Alternative Site 4. These stations were relatively dissimilar to one another
with respect to infaunal communities in Study Area 4. Station 4-4 was characterized by
extremely high numbers of a single species (Tharyx sp. 1), and also was the least diverse of any
station in the study area. Station 4-6 was the deepest station (2,010 m) and had a low similarity
with other stations in its group, due to predominant deep-sea species such as Levinsenia sp. 5 and
Aricidea cf. catherinae. Thus, while densities at Station 4-6 were low, diversity was among the
highest seen in Study Area 4. In contrast. Station 4-11 (associated with the southwest group
away from the Pioneer Canyon) was dominated by Photis "blind" and had the greatest number
of species (tied with Station 4-5) found in an individual sample in Study Area 4.
Study Area 5
Study Area 5 is located on the lower continental slope, with most samples collected deeper than
2,400 m. In 1990 and 1991, 18 box core samples were collected within this study area and
another seven were taken in an adjacent area approximately 5 nm to the south (SAIC 1992a,c).
Most of the summary information presented in this section refers only to those samples collected
within Study Area 5.
Of the 385 species of infauna collected in Study Area 5 (Table 3.3.2-1), polychaetes comprised
48%, crustaceans 32%, and molluscs 8%. The remaining 45 species represented a variety of
other taxa. Many of these taxa are typical of the deep-sea infaunal communities, including
carnivorous or scavenging aplacophoran molluscs, tube-dwelling pogonophorans, and detrital-
feeding desmosomatid isopods and tanaidaceans, and were also important faunal elements in
Study Areas 3 and 4. The highest infaunal densities (number of individuals/m2) in Study Area
5 were recorded in 1990, ranging from 4,970 to 9,870. Densities from the 1991 survey were
lower and more variable, ranging from 750 to 7,540. Species diversities, like the densities, were
higher in 1990 than in 1991.
Similarity analysis indicated that the infaunal community was distributed by depth, with deeper
stations (between 2,700 and 3,000 m depth) grouped together and more similar than stations
along the 2,400 m isobath (SAIC 1992c). When stations along isobaths were grouped, different
dominant taxa became characteristic. For example, stations along the 2,400 m depth contour
were dominated by a paraonid polychaete (Aricidea simplex), whereas the stations occurring
along the 2,700 m depth were dominated by the polychaetes Prionospio delta, Chaetozone sp.
1, and Aricidea simplex. Predominant taxa collected at stations on the 3000 m contour included
the polychaetes Prionospio delta, Levinsenia nr. flava, and the aplacophoran Spathoderma sp. 1.
3-94
-------
Alternative Site 5 overlaps with the Naval Ocean Disposal Site (NODS) described in SA1C
(1992a). NODS encompasses an area of approximately 2 nmi by 2 nmi at the southwest corner
of the Chemical Munitions Dumping Area (CMDA), at depths ranging from 2,800 to 3,050 m,
that was surveyed in part by the Navy (SAIC 1992a). Five box cores were taken within
Alternative Site 5: Stations E-19 and F-17 in 1990 and B-l, B-4, and B-5 in 1991 (SAIC
1992a,c).
The values of benthic community parameters in Alternative Site 5 were generally higher in 1990
than in 1991, similar to the overall results for Study Area 5. One station (B-5) within this
alternative site had the lowest infaunal densities recorded (750 per m2) within any study area.
In contrast, if Station B-5 is excluded, the remaining 1991 stations averaged 4,310 per m2 and
the two 1990 stations averaged 5,130 per m2. The most abundant infaunal species in Alternative
Site 5 was the spionid polychaete Prionospio delta, a surface deposit feeder characteristic of
lower slope and rise depths.
Two benthic surveys were conducted in Area 5 (SAIC 1991, 1992a,c). Seven stations sampled
in 1991 had lower infaunal densities than any station sampled in 1990. These stations include
the deepest stations in the trough of the CMDA which are mostly within Alternative Site 5, the
deepest stations on the southern flank of the CMDA, and the two deepest stations sampled in an
adjacent area 10 miles to the south. None of these stations is close to any station sampled in
1990, except for B-5, which is very close to Station F-17 (1990) that had infaunal densities of
more than 5,000 individuals per m2. The reason that the densities at these two stations differ by
a factor of 7 may be a disturbance of the environment. Bottom photographs taken by a towed
camera sled that crossed the coordinates of these stations revealed a lumpy bottom that suggested
a local disturbance, possibly related to turbidity flow. It is not known when this disturbance took
place, but the low infaunal densities at Station B-5 in 1991, compared with the high values at
Station F-17 in 1990, suggest that it occurred after August 1990. The identification of a natural
disturbance in Alternative Site 5 is of considerable interest in evaluating the effects of dredged
material disposal on benthic infaunal populations. The data derived from the single box core
taken from Station B-5 suggest that, although the expected species such as Prionospio delta and
the typically dominant aplacophorans and deposit-feeding polychaetes are present, they occur in
greatly reduced numbers. It is not known whether the resident population at this station is a
remnant of the pre-disturbance fauna or a result of specimens that recruited to the site after the
disturbance. (See Section 4.4.2.2 for a general discussion of impacts of burial on the benthos.)
Comparisons Between Study Areas
The most characteristic feature distinguishing Study Area 3 from the other LTMS study areas
sampled on the continental slope is the relatively high variability of parameters such as diversity,
species richness, and density. The wide ranges in these parameters primarily are related to
extremely high abundances of two species, the filter-feeding amphipod Photis "blind" and the
deposit-feeding polychaete Tharyx sp. 1, that make up large percentages of the total infauna at
1,900 and 1,400 m depths, respectively. The most common (frequently occurring) species in
Study Area 3 (not necessarily the most abundant) were Tharyx sp. 1, Cossura pygodactylata.
3-95
-------
C. rostrata, Aricidea ramosa, Pseudotanais sp. 7, and Scutopidae sp. 2. Similarity analyses
revealed that the infaunal community was clearly zoned by depth, with a major faunal break
occurring at 1,600 m.
Infaunal community parameters were less variable in Study Area 4 than in Study Area 3 and are
within the range of those reported for Study Area 3. This characteristic is related to lower
densities of Photis "blind" and Tharyx sp. 1 found at the same depths as in Study Area 3. In
addition, although the most common polychaetes in both areas belong to the same families, the
overall faunal composition of Study Area 4 is slightly different from that of Study Area 3, These
differences most likely are attributable to differences in sediment characteristics. Similarity
among stations within Study Area 4 also is influenced by sediment characteristics. Cluster
analysis indicated two main groups of stations that are divided by a narrow band of very sandy
sediment crossing Study Area 4 from northwest to southeast.
In a broad sense. Study Area 5 is somewhat less rich in terms of the numbers of species,
compared to Study Areas 3 and 4, and has lower infaunal densities. This latter result is expected
because of trends of decreasing density with depth in continental slope environments on both
coasts of North America (SAIC 1992a; Blake et al. 1987). Structurally, the benthic infauna of
Study Area 5 are similar to Study Areas 3 and 4 in that the most common species belong to the
polychaete families Paraonidae, Cirratulidae, and Cossuridae. One important difference is the
dominance in Study Area 5 of a surface deposit-feeding spionid polychaete, Prionospio delta, in
the 2,700 to 3,000 m depth range. Cluster analysis reveals a faunal break between 2,400 and
2,700 m; this break can be attributed to this spionid (SAIC 1992a). Spionids are not dominant
in Study Areas 3 and 4. Prionospio delta is the dominant infaunal species in Alternative Site
5. Available data suggest that spionids would be more susceptible to burial than subsurface
deposit-feeders (Jumars 1977), but are, in turn, more likely to rapidly recolonize a disturbed
environment.
From a trophic standpoint, differences in the types of organisms at each alternative site are
expected to result in differences in their responses to dredged material. For example. Alternative
Site 3 is dominated by filter-feeding amphipods, while amphipods are less important in
Alternative Site 4, which is dominated by subsurface deposit-feeders. The filter-feeding
amphipods would be the most susceptible to dredged material disposal because of their feeding
activities and relative inability to burrow out of deposits. It is possible, however, that they might
be able to move away from an affected site. Surface deposit-feeders have been shown to be
more susceptible to burial than subsurface deposit-feeders (Jumars 1977). All three areas and
their alternative sites include numerous species of tanaidaceans and isopods. These small
crustaceans are mostly detrivores, feeding on particulate material on the surface of the sediment.
It is likely that they would be highly susceptible to dredged material deposits.
Thus, from a trophic standpoint, the response of the benthic infauna in each of the areas and
alternative sites is mixed. The greatest impact would clearly be in Alternative Site 3, where the
populations of highly sensitive filter-feeding amphipods are the most dense. It is likely that the
3-96
-------
dominant spionids in Alternative Site 5 also would be sensitive, but because overall species
richness and density is lower, the composite impact would be less than in Alternative Site 4.
Comparisons With Other Studies
The Continental Shelf—Study Area 2. The occurrence of 261 infaunal species from only ten 0.1
m2 samples in Study Area 2 is remarkably high when compared with the MMS Monitoring
program in Santa Maria Basin where 886 species were collected from 551 0.1 -m2 box core
samples over a three-year period (Hyland et al. 1991). The diversity estimates from Study Area
2 are similar to those recorded from similar depths In the Santa Maria Basin (Hyland et al.,
1991), but higher than those recorded by Parr et al. (1987) from stations within and adjacent to
Study Area 2 (Table 3.3.2-2). This suggests that the Study Area 2 infauna is very rich and does
not differ in that regard from other well-studied shelf and upper slope areas off California.
The lower range of the densities measured in Study Area 2 by SAIC (1992c) is comparable to
some stations sampled as part of the MMS Northern and Central California Reconnaissance and
Santa Maria Basin programs (SAIC 1989b; Hyland et al. 1991). However, the densities (number
of individuals/m2), ranging between 30,000 and 40,000, are among the highest values ever
recorded in eastern Pacific waters and comparable to environments such as Georges Bank off
Massachusetts (Neff et al. 1989).
Parr et al. (1987) found much lower total densities (number of individuals/m2) ranging from
3,400 to 6,200 in Study Area 2. The variation in diversities and densities among the various
studies may be due to differences in sampling techniques. For example, samples collected by
SAIC (1992c) in Study Area 2 and by Hyland et al. (1991) were live-sieved through a 0.3-mm
sieve in the field and subsequently resieved through nested 0.3 and 0.5-mm mesh sieves in the
laboratory. In contrast. Parr et al. (1987) used live-sieving techniques with 0.5-mm screens.
Thus, two different methods were used to separate the fauna from the sediments. Although no
comparative data are available from samples taken at the same site, it is evident that the 0.3-mm
sieve retains many more specimens than a 0.5 mm mesh screen when live-sieved in the field.
The overwhelming dominance of spionid polychaetes noted by SAIC (1992c) was not apparent
in the data from a previous study by Parr et al. (1987), who reported very different communities
at three sites within or adjacent to Study Area 2. The most abundant species from SAIC (1992c)
were the paraonid polychaete Aricidea catherinae and the bivalve Axinopsida serricata, whereas
the spionid Spiophanes missionensis was predominant at one of the Parr et al. stations. The top
ranking species of each station in both SAIC (1992c) and Parr et al. (1987) accounted for
between 7% and 10% of the total fauna. Although similar species composition was found among
stations in Study Area 2, almost all the predominant species collected by SAIC (1992c) were rare
at stations sampled by Parr et al. (1987), and vice versa. These differences probably are due to
the sieve size differences discussed previously rather than to real year-to-year differences.
The Continental Slope—Study Areas 3, 4, and 5. Infaunal species composition from the eastern
Pacific continental slope is very similar to the Western North Atlantic, as identified in a study
3-97
-------
that used comparable methods, (Blake et al. 1987; Maciolek et al. 1987a,b). However, some
notable differences include the absence of the polychaete family Chrysopetalidae and the lower
number of pognophoran species in the Pacific.
The continental slope represents a rich source of biodiversity (Grassle and Maciolek 1992).
Species richness estimates from the Navy and EPA samples from the continental slope off San
Francisco are very high when compared with the continental shelf environment. However, they
are lower overall than those in the western North Atlantic (see Blake et al1985). The major
difference between the western North Atlantic and eastern Pacific faunas is that infaunal densities
are much higher off California. The maintenance of high species richness in deep-sea habitats
where certain individual species achieve high densities was first reported by SAIC (1991) and
SAIC (1992a) as part of the Navy surveys in Study Area 5.
Although the lack of replicates from the EPA and Navy studies precludes the development of
site-specific estimates of species accumulation, it is evident that species are continuously added
with additional sample collections (Figure 3.3.2-2). However, these estimates must be viewed
with some caution since the EPA samples encompassed a much greater depth range and variety
of sediment types than the Navy samples. Nevertheless, Figure 3.3.2-2 indicates that leveling-off
does not occur after 68 samples from slope depths ranging from 550 to 3,050 m. These results
clearly support the concept of high species richness in deep-sea habitats.
Figure 3.3.2-3 represents a composite profile of similar depth intervals from the Navy and EPA
studies off the Farallones (SAIC 1992a,c), a transect off Cape Lookout, North Carolina (Blake
et al. 1985), and a transect off Massachusetts (Maciolek et al. 1987b). The most obvious
difference between transects done on the slope in the LTMS study region and those from the
Atlantic is the higher density in samples collected from middle and lower slope depths off
California. High benthic productivity in middle and lower slope depths off California very likely
is due to a high flux of phytal detritus to the seabed (SAIC 1992c). For example, evidence
derived from measurements of carbon-nitrogen ratios, stable isotopes (815N, 8I3C), and
chlorophyll a and phaeopigments in the sediments from Study Area 5 suggests that phytodetritus
flux is higher than has previously been measured in the deep sea (SAIC 1992c). While
phytoplankton is known to impinge on the seabed in the Atlantic (Hecker 1990), the fluxes
appear to be more seasonal and irregular than in the eastern Pacific, where surface productivity
associated with upwelling extends over longer time intervals (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3). The very
marked decrease in densities between 800 and 1,000 m depth off California may be associated
with the presence of the OMZ which may vary in depth between 600 and 1,000 m. There is no
comparable OMZ in the Atlantic, where infaunal densities decline more or less evenly with
depth.
3-98
-------
I
V©
vo
BOO
600
700
CO
0)
^ 600
O
0)
Q.
(J)
-------
Ui
FiraJlunn SIo|n
CaioUna Slope
Slope
550
1900
asoo
1000
2000
3000
Figure 3.3.2-3.
Depth (m)
Infaunal Densities at Two Transects on the U.S. Atlantic Continental
Slope and Rise (Blake et al. 1985; Maciolek et al. 1987b) and One
Transect off the Farallon Islands (SA1C 1992c).
-------
Factors Influencing Community Patterns
In typical marine infaunal communities, the dominant taxa are polychaetes. Polychaetes of the
families Paraonidae, Spionidae, Cossuridae, and Cirratulidae were predominant at most stations
in Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 . However, in Study Area 3, unusually high densities of the
amphipod Photis "blind" were observed between 1,745 and 2,000 m depth. Filter-feeding
amphipods are common in nearshore environments. The amphipods remove particles from the
water for food and tube construction. For dense populations of such amphipods to persist,
sediment transport mechanisms must be present to move organic materials over the site.
In summary, the infaunal slope communities off San Francisco are clearly zoned by depth (SAIC
1992c). Sediments change from sands to fine silty muds at about 1,800 m, corresponding to one
of the faunal breaks observed. The upper slope is influenced by the OMZ, especially between
600 and 1,000 m depth where oligochaetes are present in the fauna and indicative of sites with
some partial oxygen stress.
3.3.2.2 Demersal Epifauna
This section describes the demersal epifaunal invertebrate communities found in the study region,
including Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5. Extensive trawl and remotely operated vehicle (ROV)
studies were conducted by the EPA in Study Areas 2 through 4 and adjacent sites within Pioneer
Canyon and at "mid-depth" sites during September and October 1991 (SAIC 1992b). U.S. Navy
surveys of Study Area 5 were conducted during July 1991 using beam trawls, otter trawls and
camera sled tows (Nybakken et al. 1992; SAIC 1992a). Previous trawl studies within Study
Area 2 were conducted by KLI (1991).
Similar to general distributional patterns observed for infaunal invertebrate communities (Section
3.3.2.1), megafaunal communities in the study region also are differentiated based on depth or
depth-related factors. Types of depth-related factors recognized as influencing megafaunal
community structure include differences in the sedimentary environment, the OMZ, and regional
current patterns (Wakefield 1990) within the study region. Characterizations of each LTMS
study area regarding "low, moderate, or high" parameters are relative comparisons with other
SAIC (1992b) transects. These communities are summarized below and discussed in greater
detail later in this section.
• A shelf community (from depths of at least 72 m to approximately 200 m),
including Study Area 2 and some mid-depth locations, was characterized by
low numbers of megafaunal species, density, and biomass. This community
is characterized by brittlestars, seastars, sea pens, and octopus. Dungeness
crab and squid collected infrequently and in low abundances in this study area
are the only species which have commercial value.
• Upper and middle slope communities (from depths of approximately 200 m
to 500 m and 500 m to approximately 1,200 m), including shallow parts of
3-101
-------
Study Areas 3 and 4, Mid-Depth, and Pioneer Canyon, were characterized by
moderate to high numbers of species. Density and biomass were moderate to
high due to species such as Tanner crabs, seastars, brittlestars, snails, and sea
cucumbers. Tanner crabs were collected in high numbers but do not appear
to be of significant commercial value in the study area.
• A deep middle slope community (from depths of approximately 1,200 m to at
least 1,800 m), including the deeper parts of Study Areas 3 and 4, is
characterized by a relatively high number of species including taxonomic
groups such as sea cucumbers, brittlestars, seastars, and sea pens. Densities
and biomass in these areas also were relatively high and represented primarily
by sea cucumbers, brittlestars, and seastars.
• A lower continental slope community (from depths of approximately 2,000 m
to almost 4,000 m), including Study Area 5, is characterized by low numbers
of megafaunal taxa, densities, and biomass. However, this area is
characterized by similar species composition to Study Areas 3 and 4, with
predominant species including sea cucumbers, brittlestars, seastars, and sea
pens (Nybakken et al. 1992).
Study Area 2
Demersal megafaunal communities within the study region exhibited several distinct patterns in
the number and type of species (Figure 3.3.2-4), density (Table 3.3.2-3A), and biomass (Table
3.3.2-3B). The total number of megafaunal species collected during trawl surveys by SAIC
(1992b) in Study Area 2 ranged from 8 to 12 (Figure 3.3.2-4). Dominant taxonomic groups in
this area typically included echinoderms (particularly seastars and brittlestars), cnidarians (sea
pens), and molluscs (octopus). Overall, densities in this study area were low and ranged from
0.29 to 64.6 individuals per hectare (Figure 3.3.2-5). Echinoderm densities (Table 3.3.2-3A) for
taxa such as brittlestars and sand stars (Luidia foliolata) ranked highest, with sea pen and
crustacean densities also ranking in the top five, but often in much lower densities. Biomass in
this study area generally was low for individual taxonomic groups, ranging from 0.04 to 2.83 kg
per hectare (Figure 3.3.2-6). Biomass was highest for anemones (Metridium spp. ; between 0.42
and 3.83 kg per hectare), while Dungeness crab, octopus, and seastar biomass ranked in the top
five (Table 3.3.2-3B). Some Dungeness crab and market squid (Loligo opalescens) were
collected by SAIC (1992b) in this study area, and represent the only prominent commercial
megafaunal fisheries species. Bence et al. (1992) collected market squid in midwater trawls,
conducted within 30 m of the surface and over depths shallower than 180 m, which is similar in
depth to Study Area 2. Hard-bottom habitats were observed infrequently in this study area;
sparse occurrences of rocks were noted using an ROV on Transect 2C-1 (SAIC 1992b).
3-102
-------
Table 3.3.2-3A. Rank Order of Density for Demersal Megafaunal Invertebrates Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) in
Study Areas 2 through 4 and Adjacent Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and in "Mid-Depth" (MD).
SPECIES
(depth In meters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MD1-1
(252)
PCM
(495}
MD3-1
(504)
PCM
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC 3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Unknown Ophiuroid spp. 1
brittlestar
1
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Luidia foliata
sand star
2
-
2
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stylatula spp. 1
sea pen
3
-
-
3
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Metridium
anemone
4
2.5
5
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Octupus rvbescens
octopus
5
2.5
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Asteronyx loveni
brittlestar
-
2.5
-
-
-
2
2
3
-
4
-
- •
-
2
2
Cancer magister
Dungeness crab
-
2.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hippasteria spinosa
seastar
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
Unknown Ophuiroid, Gray
brittlestar
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pleurobranchia
opisthobranch gastropod
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rathbunaslar calHomicus
seastar
-
•
-
1
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gorgonocephalus
brittlestar
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AK0036.W51
-------
Table 3J.2-3A. Continued.
u>
I
§
SPECIES
(depth in meters)
2A
(72)
28-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MDM
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PCM
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
48-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Parastichopus simpsoni?
sea cucumber
-
-
-
4.5
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pandahjs platyceros
spot prawn
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Allocentrotus tragiSs
sea urchin
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Myxoderma platyacanthum
seas tar
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pannychia
sea cucumber
-
-
-
-
-
3
5
-
2
-
-
1
1
5
1
Unknown Pagurid Crab
Hermit crab
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neptunea lyrata
snail
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
2
4
2
2
3
-
-
-
Chionoecetes tanneri
Tanner crab
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
3
1
4
2
-
-
-
Ophiomusium jollensis
brittlestar
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
Bathybembix bairdii
snail
-
-
-
-¦
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
Hormathiidae
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Heterozonias a/tematus
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
'
AK0056W51
-------
Table 3.3.2-3A.
Continued.
SPECIES
(depth in meters)
2A
(72)
28-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MDM
(252)
PC1-1
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
48-2
(1278)
4C*1
(1458)
4A-1
(1856)
3A-1
(1764)
Paractinistola-Ske
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
Unknown gastropod 91
snail?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
5
-
•
•
-
Paranoides
crab
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
Braided sea pen
sea pen
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
5
-
-
•
Unknown Ophiuroid spp. 2
brittlestar
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
•
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
Lophaster furdlUger
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
•
-
3
-
-
Pteraster tessalatus
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
3.5
Actinostola-like
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
•
-
5
-
-
Scotoplanes globosa
sea cucumber
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
1
-
Orange, flat corallimorph
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
AphrodHa
sea mouse
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
Stytatuta spp 2.
sea pen
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
AJC0036.W3I
-------
Table 3.3.2-3B. Rank Order of Biomass for Demersal Megafauna Collected During Trawl Surveys of Study Areas 2 Through 4 and
Adjacent Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and in "Mid-Depth" (MD) (SAIC 1992b).
u>
I
§
SPECIES
(depth In meters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MD1-1
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
38-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Metridium
anemone
1
2
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cancer magister
Dungeness crab
2
1
3
2
-
-
-
-
¦
-
-
-
-
-
-
Octopus mbescens
octopus
3
4.5
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Astropecten vemlli
Spiny sand star
4.5
-
>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Luidia toliata
sand star
4.5
-
2
5
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hippasteria spinosa
seas tar
•
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tritonia
snail
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pleurobmchia
opisthobranch gastropod
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parastkhopus simpsoni?
sea cucumber
-
-
-
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gorgonocephalus
brittlestar
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
•
¦
-
Allocentrotus fragils
sea urchin
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pandalus platyceros
spot prawn
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AK00J7 W5I
-------
Table 3.3.2-3B.
Continued.
t
o
—I
SPECIES
(depth in meters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MD1-1
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(075)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Ralhbunaster califomicus
seastar
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Myxedema p/atyacanfhum
seastar
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pannychia
sea cucumber
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
2
-
-
3
1
-
1
Paractinistola-like
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
3
3
-
4
2
3
-
-
-
-
Asteronyx loveni
brittleslar
-
-
-
•
-
4
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
Chionoecetes tanneri
Tanner crab
-
-
-
-
-
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
Neptunea lyrata
snail
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
5
-
-
4
5
-
-
-
Octopus dofleini
octopus
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moroteuthis robusta
octopus
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bathybembix bairdii
snail
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
3
-
2
-
-
•
-
Thrissacanthias penicillatus
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
3
-
-
5
-
-
Paralithoides
crab
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
2
-
¦
-
AK0037 W5I
-------
Table 3.3.2-3B.
Continued.
SPECIES
(depth In meters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MD1-1
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
38-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Heterozonias alternates
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
5
Opisthoteuthis California
octopus
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
Braided sea pen
sea pen
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
Actinoscyphia-like
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
4
Brown "sweet potato"
sea cucumber
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
3
Pteraster tessalatus
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
3
-
Orange, flat corallimorph
anemone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Scotopfanes globosa
sea cucumber
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
Heterozonias-like
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
Solaster borealis
seastar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
•
AK0037.W5I
-------
u>
8
TAXAGRP
TRANSECT BY AVERAGE DEPTH (M)
PVsAXJ Coe 1 enterates
1\\\N Echinoderms
Other
| | Crustacea
L ^ ^ Molluscs
Figure 3.3.2-4. Number of Benthic Megafaunal Invertebrate Species by General
Taxonomic Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b)
at Each Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing Depth.
Average Depth (m) is indicated beneath each transect.
-------
Study Area 3
Study Area 3 is characterized by relatively moderate to high numbers of megafaunal species
(Figure 3.3.2-4). Densities over the entire study area were low to moderate, ranging from
approximately 200 to 1,000 individuals per hectare (Figure 3.3.2-5). Densities and biomass from
the shallow parts of Study Area 3 (depths between 1,000 m and 1,200 m) were generally higher
than from the deeper part (approximately 1,700 m), including Alternative Site 3, primarily due
to the predominance of molluscs (Bathybembix bairdii and Neptunia amianta), sea cucumbers
(Pannychia spp.), brittlestar (Asteronyx loveni), seas tars, and crustaceans such as Tanner crabs
(Chionoecetes tanneri; Tables 3.3.2-3A and 3.3.2-3B; SAIC 1992b) In the deeper parts of the
study area (Transect 3A-1), Pannychia, Asteronyx loveni, and seastar (Pteraster tessalatus) were
the predominant taxa collected by SAIC (1992b). Hard-bottom substrate (small rock
outcroppings) was observed with an ROV by SAIC (1992b) on Transects 3A-1 and 3B-1 with
sessile invertebrates such as anemones predominating.
Study Area 4
Study Area 4 is characterized by relatively high numbers of megafaunal invertebrate species,
ranging from 19 to 37 (Figure 3.3.2-4). Densities in the shallow parts of this study area (depths
between 1,278 m and 1,458 m) were low to moderate, with densities ranging from 100 to 400
individuals per hectare (Figure 3.3.2-5). Biomass in the shallow parts ranged from approximately
10 to 25 kg per hectare (Figure 3.3.2-6). Predominant taxonomic groups in the shallow parts of
the study area include echinoderms, cnidarians, and crustaceans (Table 3.3.2-3A). In the deepest
part of the study area (Transect 4C), including the vicinity of Alternative Site 4, densities and
biomass were relatively low (Figures 3.3.2-5 and 3.3.2-6), with echinoderms (e.g., the seastars
Heterozonias and Pteraster and the sea cucumber Scotoplanes) and cnidarians (e.g., anemones)
comprising the predominant taxonomic groups. No hard-bottom substrate was observed using
an ROV (SAIC 1992b) within this study area.
Study Area 5
Study Area 5, surveyed in part by the Navy in 1991 (Nybakken et al. 1992; SAIC 1992a),
represents a deeper survey region (depths primarily between 2,300 m and 3,200 m) than Study
Areas 2, 3, and 4 (depths between approximately 72 m and 1,800 m) surveyed by SAIC (1992b).
Within Study Area 5, (including Alternative Site 5) Nybakken et al. (1992) collected 95 taxa of
megafaunal invertebrates, of which 71 species were identified, including at least five believed to
be species previously unknown to science. Overall densities in this study area were low (ranging
from a mean of near zero to 870 individuals per hectare) for most taxa such as sea cucumbers,
(Molpadia intermedia and Paelopadites confundeus), brittlestars (Amphiura carchara), seastars,
and cnidarians. The highest density (870 individuals per hectare) occurred in a single family
(Ypsilothuriidae). Biomass was not determined for taxa collected by Nybakken et al. (1992) in
this study area; however, it most likely was low based on the low densities and small sizes of
the organisms.
3-110
-------
3000 i
TRANSECT BY AVERAGE DEPTH (M)
TAXAGRP 1XXXXI Coe 1 enterates | | Crustacea
1\\\N Echinoderms k 1 Molluscs
Other
Figure 3.3.2-5. Sum or Densities of Megafaunal Invertebrate Species by General
Taxonomic Group Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b)
at Each Transect; Transects Sorted in Order of Increasing Depth.
Average Depth (m) is indicated beneath each transect.
-------
100 n
Ui
90
80
£ -70
<
h-
0
UJ
1
DC.
UJ
Q.
60
50 -
o
*
*>—/
U)
1,1
<
£ 20 H
40
30 -
10 -
TT
XX
7T7T
SS3
1
2
2
2
M
M
P
M
P
3
3
P
4
4
to
B
A
C
D
D
C
0
C
B
C
C
B
A
2
1
1
3
2
3
7
8
8
1
1
1
1
2
5
5
1
2
4
5
6
0
1
1
2
4
2
8
5
2
9
5
0
4
7
5
0
8
4
3
1
7
0
7
8
5
8
3
A
1
6
5
6
4
C
1
7
6
4
TRANSECT BY AVERAGE DEPTH (M)
GROUP
IVVS
-------
Primary qualitative differences between results from the EPA study in Study Areas 2, 3, and 4
(SAIC 1992b) and the Navy study (Nybakken et al. 1992; SAIC 1992a) reflect depth-related
trends between shelf (Study Area 2) and upper to middle slope communities (Pioneer Canyon
sites and the shallower portions of Study Areas 3 and 4) compared to deep middle slope
communities (the deeper portions of Study Areas 3 and 4), and the lower continental slope (Study
Area 5). This conclusion is based on the predominance of very similar megafaunal taxa
(Nybakken et al. 1992; SAIC 1992b) and fish communities (Cailliet et al. 1992; SAIC 1992b)
at depths from approximately 1,200 m to 3,200 m (i.e., deep middle and lower slope). For
example, echinoderms (sea cucumbers, brittlestars, and seastars) and cnidarians (primarily sea
pens) were predominant in the deep parts of Study Area 3 and 4 (SAIC 1992b), as well as in
Study Area 5 (Nybakken et al. 1992). Clearly, these similarities are based partly on upper level
taxonomic comparisons and do not account for other potentially important species density and
biomass differences. Nonetheless, the relative similarity of the deeper communities suggests a
broad-scale pattern that appears to be consistent across the deeper portions of Study Areas 3 and
4 and within Study Area 5.
Comparisons with Other Studies
Prior to recent studies (SAIC 1992 a,b; Nybakken et al. 1992), knowledge of benthic megafaunal
communities and information concerning the processes that regulate these communities on the
continental slope (from depths of approximately 200 m to 4,000 m depth) has been limited.
Nearly all studies of deeper slope communities in the northeastern Pacific, as well as those in
other continental margins, report depth as a major factor related to changes in the number of
species, abundance, biomass, and size structure of populations (Astrahantseff and Alton 1965;
Alton 1966, 1972; Carey 1972, 1990; Pereyra 1972; Pereyra and Alton 1972; Carney and Carey
1976). However, it is clear from these studies that depth-associated physical, chemical, and
biological changes along these depth gradients, and not depth alone, are collectively responsible
for the observed patterns.
SAIC conducted a survey of the northern and central California demersal communities at depths
ranging from 30 to 300 m (SAIC 1989b). This study concluded that substrate type (hard versus
soft bottom) and relief were the most important physical factors influencing the biological
communities. Depth was next most important while latitude seemed to be least important. The
influence of substrate type was illustrated by its effect on the number of species. On transects
with 75 to 100% hard substrate, 36-44 taxa were identified. Transects with at least 10% hard
substrate still had 23-30 taxa, whereas transects with less than 10% hard substrate contained only
11-14 taxa. Sampling stations were north and south of the LTMS study region and did not
overlap the LTMS areas sampled.
Wakefield's (1990) trawl data off Point Sur, California, indicated invertebrates accounted for
about 35% to 75% of the total catch, based on individual abundances, for each 200 m depth
stratum from 400 m to 1,400 m. This contrasts dramatically with results from SAIC (1992b)
where megafauna only contributed from 3% to 13% of the total individuals caught for the same
depth strata. Also in contrast, the average total biomass of megafauna collected by SAIC (1992b)
3-113
-------
at slope depths between 400 m and 1,400 m was approximately 465 kg/ha compared with half
that for the Point Sur area (calculated from Wakefield 1990).
Biomass of megafauna collected on the continental slope and near the Columbia River off the
Oregon coast differ from results obtained by SAIC (1992b) off the California coast. For
example, megafaunal biomass collected by SAIC (1992b) was approximately four times that
reported by Pearcy et al. (1982) for the continental slope off central Oregon. In contrast,
invertebrate biomass in the SAIC (1992b) study was less than 20% of the total near the Columbia
River, off the northern Oregon coast (Pereyra and Alton 1972). These differences may be
significantly influenced by differences in the trawl gear used.
Differences in the number of species, density, and biomass of megafaunal invertebrates off
central California (SAIC 1992b) as compared to Oregon (Pereyra and Alton 1972) probably were
related to several factors including gear selectivity, inherent latitudinal differences in the faunas,
and more limited knowledge of taxonomy for many species groups (e.g., cnidarians) off the
central California coast. For example, Pereyra and Alton (1972) noted at least 343 species of
megafauna (including infauna), with an estimated 150 additional species unidentified, from their
study off the Columbia River. This represents considerably higher megafaunal diversity than the
approximately 110 species found by SAIC (1992b).
Factors Influencing Community Patterns
The community differences by depth observed by SAIC (1992a,b) and Nybakken et al. (1992)
were generally similar to those suggested by Gage and Tyler (1991) and Wakefield (1990), with
the exception that the "upper slope" was divided for the SAIC (1992b) study into two parts:
upper slope (depths of approximately 200 to 500 m) and middle slope (depths of approximately
500 to 1,200 m).
Sediment Types
In general, sediment types change from relatively coarse-grained in shelf and upper continental
slope habitats (approximately < 500 m) to fine-grained muds on the middle to lower slope
(> 1,000 m) and can have a significant effect on the distribution and abundance of megafauna
(Wakefield 1990; Vercoutere et al. 1987). Area-specific studies by SAIC (1992c) concluded that
infaunal distribution corresponded to changes in sediment characteristics. Similarly, SAIC
(1992b) found taxonomic differences in megafauna (at the Genus level) that may be attributed
to broad changes in sediment types within the study region (see Section 3.3.2.1). For example,
seastars (Asteronyx loveni and Myxoderma platyacanthum) were generally predominant at depths
corresponding to sedimentary changes from sand to sandy mud (see Section 3.2.5.1), while no
distributional trends in epifaunal species composition corresponding to sediment characteristics
were evident at depths greater than 1,000 m.
Changes in sediment types in the Gulf of the Farallones are related to several factors including
the presence of the California Undercurrent, which can reach to depths of about 600 m (Section
3-114
-------
3.1). The California Undercurrent can erode fine-grained sediments (Karlin 1980; Smith 1983)
and create favorable habitats for many megafaunal invertebrate species. Thus, due to its role in
defining erosional and depositional zones on the slope (Wakefield 1990), the boundary of the
California Undercurrent may strongly influence the abundance and distribution of species along
this depth gradient. It is notable that the 600 m boundary of the California Undercurrent is close
to the approximate boundary between the upper and middle slope communities (combined fish
and megafauna) defined by SAIC (1992b).
Results from the ROV video and photographic surveys suggest a generally uniform mud bottom
over most transect areas (see Section 3.3.3). Thus, major changes in the sedimentary
environment, as might be associated with community differences, were not evident. However,
the resolution of sediment grain-size differences from the ROV data may not be sufficient to
recognize subtle changes.
The proximity of the study region to waters outflowing from San Francisco Bay also may have
an influence on the diversity of the fish and megafaunal communities. Seasonal changes related
to river runoff, sediments derived from the estuary, and other factors such as organic fluxes may
influence benthic habitat heterogeneity and complexity, leading to changes in species diversity.
For example, the differences in species composition noted by Pereyra and Alton (1972) may be
attributed to runoff by the Columbia River.
Oxygen Minimum Zone
The presence of gradients such as those produced by the oxygen minimum zone (OMZ) may be
responsible for the depth-related patterns of some species on the California continental slope
between approximately 600 and 800 m depths (Wakefield 1990). Perhaps the most striking
distribution related to the oxygen minimum was that of the seastar Myxoderma platyacanthum,
which was the most abundant megafaunal invertebrate in the OMZ, where it was found almost
exclusively. Although there are no relevant physiological studies that have been performed on
this species, it is notable that extensive respiratory structures (papulae), which potentially could
be important in low oxygen environments, are present in high densities over the surface of this
seastar. Because of the apparent effect of the OMZ on at least some common species, this
boundary may strongly influence the patterns of community distribution noted from the cluster
analyses (see SAIC 1992b Figure 3-12). SAIC (1992c) also found upper slope infaunal
communities to be influenced by the OMZ, especially in the 600 to 800 m depth zones where
oligochaetes are present in the fauna and indicative of sites with some partial oxygen stress.
The number of megafaunal invertebrate species tended to increase through the OMZ, perhaps due
to reduced movement and activity (and lesser sensitivity to low oxygen conditions) of most
species (SAIC 1992b). This pattern of increasing number of megafaunal species from the shelf
break towards the middle of the continental slope is similar to general patterns reported from the
western Atlantic (Rex 1981, 1983) and for many continental slope communities (Sanders and
Hessler 1969; Haedrick et al. 1980).
3-115
-------
Biological Factors
The majority of studies on biological processes have been conducted in intertidal or shallow
subtidal habitats and their applicability to processes influencing deeper water species is unknown.
Biological factors, including competition for space or food (Sebens 1986), predation (Paine and
Vadas 1969; Lubchenco 1978), and larval selectivity and availability (Crisp 1974; Scheltema
1974) may also influence the distribution and abundance of benthic communities within the study
region. Additional studies to evaluate biological processes in deep-water habitats would expand
the understanding of the ecology and interactions of these organisms.
3.3.2.3 Pelagic Invertebrates
This section describes the pelagic invertebrates collected by SAIC (1992b), Nybakken et al.
(1992), and Bence et al. (1992) within the study region. Because they were not specifically
targeted by the EPA or Navy studies, pelagic invertebrates collected during these surveys
represent incidental catches. Midwater trawls by NMFS represent the most comprehensive
database for pelagic species within the general study region.
Pelagic invertebrates include those species capable of movement throughout the water column
and/or just above the bottom. Examples include euphausiids, squid, pteropods, heteropods, and
octopuses. Documentation of pelagic invertebrate populations and abundances in the region is
limited. Most of the available information focuses on euphausiids and cephalopods that are either
of commercial importance or are prey items for fish, marine birds, and marine mammals.
Midwater surveys in the region (Bence et al. 1992) and the analyses of commercial fishery
catches (MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992) indicated that cephalopods were a
predominant pelagic invertebrate group in the study region. Market squid collected in midwater
trawls at depths of approximately 30 m tended to be most abundant in areas less than 180 m in
bottom depth, similar to Study Area 2, while squid abundances in Study Areas 3, 4, and 5
(including Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5), were uniformly low (Bence et al. 1992). In contrast,
other squids (not including market squid) had low abundances within Study Area 2 and higher
abundances at depths greater than 1,200 m, corresponding to Study Areas 3, 4, and 5 (Bence et
al. 1992). Euphausiids were patchily abundant throughout the study region and available data
do not provide a clear indication that they were more abundant in any particular study area
(Bence et al. 1992). Because virtually no deep-water pelagic habitats on the Farallon slope have
been sampled, information concerning these pelagic species at similar depths off the central
California coast is important For example, a combination of deep-water sampling and
monitoring of local commercial fisheries in Monterey Bay resulted in the collection of ten species
of previously unreported cephalopods including Gonatus spp., Berryteuthis artonychus,
Chiroteuthis calyx, Octopoteuthis dele tron, Valbyteuthisdanaejapetella heathi, and Graneledone
spp. (Anderson 1978). Catches from large midwater trawls and commercial anchovy purse-seine
hauls analyzed for pelagic assemblages were dominated by the common market squid Loligo
opalescens (Cailliet et al. 1979). SAIC (1992b) collected seven species of cephalopods, including
market squid, Moroteuthis robusta, Vampiroteuthis infemalis, Benthoctopus spp.. Octopus
3-116
-------
dofleini, O. rubescens, and Opisthoteuthis californiana. Cephalopods are also a primary prey
item for many marine mammals foraging over the continental shelf (Fiscus 1982; Roper et al.
1984) such as whales which feed on squid off the central California coast (Fiscus et al. 1989).
3.3.2.4 Commercially Important Species
The offshore coastal regions of central California support fisheries for a number of epifauna
species including spot prawn (Pandalus platyceros); four crab species of the genus Cancer,
including Dungeness crab (C. magister)', and market squid (Loligo opalescens; Roper et al. 1984).
Commercially and/or recreationally important species collected within the study region by SAIC
(1992b) included Dungeness crab, market squid, and various species of shrimp; however, all these
species were collected infrequently (primarily as incidentals) and in low abundances.
Assessments of local squid populations have been made to determine fishery size and structure
(Roper et al. 1984; Recksick and Frey 1978) and correlations between oceanographic conditions
and squid catches (Mclnnis and Broenkow 1978). The predominance of squid off the central
coast of California, and their importance as prey species to marine mammals suggest that these
species are a major component of the pelagic invertebrate community.
Study Area 2, with a maximum depth of approximately 180 m, is likely to support the most
substantial commercial fisheries for both pelagic and demersal invertebrates within the study
region, with species such as spot prawn, Cancer crabs, and market squid predominating.
Dungeness crab, a significant bottom fishery resource in shallow inshore depths along the west
coast of North America from central California to Southern Alaska (Botsford et al. 1989), was
collected infrequently within Study Area 2 by SAIC (1992b) and Parr et al. (1987). Market squid
populations were most abundant in midwater trawls in the top 30 m of the water column, over
bottom depths less than approximately 180 m, corresponding to similar depths within Study Area
2 (Bence et al. 1992). However, crabs and urchins were the primary megafaunal species being
targeted in Study Area 2, according to the MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992).
Although MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992) data also indicated abalone were
taken in Study Areas 2 and 3, these data may be inaccurate and a result of reporting or database
tabulation errors. Abalone are usually limited to shallow intertidal or subtidal (less than 40 m)
hard-bottom substrate.
In contrast to fishery resources in Study Area 2 and shallower inshore areas, little information
exists regarding commercial invertebrate fisheries in Study Areas 3, 4, or 5. This may be due
to lower fishing effort for invertebrates within Study Areas 3, 4, or 5 by commercial fishermen.
3-117
-------
3.3.3 Fish Community
This section describes the fish communities in the study region. Separate sections are included
on demersal fishes (those which live on or near the bottom; Section 3.3.3.1) and pelagic fishes
(those that spend alJ or part of their life in the water column; Section 3.3.3.2). Information also
is presented on commercially and/or recreationally important species that inhabit the study region
(Section 3.3.3.3).
3.3.3.1 Demersal Species
This section describes the demersal fishes found in the study region, including Study Areas 2,
3, 4, and 5. Specifically, information is presented on predominant species, density, and biomass
within each study area. Also, details are presented on the rank order of density (Table 3.3.3-1 A)
and biomass (Table 3.3.3-1B) for the top five fishes collected during trawl surveys by SAIC
(1992b) in each study area. A summary overview of demersal fish community characteristics
by study area is presented in Table 3.3.3-2. Because a number of fish species (e.g., rockfishes)
possess both pelagic juvenile and demersal adult stages, juvenile stages of these fishes collected
by SAIC (1992b) and Bence et al. (1992) are discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.
Extensive trawl and ROV biological surveys were conducted for the EPA in Study Areas 2
through 4, at adjacent transects within Pioneer Canyon, and at "mid-depth" transects during
September and October 1991 (SAIC 1992b), and by the Navy in Study Area 5 during July 1991
(Cailliet et al. 1992). Previous trawl studies within Study Area 2 also were conducted by KLI
(1991). Additional information from midwater and bottom trawls is summarized in Bence et al.
(1992).
Similar to general distributional patterns observed in the study region for invertebrate
communities (see infauna, Section 3.3.2.1; and epifauna. Section 3.3.2.2), demersal fish
communities were differentiated based on depth or depth-related factors in the study region
(Figures 3.3.3-1 and 3.3.3-2). Although these depth distributions are similar to those described
for invertebrate communities, a deep middle slope community was not evident for demersal
fishes. These communities are summarized as follows:
• A shelf community (from depths of at least 72 to approximately 200 m), including
Study Area 2 and some mid-depth transects (Figure 3.3.3-2), was characterized by
relatively high numbers of fish species and abundances (including
commercially/recreationally important species) but relatively low biomass (Table
3.3.3-2). This community is dominated by sanddabs, English sole, rex sole,
rockfishes (not including thornyheads), pink surfperch, plainfin midshipman, and
white croakers (Table 3.3.3-1 A). Of these, all except pink surfperch and plainfin
midshipman have important commercial value. Figure 3.3.3-1 depicts a typical
shelf community assemblage.
3-118
-------
Table 3.3.3-1A. Rank Order of Density (number of individuals/hectare) by Increasing Trawl Depth for Demersal Fishes Collected by
SAIC (1992b) During Surveys in Study Areas 2 Through 4 and Adjacent Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and at "Mid-
Depth" (MD).
SPECIES
(depth En meters)
2A
(72)
26-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MD1-1
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC 3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Citharichthys sordidus
Pacific Sanddab
1
1
1
Enex zachirus
Rax Sola
2
4
3
2
—
2
Porkhthys nctatus
Plainfm Midshipmen
3
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Zahmbius rosaceus
Pink Surfperch
4
2
4
Pleuronectes vetulus
English Sola
5
—
2
Genyonemus lineatus
White Croaker
—
3
—
Popritus similtimus
Pacific Butterfrsh
—
5
Microstomas pacHicus
Dover Sole
—
—
5
—
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
—
—
—
Sebastes jordani
Shortbelly Rockfish
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Lyopselta exiUs
Slender Sole
—
—
—
3
3
—
Sebastes saxicola
Slripelail Rockfish
—
—
—
4
2
Anopbpoma fimbria
SaWefish
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
3
4
—
5
—
—
—
—
AKOOM.Wll
-------
Table 3.3.3-1A.
Continued.
u>
I
ro
o
SPECIES
(depth in meters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(120)
MDM
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Sebastes diploproa
Splitnose rockftsh
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sebastobbus aftivelis
Longspine Thomyhead
—
—
—
—
—
3
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
—
Sebastobbus alascanus
Shortspine Thomyhead
—
—
—
—
—
4
5
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Lycodes cortezianus
Bigfin Eelpout
—
—
—
—
—
5
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Nezumia stelgidolepis
California Grenadier
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Merluccius productus
Pacific Hake
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
2.5
—
—
Alepocephalus tenebrosus
California Slickhead
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
5
2
5
—
5
—
Coryphaenoides acrolepis
Pacific Grenadier
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Albatrossia pectorals
Giant Grenadier
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
3
2.5
3
5
Antimora micrvlepis
Finescale Codling
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
2
2
Lycenchelys jordani
Shortjaw Eelpout
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
Coryphaenoides filifer
Threadfin Grenadier
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
AK0O38.W3I
-------
Table 3.3.3-1B. Rank Order of Biomass by Increasing Trawl Depth for Demersal Fishes Collected by SAIC (1992b) During Surveys
in Study Areas 2 Through 4 and Adjacent Sites in Pioneer Canyon (PC) and at "Mid-Depth" (MD).
SPECIES
(depth in maters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MOM
(252)
PCM
(495)
MD3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-t
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Citharichthys sordidus
Pacific Sanddab
1
1
2
—
Errex zachirus
Rex Sole
2
4
3
4
5
3
—
Pteuronectes vetutus
English Sole
3
5
1
—
Raja binoculata
Big Skate
4
—
—
Porichthys notatus
Plainfm Midshipmen
5
Genyonemus lineatus
White croaker
—
2
4
—
Zalembius rosaceus
Pink Surfperch
—
3
Microstomus pacificus
Dover Sole
—
—
5
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
—
—
—
Sebastes jordani
Shortbelly Rockfish
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sebastes goodei
Chilipepper
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sebastes saxico/a
Stripetail Rockfish
—
—
—
5
3
Anoptopoma fimbria
Sablefish
—
—
—
—
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
4
—
—
—
Lyopsetta exiBs
Slender Sole
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
AJC0039WJI
-------
Table 3.3.3-1B. Continued.
u>
i
to
to
SPECIES
(depth in meters)
2A
(72)
2B-3
(85)
2C-1
(85)
MD2-1
(128)
MOM
(252)
PCM
(495)
MO 3-1
(504)
PC2-1
(675)
3B-1
(1008)
3C-1
(1143)
PC3-1
(1170)
4B-2
(1278)
4C-1
(1458)
4A-1
(1656)
3A-1
(1764)
Mertucdus productus
Pacific Hake
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sebastolobus alascanus
Shorlspine Thomyhead
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
5
5
4
—
—
—
—
—
Sebastobbus aftivelis
Longspine Thomyhead
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
3
3
5
5
—
—
5
—
Raja rhina
Longnose Skate
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Lycodes cortezianus
Bigfin Eelpout
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Corypbaenoides acrolepis
Pacific Grenadier
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
3
2
2
1
1
Albatrossia pectoraSs
Giant Grenadier
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
3
1
2
2
Alepocephalus lenebrosus
California Slickhead
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
Antimora microlepis
Rnescale Codling
5
4
3
3
Bathyraja trachura
Black Skate
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
Bathyraja abyssicola
Deepsea Skate
5
4
—
Bathyraja rosispinus
Flathead Skate
4
Coryphaenoides filifer
Threadfin Grenadier
5
AK0039 W31
-------
u>
N)
U>
200m--"
600m
1000m
1400m
1800m
2200m
2600m
EPIPELAGIC
CONTINENTAL SHELF
(STUDY AREA 2)
:¦
MESOPELAGIC
<$3
-------
This page intentionally left blank
3-124
-------
-123° W
Figure 3.3.3-2. Summary of Distribution Patterns of Benthic Communities (Fishes and
Megafaunal Invertebrates) from Trawl and ROV Studies Conducted in
September and October 1991.
Transect start and end coordinates are indicated for trawls (solid lines) and ROV (dots mark
coordinates). Study Areas 2, 3, and 4 locations are shown by "2," "3," and "4"; MD=Mid-
depth; PC=Pioneer Canyon. Shelf communities are less than or equal to 200 m; upper slope
is 200-500 m; middle slope is 500-1,200 m; and lower slope is greater than 1,200 m. Shades
of blue correspond to areas with similar species composition (dark blue) and areas with less
similar species composition (light blue) based on cluster analysis by SAIC (1992b).
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 3.3.3-2. Continued.
AK0096.W5I 3*126
-------
• Upper and middle slope communities (from approximately 200 to 500 m and 500
to 1,200 m depth, respectively), including shallow parts of Study Areas 3 and 4,
mid-depth, and Pioneer Canyon (Figure 3.3.3-2), were characterized by moderate
numbers of fish species and densities and the highest relative biomass (including
commercially/recreationally important species; Table 3.3.3-2). Fishes collected
using trawls and/or observed from ROV records on the upper slope include
rockfishes, flatfishes, sablefish, eelpouts, and thornyheads (Figure 3.3.3-1).
Rockfishes, thornyheads, flatfishes, sablefish, hake, slickheads, and rattails were
collected from the middle slope. Figure 3.3.3-1 depicts typical upper and middle
slope fish assemblages.
• Lower slope communities (from depths of approximately 1,200 m to at least
3,200 m), including the deeper parts of Study Areas 3 and 4 and Study Area 5
(including Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5), were characterized by relatively low
numbers of fish species, abundance, and biomass (Table 3.3.3-2). This community
is characterized by rattails, thornyheads, finescale codling, and eelpouts (Figure
3.3.3-1).
Types of depth-related factors recognized as influencing community structure include differences
in the sedimentary environment, the OMZ, and regional current patterns (e.g., summarized in
Wakefield 1990). These factors are discussed in greater detail below.
Demersal fish communities within the study region exhibited several distinct patterns related to
the number and type of species, density, and biomass (Tables 3.3.3-2, 3.3.3-1 A, and 3.3.3-IB;
Figures 3.3.3-3 through 3.3.3-5). The numbers of species collected from transects in Study
Area 2 by SAIC (1992b) ranged from 18 to 29 (Figure 3.3.3-3), with flatfishes (such as Pacific
sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus; English sole, Pleuronectes vetulus; and rex sole, Errex
zachirus), rockfishes (Sebastes spp.), and species such as pink surfperch (Zalembius rosaceus)
being abundant (Table 3.3.3-1 A). Similar results were obtained by Bence et al. (1992) and KLI
(1991) in Study Area 2, with Pacific sanddabs, plainfin midshipmen, and pink surfperch
predominating. Overall fish densities (number of individuals per hectare) were high in
Study Area 2 (Figure 3.3.3-4), with flatfish densities (Table 3.3.3-1 A) and biomass (Table 3.3.3-
1B) for species such as Pacific sanddabs and English sole the highest of any of the study areas.
However, biomass (kg/ha) in this area was relatively low (less than approximately 250 kg/ha) due
to the presence of numerous small flatfishes such as Pacific sanddabs and rex sole (Figure 3.3.3-
5). Rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) as a group were most abundant from depths of approximately 180
to 270 m (Bence et al. 1992), corresponding to similar depths adjacent to Study Area 2. Pelagic
juvenile Dover sole and adult Pacific hake were collected in midwater trawls within 30 m of the
surface and had higher abundances in Study Area 2 (Bence et al. 1992).
Study Area 3 was characterized by moderate numbers of species (Table 3.3.3-2 and Figure 3.3.3-
3). Fish densities (Figure 3.3.3-4) from the shallow parts of Study Area 3 (at depths of
approximately 1,000 to 1,200 m; Transects 3B-1 and 3C-1) were higher than the deeper part (at
depths of approximately 1,700 m; Transect 3A-1) including Alternative Site 3 (SAIC 1992b).
3-127
-------
Table 3.3.3-2.
Summary by Study Area of Demersal Fish Community Characteristics.
Survey
Location
Depth Range
(m)
Total
Species
Density
(individuate
per hectare)
Biomass
(kg per hectare)
Predominant
Species
Commercially
Important Species
Study Area
2 '
72-85
29
1500-2500
100-250
Sanddabs
Rex Sole
English Sole
Pink Surfperch
yes
yes
yes
no
MD
128-504
19
500-14,000
220-1200
Shortbelly Rockfish
Flatfishes
Sablefish
Skates
yes
yes
yes
no
PC
495-1170
19
1500-2500
550-1150
Flatfishes
Rockfishes
Sablefish
yes
yes
yes
Study Area
3 1
1008-1656
16
500-1500
80-400
Rattails
Thomyheads
Dover Sole
Finescale Codlings
potential
yes
yes
no
Study Area
4 1
1278-1764
14
< 100-500
20-400
Rattails
Thomyheads
Eelpouts
potential
yes
no
Study Area
*5 2
2300-3065
15
~ 14
Data not
collected
Rattails
Finescale Codlings
Eelpouts
Snailfishes
potential
no
no
no
1 SAIC 1992b
2 Cailliet et al. 1992
* Data are not directly comparable to SAIC (1992b) since different trawl methods were used (beam and small otter trawl versus large otter trawl
for SAIC 1992b).
AK0040.W3I
-------
u>
I
t—*
to
vo
sss
fW<
Valtd
p
c
2
6
7
5
3
B
1
0
0
B
3
C
1
1
4
3
P
C
3
1
1
7
0
4
B
1
2
7
8
4
A
1
4
5
8
3
A
1
6
5
6
4
C
1
7
6
4
TAXA
TRANSECT BY AVERAGE DEPTH (M)
IXXXXJ Eelpouts
|\\\SJ Other
m Rockflsh
A Sharks/skates
c
] Flatf ish
^~Rattalls
V//A Sablef lsh
Figure 3.3.3-3. Number of Benthic Fish Species by General Taxonomic Group Collected
During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) by Each Transect.
Transects sorted in order of increasing depth. Average depth (m) is indicated beneath each
transect
-------
14000 n
13000 -
12000 -
/—
LiJ
11000 -
CC
<
t—
10000 -
o
Id
T
9000 -
\
CC
8000 -
Ld
00
T
7000 -
U
7
6000 -
>-
5000 -
~-
V)
z
4000 -
Ui
o
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
o J
mm
2
B
7
2
2
A
8
5
2
C
8
5
M
D
2
1
2
8
M
0
1
2
5
2
P
C
1
4
9
5
M
0
3
5
0
4
P
C
2
6
7
5
3
B
1
0
0
8
H
Mi
4
B
1
2
7
8
4
A
1
4
5
8
3
A
1
6
5
6
4
C
1
7
6
4
TAXA
TRANSECT BY AVERAGE DEPTH (M)
Eel pouts
Other
Rockf1sh
Sharks/skates
Flatf i sh
RattalIs
V//A Sablefish
Figure 3.3.3-4. Sum of Densities of Benthic Fish Species by General Taxonomic Group
Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) by Each Transect.
Transects sorted in order of increasing depth. Average depth (m) is indicated beneath each
transect
-------
a:
<
H
o
u
X
CC
Ui
a.
/—*
u
*
tn
VI
<
2
O
CD
U>
I
N-*
u>
TRANSECT BY AVERAGE DEPTH (M)
TAXA
KZZZ)
Ee1 pouts
Other
Rockf1sh
Sharks/skates
]
CD
^7771
Flatf lsh
RattalIs
Sablef1sh
Figure 3.3.3-5.
Sum of Biomasses of Benthic Fish Species by General Taxonomic Group
Collected During Trawl Surveys by SAIC (1992b) by Each Transect.
Transects sorted in order of increasing depth. Average depth (m) is indicated beneath each
transect
-------
Rockfishes such as thomyheads (Sebastolobus spp.) and flatfishes such as Dover sole, comprised
the highest densities in the shallower parts of this study area, while rattails and finescale codling
represent characteristic species at deeper depths (SAIC 1992b; Bence et al. 1992). Densities of
both thomyheads and Dover sole were relatively high (Table 3.3.3-1 A). Biomass decreased in
the shallowest to deepest parts of the study area, from 400 to 80 kg/ha, with Dover sole and
sablefish contributing the highest proportion of biomass (Table 3.3.3-IB; Figure 3.3.3-5). Slender
sole (Lyopsetta exilis) and spotted ratfish (Hydrolagus colliei) were abundant at depths of
approximately 270 to 360 m, suggesting they also might be common in the shallowest parts of
this study area (Bence et al. 1992).
SAIC (1992b) collected the lowest number of species in the deepest part of Study Area 4
including Alternative Site 4, although this may have been due to problems with sampling gear
on one of the three trawls. Over the entire study area, rattails (Coryphaenoides spp.) comprised
the majority of the trawl fish catch. Densities of fishes varied, but were usually less than 500/ha
(Figure 3.3.3-4). At depths greater than approximately 1,500 m (e.g.. Transect 4C), the numbers
of fish species, densities, and biomass were extremely low. The highest biomass contribution
at these deeper depths was from rattails and slickheads (Table 3.3.3-IB; Figure 3.3.3-5). Bence
et al. (1992) indicated thomyheads (Sebastolobus spp.) were most abundant at depths between
700 to 900 m. This suggests thomyheads might be common in the shallow parts of Study Area
4 (Bence et al. 1992), while rattails were most abundant in the deep portions of Study Areas 3
and 4 and in Study Area 5 (including Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5).
Study Area 5, surveyed by the Navy in 1991 (Cailliet et al. 1992), was dominated by rattails,
eelpouts (Zoarcidae), and morids (Antimora microlepis). Fish densities in this study area were
low (e.g., 207/ha). These general results are very similar to those observed for the deep slope
communities in Study Areas 3 and 4 at depths greater than approximately 1,200 m, even though
the trawl used by SAIC (1992b) was a large commercial-sized otter trawl, while Cailliet et al.
(1992) used a small beam trawl and a small otter trawl. Within Study Area 5, Cailliet et al.
(1992) collected 15 species of fishes, of which rattails, eelpouts, and finescale codling were
predominant.
Based on the differences in sampling methods, as noted above, quantitative comparisons between
Study Areas 2 through 4 and Study Area 5 do not appear to be appropriate. Primary qualitative
differences between results from SAIC (1992b) surveys in Study Areas 2, 3, 4, mid-depth, and
Pioneer Canyon, and Cailliet et al. (1992) surveys in Study Area 5 reflect depth-related trends
between shelf (Study Area 2) and upper to middle slope communities (Pioneer Canyon sites and
the shallower portions of Study Area 3) compared to lower slope communities (Study Area 4,
the deeper portion of Study Area 3, and Study Area 5). This conclusion is based on the
predominance of very similar fish taxa from depths of approximately 1,200 to 3,200 m (i.e.,
lower slope) as compared to the shallower communities. For example, lower slope fish
communities from both studies are characterized by rattails, eelpouts, and finescale codlings.
These similarities and differences are based partly on upper level taxonomic comparisons and do
not account for other potential species density and biomass differences. Nonetheless, the relative
"sameness" of the deeper communities suggests a broad-scale pattern that is consistent across the
3-132
-------
deeper portions of Study Areas 3 and 4 and within Study Area 5. This similarity is also evident
from Bence et al. (1992) surveys. Although both midwater and demersal trawls were used,
results similar to* SAIC (1992b) and Cailliet et al. (1992) in species composition were obtained
by the NMFS surveys.
Comparisons With Other Studies
Several studies from California to the Pacific Northwest show variations with depth among major
fish groups. For shallow depths on the continental shelf and upper continental slope, flatfishes,
including Bothidae (e.g., sanddabs) and Pleuronectidae (e.g., rex sole and Dover sole), account
for the greatest biomass in most studies. Fishes such as flatfishes, including Dover sole, rex sole,
and in some cases Pacific sanddabs (SAIC 1992b; Bence et al. 1992), were also dominant on the
shelf and upper slope off Point Sur (Wakefield 1990), offshore from the Columbia River (Pearcy
et aL 1982), and over most trawl locations along the coast of central California which were
sampled by NMFS (Butler et al. 1989). Smaller individuals of these flatfish species usually were
most abundant at the shallowest depths and larger individuals were most abundant on the
continental slope (Figures C-6, C-5, and C-2 in SAIC 1992b).
Comparisons of shelf fish communities based on abundance data from SAIC (1992b) and KLI
(1991) indicated that flatfishes, pink surfperch, plainfin midshipman, and rockfishes made up the
top species or taxonomic groups collected by both studies within the study region. Comparisons
of upper slope fish communities at depths between approximately 300 to 600 m with studies by
Wakefield (1990) and Cross (1987) at depths between 600 to 1,600 m indicated that flatfishes,
rockfishes, and eelpouts ranked in the top five, suggesting that species compositions were similar
between both of these studies over the same depth intervals. Finally, on the lower slope (at
depths greater than 1,200 m) thornyheads, rattails, eelpouts, and finescale codling ranked high
in all studies (SAIC 1992b; Wakefield 1990).
Factors Influencing Community Patterns
Fish community structure within the study region can be influenced by depth or depth-related
factors such as the sedimentary environment, regional current patterns, and the OMZ.
Several factors, including the presence of the California Undercurrent, which reaches to a depth
of about 600 m, may contribute to changes in sediment types in the Gulf of the Farallones. Thus,
due to its role in defining erosional and depositional zones on the slope (Wakefield 1990), the
boundary of the California Undercurrent may also influence the abundance and distribution of
demersal fishes along this depth gradient It is notable that the 600 m boundary of the California
Undercurrent is close to the approximate boundary between the upper and middle slope
communities defined by SAIC (1992b).
The proximity of the study region to the outflow from San Francisco Bay also may have an
influence on the diversity of the fish communities within the study region. Seasonal changes
related to river runoff, sediments derived from the estuary, and other factors such as organic
3-133
-------
fluxes, may influence benthic habitat heterogeneity and complexity, leading to changes in species
diversity. The only other west coast study of slope fishes offshore of a large estuary or river is
Alton's (1972) study off the Columbia River.
In addition to sedimentary effects on fish communities, the presence of gradients such as those
produced by the OMZ may be responsible for the depth-related patterns of some species found
on the California continental slope at depths between approximately 600 m and 800 m
(Wakefield 1990). Oxygen minima usually underlie surface waters having high primary
production or other high inputs of organic material (e.g., upwelling zones along the coast of
California). Active species, such as many types of fishes, may be unable to withstand low
oxygen concentrations. Although few studies have been conducted, there is some evidence which
indicates that species inhabiting the OMZ are well adapted to low oxygen environments. Some
mid-water species in this zone have the ability to regulate oxygen consumption (Childress 1975).
Dominant species of demersal fishes, such as thornyheads, have several biochemical adaptations
which allow them to thrive on the continental slope (reviewed in Wakefield 1990). All of these
physical factors may contribute to the overall structure of fish communities within the study
region.
3.3.3.2 Pelagic Species
This section describes pelagic species of fishes collected primarily using midwater and plankton
trawls by NMFS in the study region. Because surveys by SAIC (1992b) and Cailliet et al. (1992)
targeted demersal fish species, most of the pelagic fishes collected during these surveys
represented incidental species. However, the families of pelagic fish species collected by SAIC
(1992b) and Bence et al. (1992) are similar to other studies in comparable marine zones (Moyle
and Cech 1988). The Bence et al. (1992) report represents the most comprehensive data
available on pelagic fish species in the study region. Results from Bence et al. (1992) are based
on CalCOFI ichthyoplankton surveys (mainly the upper 210 m of the water column), NMFS
ichthyoplankton surveys (maximum 200 m wire out), and NMFS midwater trawls for juvenile
rockfishes (depths to 30 m).
The surface waters of the ocean to depths of approximately 200 m (epipelagic zone) represent
an enormous, although relatively featureless, habitat for fishes (Moyle and Cech 1988).
Epipelagic zone waters are typically well lighted, well mixed, and capable of supporting actively
photosynthesizing algae. At depths between 200 and approximately 1,000 m (mesopelagic zone),
light decreases rapidly as does temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations, while pressure
increases. At depths greater than 1,000 m (bathypelagic zone), conditions are characterized by
complete darkness, low temperature, low oxygen levels, and great pressure. Each of these zones
is distinguished by characteristic fish assemblages.
Epipelagic fishes can be distinguished based on two ecological types. Oceanic forms are those
that spend all or pan of their life in the open ocean away from the continental shelf, while neritic
forms spend all or part of their life in water above the continental shelf (Moyle and Cech 1988).
Typical epipelagic species include fast-moving swimmers such as tunas, mackerels, and salmon,
3-134
-------
as well as schooling baitfish such as herring, anchovy, and juvenile rockfishes. To date,
information exists for epipelagic fishes over the continental shelf; however, little information
exists for epipelagic fishes collected in Study Areas 3, 4, or 5. Epipelagic species collected by
SAIC (1992b) included Pacific herring, Northern anchovy, medusafish, Pacific sardine. Pacific
mackerel, Pacific saury, Pacific argentines, and juvenile rockfishes. Bence et al. (1992) collected
approximately 140 species in midwater trawls including juvenile rockfishes. Pacific herring and
Northern anchovy. Although these studies did not target epipelagic fishes, all of these species
were of the types collected in Study Area 2 and most are commercially important. Juvenile
rockfishes represent an important part of both commercial and recreational fisheries along the
entire Pacific coast (Bence et al. 1992). Juvenile rockfishes, such as the shortbelly rockfish
(Sebastes jordani) have been shown to be an important prey item for many seabirds (Ainley and
Boekelheide 1990), and for fishes such as chinook salmon, lingcod, and other rockfish species
(Chess et al. 1988). Some of the pelagic species collected by SAIC (1992), Cailliet et al. 1992,
and Bence et al. (1992) are shown by depth zone in Figure 3.3.3-1.
Mesopelagic fishes comprise the majority of incidental fishes collected by SAIC (1992b) and
Cailliet et al. (1992) in the study region. Most of these species undergo vertical migrations, often
moving into the epipelagic zone at night to prey on plankton and other fishes (Moyle and Cech
1988). Typical mesopelagic species collected in Study Areas 3 and 4 at depths between 100 to
1,000 m by SAIC (1992b) and Bence et al. (1992) included deep-sea smelts (Bathylagidae),
lanternfishes (Myctophidae), and viperfishes (Chauliodontidae; Figure 3.3.3-1). In Study Area 5,
Cailliet et al. (1992) also collected six species of mesopelagic fishes, most of which were from
the same families Bathylagidae, Myctophidae, Chauliodontidae, and Sternoptychidae.
Bathypelagic species, in contrast to mesopelagic fishes, are largely adapted for a sedentary
existence in a habitat with low levels of food and no light (Moyle and Cech 1988). SAIC
(1992b) collected bathypelagic fishes such as blackdragons (Idiacanthidae), dragonfish
(Melanostomiidae), and tubeshoulders (Searsiidae) primarily in the deeper parts of Study Areas
3 and 4 at depths greater than 1,000 m, while bathypelagic fishes collected by Cailliet et al.
(1992) in Study Area 5 included lanternfishes (Myctophidae), deep-sea smelts (Bathylagidae),
hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae), and viperfishes (Chauliodontidae). Most of the species found
to occupy the bathypelagic zone also occur in the mesopelagic zone during vertical migrations.
A typical bathypelagic fish assemblage is shown in Figure 3.3.3-1. Bathypelagic fishes collected
by Bence et al. (1992) included deep-sea smelts (Bathylagidae) and lanternfishes (Myctophidae).
3.3.3.3 Commercially and Recreationallv Important Species
This section describes the commercially and recreationally important species of fishes in the
study region including those collected by trawls from EPA (SAIC 1992b) and Navy studies
(Cailliet et al. 1992), as well as information summarized in Bence et al. (1992), Jow (1992),
unpublished California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Catch Block Data as provided by
the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and Battelle (1989). Although some information is
presented from recreational fisheries within the study region, the majority of fish species
discussed in this section represent commercial landings.
3-135
-------
Several of the abundant species collected within the study areas are of commercial importance.
In particular, SAIC (1992b) collected various species of flatfishes (Dover sole, rex sole, sanddabs,
English sole, and California halibut), rockfishes (splitnose, shortbelly, chilipepper, boccacio, and
thornyheads) and sablefish, that are currently targeted by commercial fisheries. The most
common fishes taken by recreational fishermen within the study region include salmon, albacore
tuna, mackerel, and rockfishes (CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database 1992). A summary of
common commercially and recreationally important species within the LTMS study areas is
presented in Table 3.3.3-3. Additional information concerning commercial and recreational
fisheries is presented in Section 3.4.1.
Flatfishes
Over the entire study region, the rank order of biomass for flatfishes landed by trawlers between
1985 and 1987 was Dover sole, English sole, Pacific sanddabs, petrale sole, and rex sole (Jow
1992). In Study Area 2, commercially important species of flatfishes collected by SAIC (1992b),
Bence et al. (1992), and KLI (1991) included Dover sole, rex sole, Pacific sanddabs. English
sole, petrale sole, and California halibut (Table 3.3.3-3). However, it is notable that California
halibut were collected only rarely and primarily in Study Area 2. Bence et al. (1992) indicate
that slender sole were most abundant between 270-360 m depth, suggesting they might be
abundant in the shallowest portions of Study Area 3. In the shallow parts of Study Areas 3 and
4, two species of flatfishes (Dover sole and deep-sea sole) were collected by SAIC (1992b). Of
these two species, only Dover sole represents a commercially important flatfish species. No
flatfishes were collected by SAIC (1992b) in the deeper part of Study Areas 3 and 4. Dover sole
that are collected commercially at depths greater than 800 m have high water content which
makes them less valuable to commercial fishermen under current market conditions (Bence et al.
1992).
Rockfishes
Rockfishes such as splitnose rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, boccacio, chilipepper, stripetail
rockfish, and thornyheads are commercially and/or recreationally important. Rockfishes (not
including thornyheads), found primarily in Study Area 2 by SAIC (1992b) and Bence et al.
(1992), were one of the most abundant and species-rich groups collected on the continental shelf.
Juvenile rockfishes had relatively high seasonal abundances inshore (Study Area 2) and in the
deep parts of Study Area 5, while lower seasonal abundances were found in the deep parts of
Study Areas 3 and 4 (Bence et al. 1992). MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992)
and CDFG Trawler Database (Jow 1992) indicated rockfishes, not including thornyheads, were
the predominant species collected commercially in Study Area 2, while rockfishes, including
thornyheads, were targeted in the shallow parts of Study Areas 3 and 4. Of the 16 species of
rockfishes collected by SAIC (1992b), only two species, the thornyheads Sebastolobus altivelis
and S. alascanus, were abundant on the middle and lower continental slope (Study Areas 3
and 4). However, thornyheads accounted for approximately 25% to 50% or more of the total
abundance or biomass of the upper to middle slope fishes collected by SAIC (1992b) and other
studies (Wakefield 1990; Butler et al. 1989; Pearcy et al. 1982; Alton 1972). Thornyheads
3-136
-------
Table 3.3.3-3. Summary of Common Commercially and Recreationally Important Fishes Within the LTMS Study Areas.
Information is based on SAIC (1992b), Cailliet et al. (1992), Bence et al. (1992), MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992),
CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database (1992), and KLI (1991). Adults are indicated by (A), Juveniles by (J), and Not Specified as
A or J by (NS).
Common Name
2
(72-85 m)
3 'Shallow*
{1,008-1,143 m)
3 "Deep*
(1,656 m)
4
(1,276-1,764 m)
5
(2,300-3,065 rn)
Northern Anchovy
A/J
J
J
J
Pacific Herring
A
A
Pacific Sardine
A
Pacific Hake
A/J
A/J
A/J
A/J
A/J
Shortbelly Rockfish
A/J
J
J
J
J
Chilipepper Rockfish
• A/J
J
J
J
Boccacio
A/J
J
J
J
J
Widow Rockfish
A
Yellowtail Rockfish
A
J
J
J
J
Thomyheads
A/J
A/J
A/J
Sablefish
A/J
A
A
Lingcod
A/J
Pacific Sanddab
A/J
Rex Sole
A/J
J
J
J
J
AK0M1.WJI
-------
Table 3.3.3-3. Continued.
Common Name
2
(72-85 m)
3 "Shallow"
(1.008-1,143 m)
3 "Deep"
(1,656 m)
4
(1.278-1,764 m)
5
(2,300-3,065 m)
California Halibut
A
English Sole
A
Dover Sole
A/J
A
A
J
Petrale Sole
A
Rattails (potential fishery)
A
A
A
A
Salmon
NS
Albacore Tuna
NS
Sharks/Skates/Rays
A
Hagfish
A
A
A
White Croaker
A
AK0O4I W3I
-------
collected by Bence et al. (1992) were most abundant at depths between 700 and 900 m.
corresponding primarily to the shallow parts of Study Area 3 (Table 3.3.3-3).
Sablefish
Sablefish commonly ranked third in biomass of the trawl-collected fishes, both along the
California coast (SAIC 1992b; Wakefield 1990; Butler et al. 1989) and offshore Oregon and
Washington (Pearcy et al. 1982; Alton 1972). Sablefish adults and juveniles occur on the
continental shelf (Study Area 2 and adjacent sites; Table 3.3.3-3), but adults tend to be highest
in abundance and biomass on the upper to middle slope (at depths from approximately 200 to
1,200 m; shallow parts of Study Areas 3 and 4), particularly off the Oregon coast where they
accounted for approximately 75% of the total fish biomass at depths between approximately
500 to 1,000 m (Alton 1972). Their abundance is somewhat lower (10% to 25% of the total fish
biomass) off California at middle slope depths (SAIC 1992b; Wakefield 1990; Butler et al. 1989).
The commercial trawl catch of sablefish occurs in the deeper part of Study Area 2, in depths
ranging between 110 and 183 m and in the shallower parts of Study Areas 3 and 4 in depths
between 457 and 1,372 m and between 1,006 to 1,280 m depth, respectively (Jow 1992). SAIC
(1992b) found that sablefish densities were highest at depths between 200 to 500 m. Sablefish
are known to inhabit depths of up to 1,800 m (Miller and Lea 1972) and can reach lengths to one
meter. Juvenile sablefish often can be found at or near the surface, while larger adults occupy
deeper depths (Cailliet et al. 1988).
Rattails
Rattails, such as the Pacific grenadier and the giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis), dominated
the deepest sampling depths (depths greater than approximately 1,200 m) within Study Areas 3
and 4 and Study Area 5 (SAIC 1992b; Cailliet et al. 1992; Bence et al. 1992; Eschmeyer and
Herald 1983). Rattails are commercially important in many parts of the world; however, these
fishes have been lightly exploited along the Pacific Coast due to the difficulties of deep-water
trawling in the region. (Matsui et aL 1990). For example, some rattails are landed in California
which are caught as part of the deep-water Dover sole fishery (Oliphant et al. 1990). Rattails
are currently fished in Alaska as an alternative fishery to the declining pollock fishery (Jacobson
1991; Matsui et al. 1990).
Other Species
Other fishes with commercial value (Table 3.3.3-3), including hagfish, are utilized primarily for
their skin. In Study Area 3, SAIC (1992b) collected only a few black hagfish (Eptatretus deanii).
Low abundances of hagfish collected by SAIC (1992b) is probably due to gear selectivity and
avoidance of nets due to their burrowing. Additional information concerning commercially and
recreationally targeted species such as tunas, mackerels, and salmon are discussed in
Section 3.4.1.
3-139
-------
3.3.4 Marine Birds
This section presents information on marine birds of the study region. Information on the
distribution, abundance, and ecology of key representative species is presented in Section 3.3.4.1.
A summary of the birds' usage of the LTMS study areas is presented in Section 3.3.4.2.
Marine birds are defined as those species that obtain most of their food from the ocean and are
found over water for more than half of the year (Briggs et al. 1987b). The Gulf of the Farallones
is the most important marine bird breeding area on the West Coast of the United States (Sowls
et al. 1980). Many of the 74 species of birds recorded by Briggs et al. (1987b) off the California
coast occur in the Gulf of the Farallones during their migration and/or breeding seasons. The
Farallon Islands and vicinity are used throughout the year by some 350,000 marine birds of 122
species (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). The islands support the world's largest breeding colonies
of ashy storm-petrels (Oceanodroma homochroa, 85% of the world population), Brandt's
cormorants (Phalacrocorax penicillatus, 10% of the world population), and western gulls (Larus
occidentalism 50% of the world population) (DeSante and Ainley 1980; Ainley and Boekelheide
1990). Additionally, an estimated one million sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) use the Gulf
of the Farallones, especially during their breeding season from March to July (DeSante and
Ainley 1980; Ainley et al. 1987).
Studies of marine birds near the Farallon Islands have been conducted for over a century. More
recent studies emphasize the biology of twelve species that nest on the Farallon Islands (Ainley
and Boekelheide 1990) and the distributions of birds that forage in the Gulf of the Farallones
(Briggs et aL 1987b). In June of 1985 through 1991, the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO)
conducted surveys that covered the general study region, including LTMS Study Areas 2 through
5 (Ainley and Allen 1992). Data from these surveys provide a long-term record of the
distribution of marine birds during the breeding season, although no comparable studies were
conducted during other seasons. Five additional surveys were conducted by EPA (Jones and
Szczepaniak 1992) during all seasons over a one year period, using methods similar to those used
by PRBO. However, this study was limited in duration. Neither study provided uniform
coverage of the four LTMS study areas. However, collectively they provide sufficient data to
characterize the marine bird communities of the region.
Ainley and Allen (1992) list a total of 63 marine bird species which occur regularly in the study
region (i.e., are present each year, either year-round or seasonally) or have special status (i.e.,
species that are threatened, endangered, or of special concern) (Table 3.3.4-1). Of these 63
species, 14 are breeding species, 37 are seasonal visitors, and 12 are passage migrants.
The distribution, abundance, and ecology of ten key species is described in this section as
representative of the range of natural history patterns that occur within the four study areas and
which potentially could be affected by dredged material disposal activities. Special status species
are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.6. Because of the importance of the Gulf of the
Farallones to many marine bird species, one or more of the following criteria were used to select
key species:
3-140
-------
Table 3.3.4-1. Species and General Characteristics of Marine Birds Observed Off California in the Vicinity of the Gulf
of the Farallones.
Those species having legal status including Federally Endangered (FE), Federally Threatened (FT), Slate Endangered (SE), State
Threatened (ST), and State Species of Special Concern (SSC) are shown in bold.
Species are listed according to their occurrence within the study region, such as breeding, seasonal visitor, or passage migrant, and
alphabetically by common name within these groups. Relative abundances refer to the following: Abundant = over 25,000 individuals,
Common = between 1,000-25,000 individuals, Uncommon = between 100-1,000 individuals, and Rare = up to 99 individuals. Habitat
areas refer to occurrences over the following water depths: shelf = < 200 m, slope = 200-1999 m, pelagic = > 1999 m.
Primary source: Ainley and Allen (1992)
Sdetiiilic
Name •,
Common
Name
Occurrence:
Within Study
Region
Seasonal
Status
Relative.
Abundance
Predominant Habitat
Pandion haliaetus
American Osprey
Breeding
Year-round
Uncommon
Shelf
Oceanodroma homochroa
Ashy Storm-petrel
Breeding
Year-round
Common
Pelagic
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Brandt's Cormorant
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Shell
Ptychoramphus aleuticus
Cassin's Auklet
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Slope
Uria aalge
Common Murre
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Shelf, slope
Phalacrocorax aurilus
Double-crested
Cormorant
Breeding
Summer
Uncommon
Shelf
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Leach's Storm-petrel
Breeding
Summer
Uncommon
Pelagic
Brachyramphus
marmoratus (FT, SE)
Marbled Murrelet
Breeding
Year-round
Rare
Shelf
Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Pelagic Cormorant
Breeding
Year-round
Common
Shelf
Falco peregrlnus (FE, SE)
Peregrine Falcon
Breeding
Year-round
Rare
Shelf, slope
Cepphus columba
Pigeon Guillemot
Breeding
Summer
Common
Shelf
AK0O42.W5I
-------
Table 3.3.4-1. Continued.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Occurrence
Within Study
Region
Seasonal
Status
Relative
Abundance
Predominant Habitat
Cerorhinca monocerata
Rhinoceros Auklet
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Shelf, slope, pelagic
Fratercula cirrhata
Tufted Puffin
Breeding
Year-round
Uncommon
Slope
Laws occidentalis
Western Gull
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Shell, slope
Synthliboramphus antiquus
Ancient Murrelet
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Melanitta nigra
Black Scoter
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Oceariodroma melania
Black Storm-petrel
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Irregular (numerous
at sporadic
intervals)
Pelagic
Diomedea nigripes
Black-footed Albatross
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Common
Slope, pelagic
Rissa tridactyla
Black-legged Kittiwake
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Slope, pelagic
Puffinus opisthomelas
Black-vented Shearwater
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Irregular (numerous
at sporadic
intervals)
Shelf, slope
Pelecanus occidentalis
(FE, SE)
Brown Pelican
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Shell
Laws californicus
California Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Abundant
Shelf, slope
Sterna caspia
Caspian Tern
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Gavia immer
Common Loon
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Pterodroma cookii
Cook's Petrel
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Uncommon
Pelagic
AK0042.W5I
-------
Table 3.3.4-1. Continued.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Occurrence
Within Study
Region
Seasonal
Status
Relative
Abundance
Predominant Habitat
Podiceps nigricollis
Eared Grebe
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Sterna elegans
Elegant Tem
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Shelf
Oceanodroma lurcata
Fork-tailed Storm-petrel
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Irregular (numerous
at sporadic
intervals)
Pelagic
Sterna forsteri
Forsler's Tem
Seasonal Visitor
Year-round
Common
Shelf
Laws glaucescen s
Glaucous-winged Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Shelf, slope
L heermanni
Heermann's Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Shelf
L. argentatus
Herring Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Slope, pelagic
Fratercvla comiculata
Horned Puffin
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Uncommon
Slope, pelagic
Podiceps auritus
Horned Grebe
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Oiomedea immuiabilis
Laysan Albatross
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Slope, pelagic
Larus canus
Mew Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Pterodroma ultima
Murphy's Petrel
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Uncommon
Pelagic
Fulmarvs glacialis
Northern Fulmar
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Abundant
Slope, pelagic
Stercorarius parasiticus
Parasitic Jaeger
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf, slope, pelagic
Puffinus creatopus
Pink-tooted Shearwater
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Common
Shell, slope
-------
Table 3.3.4-1. Continued.
Scientific
Name
Ciomirion
Name
Occurrence:
Within Study
Region.
Seasonal
Status
Relative
Abundance
Predominant Habitat
Slercorarius pomarinus
Pomarine Jaeger
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf, slope, pelagic
Mergus senator
Red-breasled Merganser
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf
Gavia stellala
Red-throated Loon
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shell
Laws delawarensis
Ring-billed Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Common
Shelf
Dlomedea albatrus (FE)
Short-tailed Albatross
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Rare
Shelf, slope
Puffinus tenuirostris
Short-tailed Shearwater
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf, slope
P. griseus
Sooty Shearwater
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Abundant
Shelf, slope
Catharacta mccormicki
South Polar Skua
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Rare
Shelf, slope, pelagic
Larus thayeri
Thayer's Gull
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Uncommon
Slope, pelagic
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Western Grebe
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Abundant
Shell
Endomychura hypoleuca
(SSC)
Xantus' Murrelet
Seasonal Visitor
Winter
Rare
Slope, pelagic
Gavia pacifica
Arctic (Pacific) Loon
Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shelf, slope
Sterna paradisaea
Arctic Tern
Passage Migrant
Winter
Common
Slope, pelagic
Branta bemicla
Black Brant
Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shelf
Lams Philadelphia
Bonaparte's Gull
. Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shelf
Puffinus bulled
Butler's Shearwater
Passage Migrant
Winter
Common
Slope, pelagic
-------
Table 3.3.4-i. Continued.
SctenUfic
Name
Comitio ri
Name
Occurence
Within Study
Region
Seasonal
Status:
Relative
Abundance
Pradomfnant Habitat
Sterna hirundo
Common Tern
Passage Migrant
Winter
Uncommon
Shelf, slope
Stercorarius longicaudus
Long-tailed Jaeger
Passage Migrant
Winter
Rare
Slope, pelagic
Phalaropus fulicarius
Red Phalarope
Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shelf, slope, pelagic
P. lobatus
Red-necked Phalarope
Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shelf
Xema sabini
Sabine's Gull
Passage Migrant
Winter
Uncommon
Pelagic
Melanitla perspidllala
Surf Scoter
Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shelf
M. fusca
While-winged Scoter
Passage Migrant
Winter
Abundant
Shell
AK004LW5I
-------
• Species that breed in the area, or which occur year-round, or are common to
abundant within the study region;
• Species having a narrow geographical range with population centers located
in the Gulf of the Farallones; and
• Species which forage in shelf, slope, or pelagic areas similar to those of the
LTMS study areas.
Based on these criteria, the following ten species were selected: ashy storm-petrel, Brandt's
cormorant, western gull, common murre (Vria aalge), pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba), sooty
shearwater, Cassin's auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus), rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca
monocerata), pink-footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus), and tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata)
(Table 3.3.4-2). With the exception of the sooty and pink-footed shearwaters, which occur in
high abundances within the LTMS study areas during the summer (Briggs et al. 1987b; Jones and
Szczepaniak 1992), all of these species breed within the Gulf of the Farallones. Other marine
bird species recorded in the Gulf of the Farallones, including seasonal visitors and passage
migrants, are listed with their estimated densities in Jones and Szczepaniak (1992) and Ainley
and Allen (1992).
Density estimates of all marine bird species surveyed during June are presented for the years
1986, 1987, and 1991 (Figures 3.3.4-1 through 3.3.4-3) (Ainley and Allen 1992). These years
represent a broad range in different foraging conditions, based on pelagic juvenile rockfish
abundance, from poor (1986) to good (1987) to intermediate (1991) rockfish years. Ainley and
Boekelheide (1990) concluded that the feeding range of pigeon guillemots, Cassin's and
rhinocerus auklets, tufted puffins, sooty shearwaters, and many other resident species primarily
is a response to food availability as opposed to nesting activities. Further, at least in the
summertime, the natural history of breeding marine birds of the Gulf of the Farallones, including
visitors such as the sooty shearwater, is based on a "juvenile rockfish economy." When juvenile
rockfish are available, foraging habits, behaviors, and diets of many species overlap extensively.
The dominant juvenile rockfishes used as prey are yellowtail rockfish (Sebastes flavidus) and
shortbelly rockfish (S. jordani). When rockfish are unavailable or in lower abundance (e.g.,
during warm-water years), they are replaced in the diet of many species by anchovies and a
variety of other prey including cephalopods and zooplankton. Additional prey species include
hake, smelt, and squid, all of which are considered either midwater-schooling species or species
that avoid the surface. The distribution, abundance, and size classes of many fish species,
including shortbelly rockfish, within the LTMS study areas are presented in Section 3.3.3.
Figure 3.3.4-1 indicates that during a poor rockfish year (e.g., 1986) marine bird densities are
spread relatively evenly throughout the Gulf of the Farallones. During a good rockfish year (e.g.,
1987) densities are concentrated around breeding sites, such as the Farallon Islands (Figure
3.3.4-2). Marine bird densities for an intermediate rockfish year (1991) are more scattered over
the region, with highest densities occurring within the GOFNMS (Figure 3.3.4-3).
3-146
-------
Table 3.3.4-2. Relative Densities of the Ten Key Marine Bird Species Within the
Four LTMS Study Areas.
Data from A (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990); B (Ainley and Allen 1992); and C (Jones
and Szczepaniak 1992).
Stud/ Area 2
Study Area 3
Study Area 4
Study Area 5
A
B
c
A
B
c
A
B
C
A
B
C
Ashy storm-petrel
N
N
N
LtoH
L
L
•
L
N
M
L
N
Brandt's cormorant
N
L
N
N
N
N
•
N
N
N
N
N
Western gull
L
M
L to M
L
L
L
•
N
L
L
L
LtoM
Common murre
LtoM
L
L
L to M
L
N
•
N
N
MtoH
M
N
Pigeon guillemot
N
N
N
N
L
N
•
N
N
N
N
N
Sooty shearwater
LtoH
LtoH
L
LtoH
L
LtoH
»
L
L
MtoH
M
L
Cassin's auklet
L
M
L
LtoH
L
L
•
L
L
LtoH
M
L
Rhinocerus auklet
H
M
M
H
L
L
•
L
L
LtoM
LtoM
L
Pink-footed
shearwater
•
LtoH
N
#
L
M
•
N
L
•
N
L
Tufted puffin
N
L
N
N
N
N
•
N
N
L
N
N
N o
No birds observed
L »
Low density
M -
Moderate density
H =
High density
e
No data collected
AK0043.W51
3-147
-------
Marine Bird Density Per Kilometer*
| | No Survey £
=] 0.01-10
m 50-100
| • | Survey/No Birds §
i 10-50
>100
• 123=30^
-123°W
-122°30 Vv
Figure 3.3.4-1. Density Estimates for All Marine Bird Species During June 1986, a
Poor Rockfish Year.
Source: Ainley and Allen (1992).
AK0100
3-148
-------
Marine BM Density Per Kilometer1
| | No Survey £
E| 0.01-10
H 50-100
| * [ Survey/No Biids ||
| 10-50
^ >100
Figure 3.3.4-2. Density Estimates for All Marine Bird Species During June 1987, a
Good Rockfish Year.
Source: Ainley and Allen (1992).
AK0101
3-149
-------
Marine Bird Density Per Kilometer2
| | No Survey [E
E] 0.01-10
|H 50-100
| • | Survey/No Birds S
| 10-50
| >100
38°N
37°30'N
-123°30'w -123°w -122°30'W
Figure 33.4-3. Density Estimates for All Marine Bird Species During June 1991, an
Intermediate Rockfish Year.
Source: Ainley and Allen (1992).
AK0102
3-150
-------
Estimated densities of the ten marine bird species were relatively greatest in LTMS Study Areas
2 and 5 (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990; Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Tufted puffins were observed too rarely to derive density estimates for the three representative
years; the only sighting of this species within a study area during the 1985-1991 surveys was
recorded in 1985 within Study Area 2. The following sections provide detailed discussion of
distributions, densities, and ecology of the ten representative species.
3.3.4.1 Distribution, Abundance, and Ecology of Representative Breeding Species
Ashy Storm-Petrel
Ashy storm-petrels are year-round residents that breed in the Gulf of the Farallones
(Table 3.3.4-1). Eighty-five percent of the world population of ashy-storm petrels breed and
reside there (Ainley and Allen 1992). They typically feed over pelagic waters at least 25 km
from the Farallon Islands, but they also may feed over waters near the shelf break (- 200 m
bottom depth) where upwelling events are more frequent (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990).
However, they often occur over mid-slope waters (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992), and are
presumed to eat fish and crustaceans (Briggs et al. 1987a). A comparison of density estimates
for this species within the Gulf of the Farallones indicates that of the four LTMS study areas,
Study Areas 3 and 5 contain greatest abundances of ashy storm-petrels (Table 3.3.4-2).
Brandt's Cormorant
The Brandt's cormorant population in the Gulf of the Farallones represents approximately ten
percent of the world population of this species (Ainley and Allen 1992). This species also is a
breeding resident of the Gulf of the Farallones. Brandt's cormorants feed in San Francisco Bay
in early spring, up to 80 km from nesting sites on the Farallon Islands. However, they may shift
later in the season to feed near the Islands or in coastal waters (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990).
Estimated densities of this species within the LTMS study areas are low (Table 3.3.4-2), probably
due to their preferred feeding habitat in shallow waters over flat sand or mud. Populations of
greater than 100 individuals/km2 can be found in the immediate vicinity of the Farallon Islands
(Ainley and Allen 1992). Brandt's cormorants often occur over shelf and upper slope waters
where water depths range from a few hundred to 1,000 m (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Nearshore feeding areas range from 10-60 m in depth over flat sand or mud substrate to offshore
rocky bottom sites up to 120 m. Their prey items include demersal fish species such as rockfish
CSebastes flavidus and S. jordani), flatfishes, tomcod (Microgradus proximus), midshipman
{Porichthys no tat us), and cusk eels (Chilara taylori) (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990).
Western Gull
Western gull populations are widespread throughout the study region and utilize the Gulf of the
Farallones as an important breeding area (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). Approximately 50
percent of the world population of this species nests in the Gulf of the Farallones (Ainley and
Boekelheide 1990). Historic studies reported low densities in the vicinity of Study Areas 2, 3,
3-151
-------
and 5; no observations were made in Study Area 4 (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). Recent
censuses of all of the study areas recorded the highest densities in Study Areas 2 and 5 (Ainley
and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). This probably is due to the relative proximity of
these two study areas to nesting sites on the Farallon Islands in comparison to Study Areas 3 and
4. Jones and Szczepaniak (1992) observed the highest species densities near Southeast Farallon
Island; low to moderate densities were observed in or near Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5. Western
gulls have a wide diet which includes fish, predominantly juvenile rockfish (Ainley et al. 1987),
but they also consume marine invertebrates. To a lesser extent, marine bird eggs and young, seal
placenta, and other organic materials are scavenged by these gulls.
Common Murre
The common murre, a resident breeding species, occurs primarily over the continental shelf
(Jones and Szczepaniak 1992; Ainley and Allen 1992). Breeding populations show considerable
fluctuations, ranging from approximately 400,000 individuals in 1850 to a few hundred
individuals in the early 1900s. The 1986 breeding population consisted of approximately 39,000
birds (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). Observations of this species during the breeding seasons
of 1986, 1987, and 1991, consistently indicated low densities (0.01-10 individuals/km2) within
Study Area 2 (Ainley and Allen 1992). Common murres also were observed at low densities
(0.01-10 individuals/km2) within Study Area 3 in 1986 (a poor rockfish year) and at moderate
densities (10-50 individuals/km2) during the same year within Study Area 5. This species was
not observed within Study Area 4 during the three survey years. Similar densities (low to
moderate in the region of Study Areas 2 and 3 and moderate to high in Study Area 5) were
observed by Ainley and Boekelheide (1990). Seasonal surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992)
indicated that low densities of this species were observed over Study Area 2; no common murres
were observed in any of the other LTMS study areas. Common murres exhibit great variation
in feeding habitats. In early spring, they occur over the outer continental shelf. In the spring
and summer of cool-water (i.e., good rockfish years), their feeding range is somewhat constricted
to shallower water closer to the Farallon Islands. At that time, murres feed heavily on rockfish,
northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), market squid (Loligo opalescens), and euphausiids. In
warmer years, they occur farther from the Farallon Islands, especially over, the shelf towards the
mainland, where they feed heavily on anchovies, and secondarily over slope waters (e.g., Study
Area 5). By July, they begin to move toward the coast. However, when juvenile rockfish are
abundant, they remain offshore longer (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990).
Pigeon Guillemot
The pigeon guillemot is a common (estimated population of 1,000 to 25,000 individuals)
summer-breeding species within the Gulf of the Farallones (Ainley and Allen 1992). The
majority of the resident population appears to occur around the Farallon Islands and in areas to
the north. This species forages in relatively shallow waters over rocky substrate, and rarely feeds
in waters farther than 15 km from the Farallon Islands (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). Recent
surveys conducted by the PRBO during the spring of 1986, 1987, and 1991 indicated that no
pigeon guillemots were observed within Study Areas 2, 4, or 5; however, low densities occurred
3-152
-------
in Study Area 3 in June 1991 (Ainley and Allen 1992). EPA surveys (1992) recorded sightings
in February, May, and August of 1991, although no sightings were made within any of the LTMS
study areas and actual counts or densities were not reported.
Sooty Shearwater
Sooty shearwaters typically are non-breeding, summer visitors to the study region, and occur
throughout the shelf and slope waters of the Gulf of the Farallones (Table 3.3.4-1). An estimated
one million sooty shearwaters are present between May and August of cool-water (high
productivity) years (KLI 1991). Of the four LTMS study areas, Study Area 2 supported the
highest densities of sooty shearwaters, especially during 1987, a good rockfish year (Ainley and
Allen 1992). However, in May 1991, high densities of sooty shearwaters were reported in the
vicinity of Pioneer Canyon (between Study Areas 3 and 4) (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Surveys conducted by Ainley and Boekelheide (1990) recorded low to high densities of sooty
shearwaters in Study Areas 2 and 3, and moderate to high densities in the region of Study Area
5. Sooty shearwaters are pursuit divers, preying on anchovies, market squid, euphausiids, and
juvenile rockfish.
Cassin's Auklet
Cassin's auklets are year-round, breeding residents of the Gulf of the Farallones, typically
foraging over slope waters (Table 3.3.4-1). They are the most abundant marine bird on the
Farallon Islands (Sowls et al. 1980), and are distributed widely throughout the study region.
Cassin's auklets occurred at low densities (0.01-10 individuals/km2) in Study Area 3 and
moderate densities (10-50 individuals/km2) in Study Areas 2 and 5 (Ainley and Allen 1992). No
birds were observed in Study Area 4 during the three survey years, except in 1991, when low
densities (0.01-10 individuals/km2) were recorded (Ainley and Allen 1992). Surveys conducted
by EPA (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) indicated an absence or low densities of 0.01-10
individuals/km2 within all study areas. Ainley and Boekelheide (1990) reported that Cassin's
auklets occurred in low densities near Study Area 2, and from low to high densities in the region
of Study Areas 3 and 5. No surveys were conducted in Study Area 4. Cassin's auklets can dive
to depths of 35 m for their prey. Ninety percent of their diet is composed of euphausiids
(Thysanoessa sp. and Euphausia sp.) and larval fish.
Rhinoceros Auklet
Rhinoceros auklets also are year-round, breeding residents of the Gulf of the Farallones and are
found over shelf, slope, and pelagic waters. The highest overall species densities (10-50
individuals/km2) occurred within Study Area 2 (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak
1992) although similar densities were recorded for Study Area 5 during 1987 (Ainley and Allen
1992). Rhinoceros auklets occurred at relatively low densities over Study Areas 3 and 4. Ainley
and Boekelheide (1990) reported similar results, except for Study Area 3: rhinoceros auklets
were observed in relatively high densities in Study Areas 2 and 3, and low to moderate densities
3-153
-------
in Study Area 5. Rhinoceros auklets are pursuit divers (KLI 1991) that feed primarily on fish
(Briggs et al. 1987b).
Pink-footed Shearwater
Pink-footed shearwaters are non-breeding, summer visitors to the region, occurring over shelf and
slope waters (Table 3.3.4-1). PRBO surveys indicated a relatively low occurrence of this species
in all of the study areas, except for Study Area 2 where high densities of over 100
individuals/km2 were recorded in 1987 (Ainley and Allen 1992). Similarly, EPA surveys
conducted during August 1990 recorded low densities (0.01-10 individuals/km2) within LTMS
Study Areas 4 and 5. However, no sightings of pink-footed shearwaters were made within Study
Area 2 and moderate densities (10-50 individuals/km2) were observed over Study Area 3 (Jones
and Szczepaniak 1992).
Tufted Puffin
Tufted puffins are breeding residents of the Gulf of the Farallones; less than 50 breeding pairs
occur on the Farallones (Table 3.3.4-1). Breeding season censuses conducted from 1985 through
1991 indicated that tufted puffins rarely occurred within any of the study areas (Ainley and Allen
1992). Only a single individual was recorded within Study Area 2 (Figure 3.3.4-4); no tufted
puffins were observed within any of the other study areas during the seven survey years. These
surveys also indicated that the majority of tufted puffins occurred to the north and west of the
Farallon Islands, close to the eastern boundary of Study Area 5 (Figure 3.3.4-4). Although Jones
and Szczepaniak (1992) recorded sightings of tufted puffins during four of five surveys, counts
were determined to be too low for inclusion in species density estimates. Ainley and
Boekelheide (1990) recorded low densities of tufted puffins in Study Area 5. Tufted puffins
forage in deeper waters of the continental shelf (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). Juvenile
blackcod (sablefish) are an important prey item (Ainley and Allen 1992).
Brown Pelican
In addition to the ten representative breeding species considered, one migratory species, the
brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). occurs in significant numbers within the region and is
listed by both State and Federal agencies as endangered. The nesting range for brown pelicans
extends from the Santa Barbara Channel to Mexico. Two major roosting sites are Ano Nuevo
Island and Southeast Farallon Island (Briggs et al. 1983). Daytime surveys of these areas
recorded 500 animals, whereas nocturnal censuses recorded several thousand individuals (Briggs
et al. 1983). Surveys conducted from 1985-1991 indicated that California brown pelican
populations were centered along the coastline and over shelf waters including Study Area 2
(Figure 3.3.4-5) (Ainley and Allen 1992). EPA surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) also
recorded the highest numbers of brown pelicans over the continental shelf, particularly near the
periphery of Study Area 2. Brown pelicans typically forage in shallow waters, and feed primarily
on the northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) (Anderson et al. 1980; Anderson et al. 1982), but
3-154
-------
Marine Bird Counts
O
2-10
^ Breeding Site
38°N -
37°30'N -
-123°30w
-123°w
-122°30V»
Figure 3.3.4-4. Tufted PufTin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, 1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0103
3-155
-------
Marine Bird Counts
O 1 # 2-10
~ 11-100
Breeding Site
Figure 3.3.4-5. California Brown Pelican Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and AJlen 1992.
AK°"» 3-156
-------
they can be found during calm weather in waters over the continental slope (Briggs et al. 1983;
Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
3.3.4.2 Summary of Study Area Usage bv Marine Bird Species
In general, assessments of densities of the ten representative species indicate that of the four
areas. Study Areas 2 and 5 support the largest number of marine birds (Table 3.3.4-2). Study
Area 2 is the only site located over shelf waters; these waters represent a more productive area
for foraging marine birds (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). Of the
remaining three study areas. Study Area 5 is located closest to nesting sites of breeding species
on the Farallon Islands, and thus is likely to be a more convenient feeding ground for breeding
individuals. Ainley and Allen (1992) suggested that due to limited prey availability and
prevailing northerly winds, marine birds forage less often to the south than to the north, west,
or east of the Farallon Islands. An upwind return flight for an adult bird with prey is estimated
to be relatively more difficult energetically. Thus, during the May/June breeding season, regions
south of the Farallon Islands (such as Study Areas 3 and 4) may be less preferred as feeding
grounds due to relatively lower prey availability (as compared to shelf waters) and the higher
energy expenditure required to return to upwind nesting sites rather than downwind sites (e.g..
Study Area 5) (Ainley and Allen 1992). Density estimates of all marine birds during poor, good
and intermediate rockfish years (Figures 3.3.4-1 through 3.3.4-3, respectively) also indicate that
the greatest abundances of marine birds are found within Study Areas 2 and 5 (Ainley and Allen
1992).
Based on known habitats from the literature, the total number of bird species potentially utilizing
the different study areas decreases as the distance from shore increases (Briggs et al. 1987b).
This trend is consistent for breeding species, seasonal visitors, and passage migrants and tends
to indicate thai offshore areas such as LTMS Study Area 5 should have low utilization as bird
habitats. Although Study Area 5 is far from shore, it lies in close proximity to a land source;
the Farallon Islands. The relatively close distance between Study Area 5 and the Farallon Islands
may explain the higher use of this area by marine birds. Thus, based on actual surveys (Ainley
and Boekelheide 1990, Ainley and Allen 1992, Jones and Szczepaniak 1992), LTMS Study Areas
2, 3, and 5 show the highest utilization by species which breed in the Gulf of the Farallones, are
common residents, are geographically limited, and/or have legal status.
3.3.5 Marine Mammals
This section presents information on marine mammals of the study region including cetaceans
(Section 3.3.5.1), pinnipeds (Section 3.3.5.2), and fissipeds (Section 3.3.5.3).
Twenty-one species of cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises, and whales), six species of pinnipeds (sea
lions and seals), and one species of fissiped (sea otter) comprise the marine mammal fauna of
central California (KLI1991). Twenty-six of these species (twenty cetaceans, five pinnipeds, and
the fissiped) are frequently observed in the Gulf of the Farallones region (Table 3.3.5-1). All
marine mammals are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA 1972, amended
3-157
-------
Table 3.3.5-1. Marine Mammals Observed in the Vicinity of the Gulf of the Farallones.
Those species having legal status including Federally Endangered (FE), Federally Threatened (FT), and Federal Species of Special Concern (SSC)
are shown in bold. Species are listed according to their occurrence within the study region, such as breeding (breed in area), seasonal visitor (seasonal
residents, feed in area), migrant (migrate through area but may feed as moving through area), or incidental. Relative occurrences refer to the following:
Abundant = over 5,000 individuals, Common = between 1,000-5,000 individuals, Uncommon * between 100-1,000 individuals, and Rare = less than
100 individuals. Habitat areas refer to occurrences over the following water depths: shelf = < 200 m, slope = 200-1999 m, pelagic = > 1999 m.
Species are listed according to their activity within the study region, such as breeding, seasonal visitor, or migrant.
Primary source: Ainley and Allen (1992)
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Activity Within
Study Region
Seasonal
Status
Relative
Occurrence
Predominant Habitat
Cetaceans
(Approximately 4 spp.)
Beaked Whale
?
Year-round
Rare
Pelagic
Balaenoptera musculus
(FE)
Blue Whale
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Uncommon
Shelf, slope
Delphinus delphis
Common Dolphin
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Rare
Shelf
Phocoenoktes daili
Dall's Porpoise
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Shelf, slope
Balaenoptera physalvs
(FE)
Finback Whale
Migrant
Summer
Rare
Shelf, slope, pelagic
Esctirichtius robustus
Gray Whale
Seasonal Visitor/
Migrant
Year-round
Common
Shelf, slope
Phocoena phocoena
Harbor Porpoise
Breeding
Year-round
Common
Shelf
Megaptera novaeangllae
(FE)
Humpback Whale
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Common
Shelf, slope
Orcinus orca
Killer Whale
7
Year-round
Uncommon
Shelf, slope
Balaenoptera aculorostrata
Minke Whale
Seasonal Visitor
Summer
Common
Shelf, slope
AK0044.WSI
-------
Table 3.3.5-1. Continued.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Activity Within
Study Region
Seasonal
Status
Relatve
Occurence
Predominant Habitat
Ussodelphis borealis
Northern Right Whale Dolphin
Breeding
Year-round
Common
Shell, slope
Lagenorynchus obliquidens
Pacific White-sided Dolphin
Breeding
Year-round
Abundant
Slope, pelagic
Globicephala spp.
Pilot Whale
Migrant
Winter
Uncommon
Slope, pelagic
Eubalaena glaclalls (FE)
Right Whale
Incidental
?
Rare
?
Grampus griseus
Risso's Dolpin
Seasonal Visitor
Year-round
Abundant
Shelf, slope
Balaenoptera borealis (FE)
Sel Whale
Incidental
Summer
Rare
Pelagic
Physeter macrocephalus
(FE)
Sperm Whale
Incidental
Year-round
Common
Slope, pelagic
Pinnipeds
Zalophus californianus
California Sea Lion
Seasonal Visitor
Year-round
Abundant
Shelf
Phoca vitulina
Harbor Seal
Breeding
Year-round
Common
Shelf
Mirounga angustirostris
Northern Elephant Seal
Breeding/Seasonal
Visitor
Year-round
Common
Shelf, slope, pelagic
Callorhlnus urslnus (SSC)
Northern Fur Seal
Seasonal Visitor
Year-round
Abundant
Slope, pelagic
Eumetoplas jubatus (FT)
Northern Sea Lion
Breeding
Year-round
Uncommon
Shelf
Fissipeds
Enhydra lutrls (FT) || Southern Sea Otter
Seasonal Visitor
Year-round
Common
Shelf
AK0044.W51
-------
1988), administered by NOAA/NMFS and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
In addition, humpback, blue, finback, sei, right, and sperm whales are Federally listed as
endangered species and thereby protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973, amended
1978), Gray whales have recently been de-listed from Federally endangered status due to
increased population numbers (Marine Mammal Commission 1993). The northern sea lion and
the sea otter are designated as threatened species under Federal law and fully protected under
California law. Northern fur seals are designated as a depleted species by the Marine Mammal
Commission and have special status under the MMPA. Because marine mammals are protected,
evaluation of the study areas for this EIS includes consideration of the extent to which the areas
are used by marine mammals for breeding, weaning, feeding, or migration. Seasonal patterns of
distribution in the LTMS study areas may suggest alternative disposal strategies that would
minimize impacts to these species.
Broad-scale surveys of marine mammals off central and northern California, including the Gulf
of the Farallones and the Farallon Islands, were conducted by Dohl et al. (1983) and Bonnell et
al. (1983). Dohl et al. focused on the seasonal occurrence of cetaceans while Bonnell et al.
studied pinnipeds and sea otters during a three-year (1980-1983) research program. Both of
these historical studies provide seasonal estimates of the relative abundance of marine mammals
for waters encompassing each of the study areas. In addition, a three-year (1986-88) photo-
identification study on humpback and blue whales within and near the Gulf of the Farallones
provides information on movements and site fidelity for these two endangered whale species
common to the region (Calambokidis et al. 1990a,b). More recent marine mammal surveys by
PRBO (Ainley and Allen 1992) and EPA (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) have focused on the
LTMS study region. The Ainley and Allen (1992) surveys provide information on study area use
by marine mammals; this information was collected during seven cruises conducted each June
from 1985-91. Thus, seasonal events within the study region, such as the spring and fall
migrations of gray whales and the late summer concentrations of humpback whales, are not
represented in these survey results. In contrast, Jones and Szczepaniak (1992) conducted five
cruises between August 1990 and November 1991 on marine mammal use of the region.
Although coverage of the four study areas was not uniform, these surveys supply incidental
information on seasonal occurrence. Therefore, site-specific data (historical and recent) exist for
marine mammals of the region and may be used to determine relative marine mammal use of the
four study areas.
3.3.5.1 Cetaceans
In general, cetaceans are most common in continental slope waters (e.g., over water depths of
200-2,000 m). Dohl et al. (1983) recorded five times as many sightings in slope waters as in
continental shelf waters (less than 200 m), and three times the numbers sighted in deep waters
(greater than 2,000 m).
During the 1980-83 surveys, Dohl et al. (1983) counted 116,800 cetaceans comprising 18
species. The most abundant odontocetes (i.e., toothed cetaceans) were the Pacific white-sided
dolphin, followed by the northern right whale dolphin, Risso's dolphin, Dall's porpoise, and the
3-160
-------
harbor porpoise. The most common baleen whales were the California gray whale followed by
the humpback whale. Sperm, blue, minke, and killer whales also were sighted, although their
abundances were lower. Overall, the highest densities of cetaceans occurred in autumn and
winter.
Results from Dohl et al. (1983) indicate that for all cetaceans combined, abundance estimates
were highest near the Gulf of the Farallones. According to this study, all slope and deep-water
study areas contained cetaceans during March through May with moderate to high densities
(0.301-1.2/km2) in Study Area 5, moderate densities (0.301-0.60/km2) in Study Area 3, and low
densities (0.01-0.15/km2) in Study Areas 2 and 4.
Recent censuses indicated similar marine mammal occurrences and species within the Gulf of the
Farallones region (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). Similar to results from
Dohl et al. (1983), during the June 1985-91 surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992), a higher incidence
of cetaceans was reported in slope and deep waters. Of the four study areas, the deep waters
of Study Area 5 had the highest counts for a single species (22 Pacific white-sided dolphin)
(Ainley and Allen 1992). However, the highest number of cetacean species and the highest
counts for some species, including 15 Pacific white-sided dolphin, 7 humpback whales, 2 Risso's
dolphin, and 1 minke whale, were reported for the slope waters of Study Area 4. Cetaceans
observed within Study Area 3 included 12 Risso's dolphin, 3 Pacific white-sided dolphin, and
1 Dall's porpoise. In contrast, only three cetaceans (2 harbor porpoises and 1 humpback whale)
were observed in shelf waters within Study Area 2.
In surveys during June 1985-91, Dall's porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and harbor
porpoise were the most abundant odontocetes within the study region (Ainley and Allen 1992).
Of the larger cetaceans, humpback whales were the most abundant, followed by minke and gray
whales. Seasonal surveys conducted by the EPA (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) also reported
Dall's porpoise and Pacific white-sided dolphin as the most frequently observed cetaceans,
although only two harbor porpoise were observed during the entire study. In contrast to the
findings of Dohl et al. (1983), no gray whales were observed during EPA surveys; instead,
humpback whales were the most frequently sighted baleen whale (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Ainley and Allen (1992) suggest that Study Area 5 may have the relatively greatest importance
to marine mammals based on the number of individuals observed there. However, seasonal
surveys suggested that marine mammal abundances within Study Area 3 were greater than
expected (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). Also, during these surveys, numbers observed within
Study Area 5 were less than expected and no marine mammals were observed within Study
Area 4.
The seven species of large whales that occur within the study region are classified as seasonal
visitors or migrants (Table 3.3.5-1). Gray, humpback, and blue whales are listed as seasonal
visitors because they likely feed opportunistically in, as well as migrate through, the Gulf of the
Farallones region. Conversely, finback, sperm, sei, and right whales are listed as migrants or
incidentals because they appear to pass through the area during seasonal migrations, rarely
3-161
-------
stopping to feed. Periods of likely occurrence in the Gulf of the Farallones region for the seven
species are shown in Figure 3.3.5-1. The occurrence of these seven species within the study
areas warrants special attention because all of these species except for the gray whale are
Federally listed as endangered (see Section 3.3.6, Endangered Species).
Pacific White-Sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphin were the most abundant cetacean observed off the central California
coast, comprising 40% of all animals sighted (Dohl et al. 1983). These dolphin generally occur
in waters over and seaward of the continental slope, except during spring when they occur in
continental shelf waters from Half Moon Bay to Monterey Bay (Dohl et al. 1983). They feed
on northern anchovy, whiting, saury, and squid at depths in excess of 120 m (Dohl et al. 1983).
Juvenile animals were observed from July through October with the highest number of sightings
between Point Conception and Point Reyes including heavy use of the Gulf of the Farallones
region (Dohl et al. 1983). Counts of this species over five years indicated moderate numbers
(11-100 individuals) observed within Study Area 4 and in close proximity to Study Areas 3 and
5 (Figure 3.3.5-2) (Ainley and Allen 1992). During the EPA surveys, this species was seen in
low to moderate abundances in Study Area 3 and low abundances in Study Area 5 during August
1990 and 1991 (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). These results verify that slope and deep-water
habitats are used more often than shelf waters, as reported by Dohl et al. (1983).
Northern Right Whale Dolphin
Northern right whale dolphin comprised 35% of all animals sighted by Dohl et al. (1983), and
usually were observed over deep waters. They feed primarily on squid, lantemfish, and other
mesopelagic fishes at depths greater than 250 m (Leatherwood and Reeves 1982; Dohl et al.
1983). Sixty-two percent of all juveniles were sighted between Point Piedras Blancas and Point
Pinos, south of the Gulf of the Farallones (Dohl et al. 1983). There was a tendency for northern
right whale dolphin to be found over deeper waters in autumn (1,440 m) than in spring (862 m),
although this pattern was not consistent from year to year (Dohl et al. 1983). Overall, the
species' distribution appears to shift south and inshore from October through June, then north and
offshore from July through September (Leatherwood and Reeves 1982). During the PRBO
surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992), most northern right whale dolphin were seen near the eastern
boundary of Study Area 5, with fewer sighted near Study Area 3 (Figure 3.3.5-3). EPA sightings
of this species were over slope waters between Study Areas 3 and 4 (Jones and Szczepaniak
1992). All EPA sightings occurred during August and October surveys, confirming the
suggestion by Dohl et al. (1983) that northern right whale dolphin tend to be found over slope
waters during autumn. Thus, like Pacific white-sided dolphin, with which they commonly co-
occur, northern right whale dolphin prefer slope and deep-water habitats rather than continental
shelf waters.
3-162
-------
Species
Name
Months of the Year
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB
Gray
Whale
Humpback
Whale
mm
Blue
Whale
P///////Z
Finback
Whale
Right
Whale
3
Sei
Whale
Sperm
Whale
1 - 1 Northern migration Y////A Seasonally resident Southern migration
in region
Figure 3.3.5-1. Whale Migrations (Northern and Southern) and Times During Which
Each Species May Occur in the Study Region.
Modified from Dohl el al. 1983.
AK0105
3-163
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
0 11-100
O 2-10
Figure 3.3.5-2. Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones
Region, 1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0106 3*164
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
0 11-100
O 2-10
Figure 33.5-3. Northern Right Whale Dolphin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones
Region, 1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0107
3-165
-------
Risso's Dolphin
Risso's dolphin comprised 18% of the cetaceans sighted by Dohl et al. (1983). This species
often is found offshore in deep temperate and tropical waters where it feeds primarily on squid
(Leatherwood and Reeves 1982). The few Risso's dolphin that were seen within the study region
during the PRBO surveys were near or within Study Areas 3 and 4 (Ainley and Allen 1992)
(Figure 3.3.5-4). Although Risso's dolphin occur regularly in the Gulf of the Farallones, the
population reportedly is concentrated in southern California waters (Dohl et al. 1983). Jones and
Szczepaniak (1992) recorded a single sighting of Risso's dolphin within Study Area 4.
Dall's Porpoise
Dall's porpoise numerically represented only 2% of the cetaceans seen, but were the most
frequently encountered species during the 1980-83 surveys (Dohl et al. 1983). Abundance
indices were highest from mid-summer through autumn, and lowest in winter.
Similarly, Dall's porpoise were the cetaceans observed most often within the study region during
the PRBO (1992) surveys, although sightings within specific study areas were rare
(Figure 3.3.5-5). During the EPA (1992) surveys, this species occurred in the study region most
often in summer, especially within Study Area 3 (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). The greatest
numbers occurred along the seaward edge of the continental shelf and slope waters (Ainley and
Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). Dall's porpoise are nocturnal feeders, primarily
consuming anchovies, squid, crustaceans, and deep-water fishes (Morejohn 1979; Jones 1981;
Ainley and Allen 1992). Preferred prey abundance may significantly affect the foraging range
of the species. For example, the highest densities of Dall's porpoise were observed around the
Farallon Islands coincident with unusually high numbers of anchovies (Ainley and Allen 1992).
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoise are the most common nearshore cetaceans in the central California region
(Leatherwood et al. 1982; Dohl et al. 1983). Seasonal movements seem to be inshore-offshore
rather than north-south and may be determined by prey availability. Harbor porpoise feed on
juvenile rockfish, herring, mackerel, sardines, pollack, and whiting (Leatherwood and Reeves
1982). Dohl et al. (1983) estimated a peak central California population of 3,000 porpoises in
the fall season, although recent observations suggest the species is present year-round in the Gulf
of the Farallones (Szczepaniak and Webber 1985). Harbor porpoise rarely are seen in waters
deeper than 180 m, and usually occur within the 18 m isobath (Caldwell and Caldwell 1983).
Sightings during the PRBO and EPA (1992) surveys support this observation. All animals were
seen in continental shelf waters with only one animal sighted in Study Area 2 (Ainley and Allen
1992) (Figure 3.3.5-6).
3-166
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
® 11-100
O 2-10
Figure 33.5-4. Risso's Dolphin Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region.
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0108
3-167
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
0 11-100
O 2-10
38°N -
37°30'N -
-123Q30"w -123°w -^"SCw
Figure 3.3.5-5. Dall's Porpoise Counts in the Gulf of the Faraliones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0109
3-168
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
o 2-10
Figure 3.3.5-6. Harbor Porpoise Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0110
3-169
-------
Gray Whales
The eastern Pacific population of gray whales is currently estimated at 21,113 individuals and
is considered to be essentially recovered from historical reductions attributable to commercial
whaling (IWC 1990; Marine Mammal Commission 1993). Migrations occur twice annually
between winter breeding lagoons in Baja California and summer feeding grounds in the Bering
and Chukchi seas (Moore et al. 1986; Swartz 1986; Clarke et al. 1989). There is recent evidence
of year-round residency of some gray whales in the Gulf of the Farallones (PRBO, unpubl. data).
Southbound whales may appear as early as October, with the majority of animals occurring in
late December-early January (Dohl et al. 1983). Individuals generally tend to avoid turbid
waters, such as those receiving run-off following extensive rainfall, and usually pass west of the
Farallon Islands on their way south from Point Reyes (Dohl et al. 1983). Newborn whales have
been observed in northern, central, and southern California waters (Jones and Swartz 1990),
suggesting that whales do not calve solely in the lagoons of Baja California. In addition, the
year-round residency of some gray whales in the Gulf of the Farallones indicates that some
breeding/calving of gray whales may occur in the study region.
The northward migration period is less well defined, but generally occurs from mid-January
through June (Dohl etal. 1983; Herzing and Mate 1984). Northbound animals tend to stay closer
to shore. Poole (1984) described two migration corridors for northbound whales off San Simeon
(Piedras Blancas): a route 200 m to 3.2 km offshore used by whales not accompanied by calves,
and a route less than 200 m from shore used primarily by females with calves. The cow/calf
pairs closely followed the coastal contour, while whales using the "offshore" route often followed
a nearly straight line from one coastal promontory to the next. The route(s) used by northbound
whales in the Gulf of the Farallones region is unknown.
Few gray whale sightings were recorded during the PRBO surveys, although moderately high
counts were made near the northeast boundary of Study Area 5 (Figure 3.3.5-7) (Ainley and
Allen 1992). This overall scarcity of sightings could be due to limitation of the field effort
(May/June surveys only). However, no gray whales were observed during the EPA seasonal
surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). In recent years, 3 to 8 gray whales summered in the
vicinity of the Farallon Islands (Dohl et al. 1983; Huber et al. 1986).
Gray whales feed on infaunal crustaceans, primarily ampeliscid amphipods, and there are
incidental reports of gray whales associated with sediment trails (which indicate feeding) near
the Farallon Islands and off Point Reyes (Nerini 1984; PRBO, unpubl. data). Gray whales
summering off Vancouver Island are principally engaged in feeding (Oliver et al. 1984), and
there is some evidence that gray whales feed opportunistically near the Farailon Islands as well
(P. Jones, EPA, pers. comm. 1992).
3-170
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
0 11-100
O 2-10
Figure 3.3.5-7. Gray Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, 1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0111
3-171
-------
Humpback Whales
The eastern north Pacific population of humpback whales migrates from summer feeding areas
in southern Alaskan waters to winter breeding areas in waters near Hawaii and Mexico (Johnson
and Wolman 1984; Baker et al. 1986). Humpbacks occur along northern and central California
from March through January, with the greatest numbers in waters near the Farallon Islands from
mid-August through October (Dohl el al. 1983; Calambokidis et al. 1990a). During summer
months, central California populations may reach 500 animals (Dohl et al. 1983). Annual local
populations have been estimated at roughly 150-200 whales in the region for the years 1986-88
(Calambokidis et al. 1990a). Humpbacks feed on baitfish, euphausiids, pelagic crabs, and a
variety of other prey in the Gulf of the Farallones in summer and early fall. Highest abundance
was observed in August between Study Areas 2 and 3 during EPA (1992) surveys
(Figure 3.3.5-8a), while data from the multi-year June surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992) suggested
higher relative abundance further south between Study Areas 3 and 4 (Figure 3.3.5-8b).
Calambokidis et al. (1990a) describe movement of humpbacks between feeding aggregations in
the Gulf of the Farallones and along the California coast, particularly Monterey Bay. Differences
in sighting distributions from the PRBO and EPA surveys could result from differences in survey
timing, or movement of the whales between Monterey Bay and Gulf of the Farallones feeding
areas.
Blue Whales
Blue whales occur from the Chukchi Sea to waters off Costa Rica in the eastern north Pacific,
although specific migration patterns and feeding areas are poorly defined (Mizroch et al. 1984).
Like humpbacks, blue whales use the Farallon Basin for feeding in summer and early fall, but
occur in lower numbers (Dohl et al. 1983). A total of 179 blue whales were identified
photographically in the Gulf of the Farallones over three years (1986-88), with some movement
of individual whales between the Farallones and feeding aggregations in Monterey Bay
documented in 1987 and 1988 (Calambokidis et al. 1990b). In 1986, a single sighting of 41 blue
whales was recorded near Southeast Farallon Island (PRBO, unpubl. data), the same year that
unusually large aggregations of blue whales fed on euphausiids in Monterey Bay (Schoenherr
1991). During the EPA (1992) surveys, blue whales were seen in Study Area 3 and near Study
Area 2 in August, with most seen along the continental shelf break (Figure 3.3.5-9). No blue
whales were observed within survey transects during the June 1985-91 surveys (Ainley and Allen
1992).
Minke Whales
Minke whales are widely distributed in tropical, temperate, and polar waters (Leatherwood and
Reeves 1982). In the north Pacific, minkes winter from central California to near the equator,
with distribution shifting northward in summer from central California to waters off Alaska.
Minke whales appear to segregate by age/sex classes in all areas, which limits attempts to make
unbiased estimates of population size. There is evidence that minke whales are year-round
residents in Monterey Bay (Stem 1990) and the Gulf of the Farallones (PRBO, unpubl. data).
3-172
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
O 2-10
Figure 3*3.5-8a. Humpback Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, August
1990 and 1991.
Source: Jones and Szczepaniak 1992.
AK0112
3-173
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
o 2-10
Figure 3.3.5-8b. Humpback Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, .
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0113 3-174
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
o 2-10
Figure 3.3.5-9. Blue Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, August 1990
and 1991.
Source: Jones and Szczepaniak 1992.
AK01U 3-175
-------
The sexes of resident populations in the Gulf and off Monterey migrate separately (Stern 1990).
Dohl et al. (1983) sighted 16 minke whales over 3 years, with only one animal seen near the
Farallon Islands in 1981. A single minke whale was observed within Study Area 4 during the
June PRBO (1992) surveys. The majority of minke whales observed during these surveys were
along the northern coastline of the study region (Ainley and Allen 1992) (Figure 3.3.5-10). EPA
surveys observed only two minke whales shoreward of the 100-m isobath (Jones and Szczepaniak
1992).
Finback, Sperm, Sei, and Right Whales
Endangered finback, sperm, sei, and right whales rarely occur in the study region (Dohl et al.
1983), and none were observed during the PRBO (Ainley and Allen 1992) and EPA (Jones and
Szczepaniak 1992) surveys. Thirty sightings of a total of 56 finback whales were recorded from
1980-83 (Dohl et al. 1983), with 70% of the sightings occurring in continental shelf and slope
waters. One finback whale was seen about 20 km west of Point Reyes, and a group of 5 to 8
whales was observed just south of the Farallon Islands in 1981. Sperm whales are commonly
found off central California, with peaks of abundance in mid-May and mid-September, suggesting
a northward migration in the spring and a southward migration in fall. From November to April,
breeding groups are sighted over the continental slope off California between 33° to 38°N latitude
(Gosho et al. 1984). There were 66 sightings of a total of 218 sperm whales from 1980-83
(Dohl et al. 1983), with 68% of the sightings in waters having depths greater than 1,700 m. Four
sperm whales were observed in Study Area 5 in 1983. Although the Gulf of the Farallones lies
within the distributional range of sei and right whales (Caldwell and Caldwell 1983), none were
recorded during recent (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) or historical (Dohl
et al. 1983) surveys.
Other Cetaceans
Other species of cetaceans either have been sighted in the region, stranded along the mainland
coast, or have the potential for occurring in the region (Dohl et al. 1983). Killer whales are
widespread throughout the eastern north Pacific (Leatherwood and Reeves 1982). Dohl et al.
(1983) reported that killer whales ranged along the entire California coastline, occurring most
frequently over the continental slope north of Monterey Bay. A group of 5 to 8 killer whales
was seen west of the Farallon Islands near Study Area 5 in 1981 (Dohl et al. 1983). Beaked
whales, including Mesoplodon spp. and Berardius bairdi, are oceanic and occur worldwide.
There are at least three species of Mesoplodon that could occur in the area: Hubb's beaked
whale (Af. carlhubbsi), Blainville's beaked whale (M. densirostris), and Stejneger's beaked whale
(M. stejnegeri). Some species of Mesoplodon are recognized as deep divers (M. carlhubbsi in
particular) and feed on squid and midwater fishes. Baird's beaked whales (B. bairdi) occur from
the Bering Sea to Baja California, Mexico. Dohl et al. (1983) suggested that Baird's beaked
whales move onto the continental slope off central and northern California during June, then
move offshore in November; none were seen near the Gulf of the Farallones during the 1980-83
surveys. This species also is deep-diving and feeds on squid and octopuses as well as
crustaceans, sea cucumbers, and a variety of deep-sea and midwater fishes (Caldwell and
3-176
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
0 11-100
o 2-10
# 101-1000
Figure 33.5-10. Minke Whale Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, 1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK011S
3-177
-------
Table 3.3.5-2. Relative Densities of Marine Mammal Species Within the Four LTMS
Study Areas.
Data from A (Ainley and Alien 1992) and B (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Study Area 2
Study Area 3'
Study Area 4
Study Area 5
Cetacean Species
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Pacific white-sided dolphin
N
N
L
M
M
N
L
L
Northern right whale dolphin
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Risso's dolphin
N
N
L
N
L
L
N
N
Dad's porpoise
L
L
L
M
N
N
N
L
Harbor porpoise
L
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Gray whale
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Humpback whale
L
L
N
L
L
N
N
N
Blue whale
N
L
N
L
N
N
N
N
Minke whale
N
N
N
N
L
N
N
N
Pinniped Species
California sea lion
L
N
N
M
N
N
N
L
Northern elephant seal
L
N
L
N
N
N
L
N
Northern sea lion
N
N
N
L
N
N
N
L
Northern fur seal
L
N
L
L
L
N
L
N
Harbor seal
L
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N = No mammals observed
L = Low density
M = Moderate density
AK0M5.W3I
3-178
-------
Caldwell 1983). Beaked whales generally avoid vessels, which may in part explain their reduced
numbers during surveys.
In summary, results from historical surveys (Dohl et al. 1983) indicated that for all cetaceans
combined, highest species densities occurred in Study Area 5. Moderate species densities
occurred in Study Area 3, and low densities were found in Study Areas 2 and 4. In contrast,
results from long-term marine mammal censuses (Ainley and Allen 1992) and recent seasonal
surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) indicated that more cetaceans occurred in Study Areas 3
and 4 (Table 3.3.5-2). In general, cetacean abundances within the study region appear highest
in slope and deeper waters.
3.3.5.2 Pinnipeds
Bonnell et al. (1983) censused the pinnipeds (and southern sea otters) of central and northern
California by means of monthly aerial transects and quarterly coastal censuses. They estimated
that the five predominant pinniped species, the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus),
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), northern fur seal
(Callorhinus ursinus), and northern sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), had combined populations of
approximately 50,000 animals. Peak numbers at sea occurred in winter and spring with the
arrival of migrant northern fur seals from the Bering Sea. Northern sea lions, northern elephant
seals, and harbor seals had large populations of approximately 3,000, 4,000, and 12,000
individuals, respectively.
The Farallon Islands are among the most important pinniped haul-out grounds in California
(Bonnell et al. 1983). The primary pinniped foraging grounds are the shallow shelf waters from
Point Reyes south in summer and fall, and deeper continental slope waters in winter and spring.
California sea lions and northern fur seals are present seasonally either along the coast or
offshore, and the northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and northern sea lion breed in the area
(Table 3.3.5-1). The Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) is considered an occasional
visitor to the area (Bonnell et al. 1983).
California Sea Lion
The California sea lion is the most common pinniped at California haul-out areas and in
continental shelf waters (KLI 1991). A few pups have been born on Southeast Farallon Island
(Pierotti et al. 1911; Huber et al. in prep.) and on Ano Nuevo Island (Keith et al. 1984) but
viable rookeries have not been established at either site. At sea, California sea lion relative
abundance is characterized by two peaks (May-June and September-October) which correspond
to peaks in abundance in haul-out areas. These peaks are due to the arrival and subsequent
departure of transient northern populations, with the highest at-sea mean seasonal density
(0.18/km2) recorded in fall (Bonnell et al. 1983). During this period, California sea lions feed
over Pioneer Canyon (between Study Areas 3 and 4) and Cordell Bank. Primary prey items
include crabs, squid, herring, hake, and mackerel (Ainley and Allen 1992). During the EPA
(Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) surveys, California sea lions were the most abundant pinniped in
3-179
-------
all seasons; the greatest number of individuals were observed during August in slope waters near
Study Area 3 (Figure 3.3.5-1 la). PRBO (Ainley and Allen 1992) reported California sea lions
as the second most common pinniped of the region (following northern fur seals) occurring
primarily along the continental shelf including Study Area 2 (Figure 3.3.5-1 lb).
Northern Elephant Seals
Northern elephant seals are present year-round in the study region and reach peak numbers in
haul-out areas during the spring (Bonnell et al. 1983). Their breeding range extends from Point
Reyes to Isla Cedros in Baja California (Le Boeuf et al. 1978) and includes a breeding colony
on Southeast Farallon Island. The greatest numbers of elephant seals near the study areas were
sighted near the Ano Nuevo and Farallon rookeries and in areas over the continental slope from
Point Reyes to Monterey Bay (Bonnell et al. 1983) where they feed primarily on squid, octopus,
hagfish, anchovies, and rockfish (Ainley and Allen 1992). The few northern elephant seals seen
during PRBO (Ainley and Allen 1992) surveys were primarily over slope waters (Figure
3.3.5-12); EPA (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) censuses recorded five sightings over slope waters
although no northern elephant seals were observed in the LTMS study areas. Northern elephant
seals may dive to depths of 1,500 m (Ainley and Allen 1992) and often remain at the surface for
less than one minute when feeding. This may account for the few species sightings within the
region (Le Boeuf et al. 1978). Conversely, other pinniped species such as northern fur seals may
rest at the surface for hours (Gentry and Kooyman 1986) making them more likely to be
observed during censusing.
Northern Sea Lion
Northern sea lion populations have declined since the 1940s and currently include about 3.000
individuals statewide (KLI1991). They are currently listed as a threatened species by the Federal
government Northern sea lions usually are sighted in shallow waters from less than 1 km to 55
km offshore. Most are found in four areas within 45 km of the coast; (1) Cape Mendocino to
the Klamath River; (2) Cordell Bank; (3) north of Point Arena; and (4) the continental slope
between the Farallon Islands and Ano Nuevo Island. The largest northern sea lion rookery in
California is on Ano Nuevo Island and includes over 1,000 animals. A rookery of about 200
animals exists on Southeast Farallon Island; however, fewer than 30 pups are reported born per
year (Huber et al. in prep.). There is a minor haul-out area for this species at Point Reyes
Headland. Northern sea lions feed primarily on squid, octopus, and fish such as smelt, flatfishes,
and rockfishes (Ainley and Allen 1992). Northern sea lions were observed twice during seasonal
studies; once each in Study Areas 3 and 5 (Figure 3.3.5-13a) (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Two individuals were observed during the PRBO surveys, one northwest of the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and one along the coast south of Point Reyes
(Figure 3.3.5-13b) (Ainley and Allen 1992).
3-180
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
® 11-100
-fa Haul-out Site
o 2-10
# 101-1000
Figure 3.3.5-1 la. California Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
August 1990 and 1991.
Source: Jones and Szczepaniak 1992.
AK0116
3-181
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
® 11-100
^ Haul-out Site
o 2-10
Figure 3.3.5-1 lb. California Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0117 3-182
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
^ Haul-out Site
Figure 3.3.5-12. Northern Elephant Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0118 3-183
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1 ~ HaukxJt Site
Figure 3.3.5-13a. Northern Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
August 1990 and 1991.
Source: Jones and Szczepaniak 1992.
AK0119
3-184
-------
Marine Mamma! Counts
O 1
^ Haukwt Site
38°N -
37°30'N -
-123°w
-122°30'w
Figure 3.3.5-13b. Northern Sea Lion Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0120 3-185
-------
Northern Fur Seals
Northern fur seals are the predominant pinnipeds in waters seaward of the continental shelf
(greater than 200 m) in winter and spring, with an estimated 25,000-30,000 animals present off
centra] and northern California (Bonnell et al. 1983). They are designated as a depleted species
by the Marine Mammal Commission. A few individuals haul out on Ano Nuevo Island and the
Farallon Islands (Le Boeuf and Bonnell 1980; Huber et al. in prep.). Although the species occurs
year-round in the study region, it is considered primarily a winter-spring pelagic visitor to the
area (Bonnell et al. 1983; KLI 1991). Their numbers increase in abundance offshore with the
arrival of northern migrants in the winter. Most return to their Bering Sea rookeries in late
spring (York 1987) or to rookeries on San Miguel Island in southern California. Northern fur
seals consume a variety of prey including crabs, squid, sablefish, anchovies, and rockfish (Ainley
and Allen 1992). Within the study region, northern fur seals were the second most frequently
observed pinniped during seasonal surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) and the most common
pinniped during June 1985-91 surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992). Northern fur seals were seen
within Study Area 3 and near Study Areas 4 and 5 during EPA (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992)
surveys (Figure 3.3.5-14a). During June 1985-91, northern fur seals were seen in low numbers
within all of the study areas, although the greatest concentrations were found north and west of
Study Area 5 (Figure 3.3.5-14b).
In general, pinniped sightings were rare within the study areas (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and
Szczepaniak 1992). Table 3.3.5-2 presents a summary of pinniped occurrences within the four
study areas. These results, in conjunction with actual sightings as shown in Figures 3.3.5-1 la
through 3.3.5-15, indicate that the slope waters of Study Areas 3 and 5 support the highest
concentration of pinnipeds. Of the five pinnipeds cited, four occurred most often in Study
Area 3. The remaining pinniped was the harbor seal which is rarely seen in deeper, slope waters
(KLI 1991).
Harbor Seals
Harbor seals are year-round residents of the central California coast, and haul out at islands,
secluded beaches, estuaries, and offshore rocks between Ano Nuevo and Point Reyes (Allen and
Huber 1983, 1984; Bonnell et al. 1983; Allen et al. 1987a; Hanan et al. 1986). They forage
close to shore, feeding on crabs, squid, smelt, mackerel, and rockfish (Ainley and Allen 1992),
and rarely are seen in waters deeper than 180 m (KLI 1991). Harbor seals are locally migrant
and are seasonally most abundant onshore during the spring breeding season (March-June) and
the summer molt (June-August). They rest onshore almost daily but spend more time on land
during early spring and winter months, averaging 17 hours per day on land (Allen et al. 1987b).
During PRBO surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992), most harbor seals (80%) were seen over
continental shelf waters, in and around Study Area 2 (Figure 3.3.5-15). No harbor seals were
observed during the seasonal survey effort (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
3-186
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
^ Haukxjt Site
o 2-10
-123o30-w
-123°W
Figure 33.5-14a.
Northern Fur Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
August 1990, February, May, August, November 1991.
Source: Jones and Szczepaniak 1992.
AK0121
3-187
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
0 11-100
^ Haukxjt Site
o 2-10
Figure 33.5-14b. Northern Fur Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
3-188
-------
Marine Mammal Counts
O 1
Haukxrt Site
O 2-10
Figure 33.5-15, Harbor Seal Counts in the Gulf of the Farallones Region, 1985-1991.
Source: Ainley and Allen 1992.
AK0123
3-189
-------
3.3.5.3
Fissipeds
Southern sea otters are common to the general study region, but occur primarily along the
mainland south of Point Ano Nuevo to Point Conception (Bonnell et al. 1983). Sea otters
normally reside nearshore (within 2,000 feet of shore) and feed on shellfish and fish (Siniff and
Ralls 1988). Recently, there have been major, unpredictable shifts in their distribution along the
coast. According to CDFG, a group of 11 to 25 otters was observed several times north of Ano
Nuevo between September 1986 and April 1987. In October 1986, a single sea otter was
observed for a four-day span at the Southeast Farallon Island (PRBO, unpubl. data). Incidental
sightings also occur annually along the Point Reyes peninsula (PRBO, unpubl. data). Sea otters
were not observed near any of the proposed study areas during recent survey efforts (Ainley and
Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). Their typical habitat is rocky intertidal and kelp bed
areas (Ainley and Allen 1992) which suggests that their presence is unlikely within any of the
deep, slope waters of the LTMS study areas.
3.3.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species
This section presents information on threatened, endangered, and special status species that occur
within the LTMS study region. Species that occur regularly, and species that occur rarely in the
study region are discussed in separate sections.
3.3.6.1 Species Observed Regularly Within the Study Region
Eight known threatened or endangered species regularly occur in the general study region. These
include four whale species (humpback, blue, finback, and sperm), one pinniped (northern sea
lion), two bird species (peregrine falcon and California brown pelican), and one fish species
(winter-run chinook salmon). The current status of these species under the Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the State of California endangered or protected species list is summarized
in Table 3.3.6-1. The ESA coordination process occurred concurrently with the review of the
Draft EIS and the preparation of the Final EIS. Coordination information is included in
Chapter 5. Formal consultation letters (see Chapter 5) requesting advisement of (1) the presence
of any listed or candidate, threatened, or endangered species, and (2) any critical habitat of these
species that may be impacted by dredged material disposal, within the four LTMS study areas
were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service as
required by the Endangered Species Act Section 7(c). In addition, the California Department of
Fish and Game was consulted voluntarily to ensure project cooperation with the state CZMA.
The species listed in Table 3.3.6-1 are subject to full protection under the Federal ESA (see
Section 1.6.2.7). The ESA prohibits the take of any listed species, generally defined as
prohibiting any harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture,
collection, or attempts at such conduct. In addition to the ESA, marine mammals are protected
by the Marine Mammal Protection Act which established a moratorium on the taking or
importing of marine mammals or marine mammal products. One of the Act's management
3-190
-------
Table 3.3.6-1. Threatened or Endangered Species Occurring in the Study Areas
(modified from KLI 1991).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Cetaceans
Humpback Whale
Megaptera novaeangliae
FE
Blue Whale
Balaenoptera musculus
FE
Finback Whale
Balaenoptera physalus
FE
Sperm Whale
Physeter macrocephalus
FE
Pinnipeds
Northern Sea Lion
Eumetopias jubatus
FT
Marine Birds
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
SE, FE
California Brown Pelican
Pelecanus occidentalis californicus
SE, FE
Marine Fishes
Winter-run Chinook Salmon
Oncorhyncus tshawytscha
SE, FT
FE = Federally listed endangered
ST = State listed threatened
FT = Federally listed threatened
SE = State listed endangered
Note: Additional threatened, endangered, or candidate species that occur rarely within the study region
are discussed later In Section 3.3.6.
AKOOA6W31
3-191
-------
requirements seeks to attain an "optimum sustainable population" for all marine mammal species,
including additional protection of those populations considered depleted.
NMFS is responsible for the protection of Federally endangered, threatened, and special status
cetaceans, pinnipeds, and fishes. FWS is responsible for protection of birds having Federal legal
status. CDFG has jurisdiction over State endangered or threatened species found in State waters.
Details on the biology and distributions of the eight species observed within the study region are
provided in Sections 3.3.5 (Marine Mammals), 3.3.4 (Marine Birds), and 3.4.1. (Commercial
Fisheries). A brief summary of species occurrence (based on historic surveys and recent annual
and seasonal censuses) within the four Study Areas is presented below.
Cetaceans
Humpback whales typically are found in the study region from March through January with
greatest concentrations occurring from mid-August through October (Dohl et al. 1983; Baker et.
al. 1986; Calambokidis et al. 1990a). Annual surveys conducted June 1985-1991 (Ainley and
Allen 1992) recorded the greatest abundances (2-10 individuals) near the southeast corner of
Study Area 2 and between Study Areas 3 and 4 (Figure 3.3.5-8b). In contrast, August surveys
(Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) recorded similar numbers of individuals within Study Area 3 and
the region between Study Areas 2 and 3 (Figure 3.3.5-8a).
Similar to humpback whales, the greatest abundances of blue whales within the Farallon Basin
occur in summer and early fall, although overall numbers are lower than those of humpback
whales (Dohl et al. 1983). Studies conducted from 1986-1989 identified a total of 179 blue
whales within the Gulf of the Farallones (Calambokidis 1990b). In 1986, an aggregation of 41
blue whales was sighted near Southeast Farallon Island (National Marine Sanctuary Program
1987). Recent seasonal studies (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) recorded blue whales between
Study Areas 2 and 3 and within Study Area 3, with greatest abundances along the continental
shelf break (Figure 3.3.5-9).
During their 1980-83 survey, Dohl et al. (1983) recorded 30 sightings for a total of 56 finback
whales, primarily over continental shelf and slope waters. In addition, this survey observed a
group of five to eight finbacks just south of the Farallon Islands, and a single individual
approximately 20 km west of Point Reyes. No finback whales were sighted within the region
during recent annual (Ainley and Allen 1992) and seasonal surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak
1992).
Dohl et al. (1983) characterized sperm whales as regular visitors to the Gulf of the Farallones,
with records of 66 sightings for a total of 218 individuals from 1980-83. Most of the sightings
occurred in deeper waters (> 1,700 m); four individuals were sighted in Study Area 5. Although
sperm whales historically were listed as the sixth most common cetacean in the region, recent
surveys recorded no sightings of this species (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak
1992).
3-192
-------
Pinnipeds
Due to a recent reduction in their numbers, northern sea lions were listed as threatened under the
ESA. Although this species is one of three pinniped species that breeds in the region, few
sightings were made during recent surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Ainley and Allen (1992) recorded two sightings of single individuals, one near Cordell Bank and
one nearshore within the eastern boundary of the GOFNMS. Similarly, Jones and Szczepaniak
(1992) sighted only two individuals, one on the eastern boundary of Study Area 3 and one at the
western boundary of Study Area 5.
Although currently not listed as endangered or threatened, the northern fur seal is considered
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It is found primarily over the continental
slope and was the most abundant pinniped species in the study region during June surveys
(Ainley and Allen 1992). During these surveys, low densities of northern fur seals (0.01-10
seals/km2) were observed in all of the study areas, but mostly in Study Areas 3 and 5. Jones and
Szczepaniak (1992) listed northern fur seals as the second most frequently sighted pinniped.
Similar to Ainley and Allen (1992), most sightings occurred over the continental slope, although
almost half of the sightings occurred west of the study areas (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Birds
Peregrine falcons are Federally and State listed as endangered species. They are considered rare
in the region, but historically bred on the Farallon Islands (DeSante and Ainley 1980). Currently,
a relatively high number of individuals (5-8) continue to winter on the Islands (PRBO, unpubl.
data). During winter/spring NMFS cruises, two peregrine falcons were observed foraging over
waters north and west of the Farallon Islands (PRBO, unpubl. data). No peregrine falcons were
observed during annual or seasonal surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak
1992).
Although currently Federally and State listed as endangered, California brown pelican populations
appear to be recovering (Ainley and Allen 1992). Large numbers of pelicans roost at various
sites within the general study region including the Farallon Islands (Pyle and Henderson 1991)
and coastal mainland sites (Shuford etal. 1989). Recent annual surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992)
suggest that pelican populations are concentrated nearshore, over waters shallower than 180 m
(Figure 3.3.4-5). Seasonal surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) also concluded that abundances
were greatest over continental shelf and upper slope waters.
Fishes
A dramatic reduction in winter-run chinook populations over the past two decades has led to its
listing as a threatened species by the Federal government and as an endangered species by the
State of California.
3-193
-------
Winter-run Chinook salmon are an anadromous species that pass through the Delta. San Pablo
Bay, and San Francisco Bay during their upstream and downstream migrations (J. Turner, CDFG,
pers. comm. 1991). Although this species is the least abundant Pacific salmon, it has the highest
value per pound and is fished commercially in North America from Kotzebue Sound, Alaska, to
Santa Barbara, California (Emmett et al. 1991). Ocean-dwelling juveniles occur primarily over
continental shelf waters (Fredin et al. 1977). Commercial fish block data for the study region
(MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992) indicate highest abundances of salmon,
including winter-run chinook, are caught within shelf regions such as Study Area 2
(Figure 3.4-3).
3.3.6.2 Species Occurring Irregularly Within the Study Region
In addition to the species listed in Table 3.3.6-1, several other species that are currently listed
as endangered, threatened, or are candidates for special legal status occur irregularly within the
study region.
Cetaceans
Sei and right whales currently are listed as endangered under the Federal ESA. Although the
Gulf of the Farallones lies within the distributional range of both species (Caldwell and Caldwell
1983), neither were observed during historic surveys (Dohl et al. 1983) or during recent survey
efforts (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Pinnipeds
The Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) is considered a threatened species by Federal
and State agencies. Currently, this species is known to breed only at Guadalupe Island, Baja,
Mexico; sightings have been restricted to waters south of the Channel Islands (Bonnell et al.
1978). Historic estimates include approximately 2,000 individuals (Fleischer 1978). Guadalupe
fur seals are believed to be pelagic throughout most of the year except during the summer
breeding season. Although this species was not observed during recent annual and seasonal
surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992), it may be a rare visitor to
regional waters (KLI 1991).
Fissipeds
The southern sea otter is a geographic variant of the Alaskan otter (Kenyon 1987), and was
Federally listed as threatened in 1977. Its distribution ranges from Point Ano Nuevo south to
Pismo Beach (Jameson 1989). Although no sightings of the Southern sea otter were made within
any of the study areas (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992), one was recorded
near Point Ano Nuevo, the northern extent of its range (Ainley and Allen 1992). Southern sea
otters typically inhabit rocky intertidal and kelp bed areas (Ainley and Allen 1992). Thus, it is
unlikely that they would be present within any of the deep, slope waters of the LTMS study
areas.
3-194
-------
Birds
The short-tailed albatross is also a Federally endangered species. According to Ainley and Allen
(1992), only two individuals have been sighted in the study region, although historically the
short-tailed albatross was a common species in offshore waters of the North American West
Coast. Of the two individuals sighted within the region, one was seen at Cordell Bank and the
other in Monterey Bay (PRBO, unpubl. data).
The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a Federally threatened and State
endangered species. This species rarely forages farther than three to five kilometers offshore
(Ainley and Allen 1992) and was not observed within any of the study areas during annual or
seasonal surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992).
Turtles
The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the most frequently sighted marine turtle
within northern and central California (Dohl et al. 1983). This species currently is Federally
listed as endangered. During recent seasonal surveys (Jones and Szczepaniak 1992), two
sightings, each of a single leatherback turtle, were made. The first sighting occurred in shallow
water (54 m depth) north of Study Area 2, while the second observation was at approximately
1,000 m depth, northeast of Study Area 4. Both sightings occurred in August, consistent with
Dohl et al. (1983) findings of highest leatherback abundances during summer and fall months.
3.3.7 Marine Sanctuaries and Special Biological Resource Areas
Six areas are designated as marine sanctuaries, refuges, or special biological resource areas within
the vicinity of the LTMS study areas. Four of these are Federally protected (GOFNMS,
CBNMS, MBNMS, and the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge), and two are protected by the
State of California (Farallon Islands Area of Special Biological Significance and the Farallon
Islands Game Refuge) (Figures 3.3.7-1 and 3.3.7-2). Collectively, these six areas contain a wide
diversity of sensitive habitats and biological resources, including threatened or endangered
species.
3.3.7.1 Federally Protected Areas
Sanctuaries
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) was designed to protect
and manage discrete areas having special ecological, recreational, historical, and aesthetic
resources. The Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuaries (Figure 3.3.7-1) are three of eleven designated national marine sanctuaries. All
national marine sanctuaries are administered by NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
(NOAA 1992).
3-195
-------
Figure 3.3.7-1. National Marine Sanctuaries in the LTMS Study Region.
AK0142
3-196
-------
Source Smith and Johnson 1989.
Figure 3.3.7-2. Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, Farallon Islands Area of Special
Biological Significance, and Farallon Islands Game Refuge.
-------
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The GOFNMS encompasses 948 nmi2 of
nearshore and offshore waters, most of which lie in the Gulf of the Farallones. The Sanctuary
extends from approximately the western edge of the continental shelf (35 nmi offshore) to the
coasts of Marin and Sonoma Counties. Alternative Site 3 is over 10 nmi southwest of the
Sanctuary and more than 25 nmi southwest of the nearest Farallon Island. While Study Area 5
adjoins the western boundary of the Sanctuary, Alternative Site 5 lies nearly 25 nmi west of the
Farallon Islands. Study Area 2 begins at the southern boundary of the Sanctuary and lies entirely
within the MBNMS (Figure 3.3.7-1).
The selection of the GOFNMS as a sanctuary (January 16, 1981; Title XV CFR Part 936) was
based on the high concentration of biological resources living within or migrating through its
boundaries. These resources include: (1) marine vegetation (particularly kelp, eelgrass, and salt
marsh species); (2) benthic fauna; (3) fish; (4) marine birds; and (5) marine mammals (NOAA
1980).
One of GOFNMS' most extensive resources is its marine bird population. The Farallon Islands
are the most important marine bird breeding site on the west coast of the continental United
States (Sowls et at. 1980; Briggs et al. 1987b). There are sixteen species of marine birds known
to breed along the Pacific coast. Twelve of these species, including the American black
oystercatcher, ashy storm-petrel, Brandt's cormorant, Cassin's auklet, common murre,
double-crested cormorant, Leach's storm-petrel, pelagic cormorant, pigeon guillemot, rhinoceros
auklet, tufted puffin, and western gull, have colonies on the Farallon Islands (Ainley and Lewis
1974). The Farallon Islands serve as the nesting grounds for a significant portion (up to 85%)
of the world populations of ashy storm-petrels, Brandt's cormorants, and western gulls (Ainley
and Allen 1992) as well as eighty percent of California's nesting Cassin's auklets (California
Coastal Commission 1987). In addition, large numbers of California brown pelicans roost on the
Farallon Islands regularly during summer and autumn. Endangered peregrine falcons also winter
on the islands (NOAA 1980; Ainley and Allen 1992).
Aquatic birds also are found within the Sanctuary's lagoon, coastal bay, and four estuaries.
Breeding species include the American coot, cinnamon teal, gadwall, great blue heron, great
egret, killdeer, mallard, pied-billed grebe, and snowy plover. An additional twenty aquatic bird
species summer in the region, and seven species occur as spring and fall migrants (KLI 1991).
Marine mammals also are a significant part of the Sanctuary's biological resources. Twenty
species of whales and dolphins have been sighted in the Sanctuary, occurring either as migrants
or regular inhabitants (Table 3.3.5-1). Of these, Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise, and Pacific
white-sided dolphin are considered common resident species (Ainley and Allen 1992). Large
baleen cetaceans including gray whales and endangered blue and humpback whales are important
migratoiy species (Dohl et al. 1983).
The Farallon Islands also serve as one of the most important pinniped haul-out grounds in
California (Bonnell et al. 1983). California's largest mainland breeding population of harbor
seals occurs within the Sanctuary, along with breeding herds of northern elephant seals and
3-198
-------
northern sea lions (Ainley and Allen 1992). The threatened southern sea otter is an occasional
visitor to the Sanctuary (KLI 1991).
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. CBNMS encompasses 397 nmi2 of ocean water
overlying the northernmost submerged seamount on the California continental shelf. The
CBNMS was designated a National Marine Sanctuary on May 24, 1989 (Title XV CFR Part 942).
Ocean depths within the Sanctuary range from 35 m (at the peak of the Bank) to 1,830 m.
Alternative Site 5 is located within approximately 10 nmi of Sanctuary boundaries
(Figure 3.3.7-1); however, the Bank itself is located over 20 nmi from the site. Alternative Site 3
is located 30 nmi to the south of the Sanctuary.
The combination of upwelling, underwater topography, and the wide range of depths at Cordell
Bank provides for a highly productive environment with unique associations between subtidal and
deep-water species (NOAA 1989). Further, endangered or threatened marine mammal and reptile
species, including blue, right, finback, sei, sperm, and humpback whales, Guadalupe fur seals,
northern sea lions, and green, loggerhead, leatherback, and Pacific Ridley sea turtles, as well as
the depleted northern fur seal, often are found at Cordell Bank. Due to its rich biological
diversity, Cordell Bank is visited frequently by divers and fishermen (NOAA 1989).
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The MBNMS (Figure 3.3.7-1) encompasses 4,024
nmi2, ranging from Marin County to Cambria (NOAA 1992). It was designated a National
Marine Sanctuary on September 18, 1992 (Title XV CFR Part 944). Portions of Study Area 3
and all of Study Area 2 lie within the Sanctuary boundaries.
The MBNMS supports a high diversity of marine resources. Monterey Canyon and its associated
topographic features promote seasonal upwelling of nutrient-rich waters which support diverse
biological assemblages of plankton, algae, invertebrates, fishes, marine birds, sea turtles, and
marine mammals. Monterey Bay provides abundant prey items for many species of migratory
marine birds. This area is an important habitat for winter populations of ashy storm-petrel and
Cassin's auklet, among others. Several endangered species are observed regularly within the
Sanctuary. The endangered California brown pelican is observed throughout the Sanctuary and
along the coastline (Figure 3.3.4-5) (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992). Right
whales, with a world-wide population estimated near 200, have been seen in waters off Half
Moon Bay. A complete list of species present in the Sanctuary can be found in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary (NOAA 1992).
Highly sensitive nearshore and offshore resources within the Sanctuary include commercial
fisheries, aquaculture operations, kelp harvesting, estuaries, sloughs, sandy beaches and rocky
intertidal habitats, and nearshore littoral habitats (NOAA 1992). The commercially important
Dungeness crab is harvested in local Sanctuary waters.
3-199
-------
Wildlife Refuges
Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge is maintained by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and includes Noonday Rock, North, Middle, and
Southeast Farallon Islands, and Maintop Island (Figure 3.3.7-2). It is primarily a migratory
refuge for 12 species of marine birds (including auklets, cormorants, guillemots, murres, puffins,
and storm-petrels) but also serves as an important habitat for 5 species of pinnipeds (KLI 1991).
The Wildlife Refuge is approximately 20 nmi due east of Alternative Site 5 and 25 nmi northeast
of Alternative Site 3.
3.3.7.2 State Protected Areas
Areas of Special Biological Significance
Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs) were designated under California State Water
Resources Control Board Resolution No. 74-28 to provide special protection for biological
communities and important marine species. Waste discharges within these areas are prohibited
in order to preserve and maintain natural water quality.
Farallon Island Area of Special Biological Significance. The Farallon Island ASBS includes 2.2
nmi2 of waters surrounding but not including Noonday Rock, North, Middle, and Southeast
Farallon Islands (Figure 3.3.7-2), and Maintop Island (CSWRCB 1976). Within the ASBS are
a highly diverse intertidal community and abundant marine mammal populations, including
California and northern sea lions, elephant seals, and harbor seals. Rare and endangered species
such as the California brown pelican, peregrine falcon, blue, finback, humpback, sei, and sperm
whales also occur in the area (KLI 1991). The Farallon Island ASBS is approximately 20 nmi
due east of Alternative Site 5.
Game Refuges
Farallon Islands Game Refuge. The Farallon Islands Game Refuge, under CDFG jurisdiction,
encompasses the Farallon Islands and Noonday Rock and their surrounding waters extending 1
nmi from the coastline of each island (Smith and Johnson, 1989). It has an area similar to the
combined areas of the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge and Farallon Islands ASBS (Figure
3.3.7-2). The regulations governing the use of the Game Refuge are coincident with those of the
Wildlife Refuge and ASBS. The Farallon Island Game Refuge lies 20 nmi east of Alternative
Site 5 (Figure 1.3-1).
Mainland Resource Areas
Other mainland coastal resource areas are located at least 30 nmi from the nearest alternative site.
Results from modeling the dispersion of dredged material (see Section 4.4) indicate that
sediments discharged at the alternative sites would not reach the mainland shore in delectable
quantities.
3-200
-------
3.3.8 Potential for Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species
Some changes in the distribution and abundance of local biological communities are expected
following any environmental disturbance, including dredged material disposal. Recolonization
and recovery of a disturbed area and the resultant species assemblage will depend on numerous
physical and biological interactions, including the size of the impacted area, the availability of
larvae and adults, biological interactions among colonizers, and the severity and frequency of
disturbance (Connell and Keough 1985; Lissner et al. 1991). Typically, recolonization of an
altered environment begins with opportunistic species and proceeds through time to more stable
communities typical of the surrounding area (EPA 1986a).
Some organisms that may be present in dredged material or that may be favored after a
disturbance can be considered nuisance species. EPA defines nuisance species as "organisms of
no commercial value, which, because of predation or competition, may be harmful to
commercially important organisms; pathogens; or pollution tolerant organisms present in large
numbers that are not normally dominant in the area" (EPA 1986a). These species can include
viruses, pathogenic bacteria, protozoans, fungi, invertebrates, and fish, or they may include the
eggs or spores of parasites that infect local fauna. In addition, in some environments dredged
material disposal may alter water quality or local sediments so that pollution-tolerant organisms,
normally occurring in low numbers, become the dominant species.
Dredged material disposal is unlikely to promote the development of nuisance species at any of
the alternative sites due to: (1) significant differences between dredging and disposal site depths
and habitat characteristics and (2) permit restrictions for ocean disposal of dredged material. The
environment of the alternative sites consists of deep waters (depths > 1,400 m) and thus is
expected to be very different, particularly in terms of dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity,
pressure, food availability, and larval availability, than the relatively shallow dredging sites.
Therefore, the placement of shallow-water dredged material at sites of significantly greater depths
is not expected to result in colonization or propagation of shallow water nuisance species. All
dredged material proposed for disposal at the designated ODMDS must conform to MPRSA's
permitting criteria for acceptable quality. The acceptability of the material will be determined
by physical, chemical, and bioassay/bioaccumulation testing (EPA/COE 1991).
3-201
-------
3.4
Socioeconomic Environment
This section presents information on the socioeconomic environment of the study region,
including commercial and recreational fisheries (Section 3.4.1), mariculture (Section 3.4.2),
shipping (Section 3.4.3), military usage (Section 3.4.4), mineral or energy development (Section
3.4.5), recreational activities (Section 3.4.6), and cultural and historical areas (Section 3.4.7).
3.4.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
3.4.1.1 Existing Fisheries
The continental shelf and slope off San Francisco support a range of commercial fisheries
utilizing a variety of methods including purse seine, dip net, trawl, trap, gill net, troll, and hook
and line (Battelle 1989). The principal maiket species in this region include Dungeness crab,
market squid, salmon, tuna, flatfishes (Dover sole, petrale sole, and English sole), a variety of
rockfishes (Sebastes spp.; including shortbelly, widow, boccacio, chilipepper, splitnose, canary,
and yellowtail), thornyheads (Sebastolobus spp.), and sablefish (MBC 1989; Tetra Tech 1987;
Jow 1992). In addition to primary market species, a number of other species including albacore
tuna, mackerels, anchovy. Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), and several species of sharks have
commercial value (MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992). Within the entire San
Francisco region (from Point Arena to Point San Pedro, offshore to a distance of 200 nmi) some
of the most productive commercial fisheries areas are in the Gulf of the Farallones, including the
vicinity of Study Areas 2 and 3 (MBC 1989; Oliphant et al. 1990). The estimated value of all
major commercial fisheries within the San Francisco region in 1986 totaled over $23,680,000
(Oliphant et al. 1990; COE 1988). Figures 3.4-1 through 3.4-3 show the fisheries areas and
describe the commercially important megafaunal invertebrates and fishes collected in CDFG catch
blocks corresponding to each LTMS study area (including alternative sites).
Battelle (1989) concluded that fisheries resources of the continental shelf are of greater economic
value than those in deeper areas. SAIC (1992b) and MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries
Database (1992) found that some of the most productive areas were located in the deeper parts
of Study Area 2 and the shallow part of Study Area 3 (Figure 3.4-1).
Battelle (1989) indicated that three catch block groups had trawl landings in excess of 0.4 million
pounds (MP) in 1985. The first group (catch blocks 455 to 458 in depths less than approximately
100 m) had reported landings in 1985 of 0.58 MP, while the second group (catch block 475 in
depths between 200 and 600 m) had trawl landings of 0.40 MP (Battelle 1989). The third catch
block group (catch blocks 480, 481, and 482 at depths between 200 and 1,000 m) had reported
landings in 1985 of 1.5 MP.
Based on analysis of MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992) information from 1970
through 1986, Study Area 2 lies entirely within an area of moderate to high fisheries resources
(0.5-72.5 MP; Figure 3.4-1), while the eastern (i.e., shallow) part of Study Area 3, on the upper
3-202
-------
38 ®N
Alternative
Site 5
37 C30'N
Guide
Se amount
^
-123'30-w
-123 "w
-122° 30"w
0-0.5 MP
>0.5-1 MP
>1-2.5 MP
>2.5 MP
Figure 3.4-1.
CDFG Commercial Fisheries Catch Blocks Showing Locations of
Blocks and Total Catches of Fishes and Invertebrates From 1970 to
1986 Within the LTMS Study Areas.
Total catches are given in millions of pounds (MP).
Source: MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992.
AK0125
3-203
-------
continental slope, is represented by high fisheries resources (> 2.5 MP; Figure 3.4-1). Study
Area 4 represents an area of low to intermediate fisheries resources, with between 0.5 and 2.5
MP taken from 1970 to 1986. The least productive fisheries resources area within the study
region was Study Area 5 (0.5-1 MP).
The landings and catch block data must be interpreted with some caution because they represent
reported areas where fish were taken, and the accuracy of these data is difficult to verify. Fish
landed in a small portion of a given block may be extrapolated to the entire block or to groups
of blocks. Apparently unusual increases in the landings of a given species may actually represent
the first time a particular area was fished for that species. Another limitation is that the fishing
effort associated with the landings is not known for each catch block. For example, high catches
of flatfishes could represent high abundances from a few trawls or moderate catches from many
trawls.
The fishery resources for each study area are summarized in the following sections.
Study Area 2
Of the four LTMS study areas, the most significant commercial and recreational fisheries exist
on the continental shelf within Study Area 2. The total amount of all megafaunal invertebrates
collected commercially in the four primary catch blocks corresponding to Study Area 2 between
1970 and 1986 was over 29,000 pounds (Figure 3.4-2).
Commercially collected megafaunal invertebrates in these catch blocks include red urchins
(Strongylocentrotus franciscanus)', market squid (Loligo opalescens)\ a variety of crabs (Cancer
spp, presumably including Dungeness crab, C. magister, although not specifically identified in
MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992); abalone (Haliotis spp.); and various species
of bivalves including clams, mussels, and scallops (SAIC 1992b; MMS/CDFG Commercial
Fisheries Database 1992; Bence et al. 1992). Wild and Tasto (1983) also reported that a
significant fishery for Dungeness crab exists at depths centered between 36-64 m. The CDFG
Recreational Fisheries Database (1992) lists Dungeness crab as the only megafaunal invertebrate
taken in Study Area 2, although few individuals were collected.
Commercially collected fishes within the study area include lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus),
anchovy, Pacific herring, salmon, albacore tuna, sablefish, various species of rockfishes, and a
variety of flatfish species including Pacific sanddabs (Citharichthys sordidus), Dover sole
(Microstomia pacificus), rex sole (Errex zachirus), English sole (Pleuronectes vetulus), and
petrale sole (Eopsetta jordanv, SAIC 1992b; MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992;
Bence et al. 1992; Jow 1992; Battelle 1989). Between 1970 and 1986, the total amount of fish
taken commercially in the four catch blocks comprising Study Area 2 exceeded 19 million
pounds, as opposed to approximately 10 million, 4 million, and 2 million pounds in Study Areas
3, 4, and 5, respectively (Figure 3.4-3). Of these commercially targeted species, flatfishes,
rockfishes, salmon, and albacore tuna represented the most important fisheries. Predominant
fishes taken by recreational fishermen in the two of the four catch blocks corresponding to Study
3-204
-------
(/>
•o
c
3
II
0)
o
Z3
•O
<
73
|2
U>
i
to
o
15,000
14,000-
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000-
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000-
3,000-
2,000
1,000
0
i i i
465 466 474 475 476 "477 482 "483 "460 "469
Study
Area 2
Study
Area 3
Study
Area 4
Study
Area 5
Catch Block Number
¦
Squids/Octopus
E3
Abalone
n
Crabs
~
Urchins
~
Bivalves
H
Shrimps
DD
Snails
Figure 3.4-2. Commercially Collected Megafaunal Invertebrates (by catch block in
pounds) Within the LTMS Study Areas Between 1970 and 1986.
~~Location of the Alternative Site.
Source: MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992.
-------
u>
I
to
CO
D
2
5
z
2
Z
=D
CO
<
I
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000-
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000-
1,000,000
0
una
I
KM
I
T
T
T
465 466 474 475 476 "477 482 "483 "460 "469
Study
Area 2
Study
Area 3
Study
Area 4
Study
Area 5
Catch Block Number
¦
Sharks/Skates/Rays
H
Rockfishes
m
Flatfishes
~
Sablefish
a
Salmon/Trout
~
Tunas/Mackerels
~
Baitfishes
IE
Rattails
~
Hake
is
Lingcod
~
Other
Figure 3.4-3. Commercially Collected Fishes (by catch block in pounds) Within the
LTMS Study Areas Between 1970 and 1986.
* "Location of Lbe Alternative Site.
Source: MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database 1992.
-------
Area 2 (Catch Blocks 465 and 474) included rockfishes, salmon, albacore tuna, and lingcod
(CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database 1992).
Study Area 3
Study Area 3 contains moderate to high commercial fisheries for both megafaunal invertebrates
and fishes in the shallow areas (Catch Block 476) but very limited fisheries in the deeper portions
(Catch Block 477) including Alternative Site 3 (Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3). From 1970 through
1986, commercially collected megafaunal invertebrates were virtually nonexistent within the
Study Area 3 (including Alternative Site 3), with a total of less than 1,000 pounds taken from
the two catch blocks corresponding to this study area (Figure 3.4-2). Based on the MMS/CDFG
Commercial Fisheries Database (1992), a limited abalone fishery exists in the deeper part of the
study area, (Catch Block 477; Figure 3.4-2), although this probably reflects reporting or
tabulation errors in the database. No megafaunal invertebrates were taken by recreational
fishermen in this study area (CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database 1992).
Commercially collected fishes included flatfishes (primarily Dover sole, rex sole, English sole,
and petrale sole), sablefish, rockfishes, and albacore. The total amount of fish taken in the
shallow parts of this study area exceeded 9 million pounds between 1970 and 1986 (Figure 3.4-
3), with flatfishes being the predominant species.
Study Area 4
From 1970 through 1986, very limited commercial fisheries for megafaunal invertebrates existed
in Study Area 4 (including Alternative Site 4) (Figure 3.4-2), probably due to difficulties in
handling fishing gear at these greater depths. No megafaunal invertebrates were taken by
recreational fishermen (CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database 1992). Commercial catches of
fishes in the shallow part of Study Area 4 (Catch Block 482, located shoreward of Alternative
Site 4) were represented by several species, including flatfishes, sablefish, rockfishes, tunas, and
mackerels (Figure 3.4-3). In the deeper part of Study Area 4 (Catch Block 483), including
Alternative Site 4, catches were substantially lower, with a total of approximately 600,000 pounds
taken from 1970 through 1986. Flatfishes comprised almost 80% of this total. Very few species
of fishes such as sharks and tunas were taken by recreational fishermen in this study area (CDFG
Recreational Fisheries Database 1992).
Study Area 5
Based on available data, Study Area 5 is characterized by no megafaunal invertebrate fisheries
and is a low to moderate commercial fisheries area for fishes (Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3).
Predominant fishes taken commercially include rockfishes, flatfishes, tunas and mackerels, and
sablefish (Figure 3.4-3). However, the region of Alternative Site 5 (Catch Block 469) is
characterized by substantially lower fisheries resources. The primary recreational fisheries in this
study area are for pelagic species such as some rockfishes, salmon, and tunas (CDFG
Recreational Fisheries Database 1992), although catches are low relative to the other study areas.
3-207
-------
Detailed information on key existing fisheries species is presented below.
Dungeness Crab
Because of its economic importance to commercial fisheries in central and northern California
(as well as Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska), the population dynamics of the
Dungeness crab have been studied extensively (summarized in MBC 1987). Dungeness crabs
typically occur in depths from low tide to approximately 180 m, although they are most abundant
in inshore coastal waters (MBC 1987). Dungeness crab catches in the San Francisco region have
varied substantially over the years, with a peak catch of 8.9 million pounds in 1956-57 and a
sharp decline to a total of 700,000 pounds from 1980 to 1985 (COE 1988). In 1986, over 1.2
million pounds were taken in the San Francisco region, for a total value of over $2.3 million
(Oliphant et al. 1990). The Dungeness crab fishery continued to show a substantial recovery in
1987-1988 when 3.1 million pounds were taken in the San Francisco region. However, 1988-89
catch results indicated a decline of more than 50% from the previous year (CALCOFI 1990).
Pollution stress to juvenile stages has been suggested as a possible cause for these substantial
declines (Wainwright et al. 1992). Other causes for population fluctuations may include
oceanographic factors (temperature and currents), overfishing, parasitism, predation, and
environmental degradation (Wild and Tasto 1983). Consequently, water quality monitoring and
habitat protection measures have been recommended by CDFG to protect this resource (Wild and
Tasto 1983). It is notable that Dungeness crab were uncommon in recent EPA trawl and ROV
surveys conducted in Study Area 2 (SAIC 1992b). This may be related partly to the sampling
gear used (bottom trawls) since traps are the most common commercial method used to collect
Dungeness crabs. The MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992) indicated market
crabs were collected in low numbers in catch blocks corresponding to Study Area 2
(Figure 3.4-2).
Market Squid
Market squid are fished commercially from Baja California to British Columbia, with major
fishing grounds located off central California (MBC 1989, 1987). Market squid typically are
collected using small purse-seines and dip nets. Historically, market squid have been an
important commercial fishery, representing one of the top five in California in terms of weight
harvested (MBC 1987). Between 1983 and 1985, an average of 467,000 pounds per year was
harvested off California, while 1.8 million pounds were taken in 1986, representing a value of
almost $215,000 (Oliphant et al. 1990). Although the amount of market squid harvested is large,
the overall dollar value is low due to low market prices. Based on analysis of the MMS/CDFG
Commercial Fisheries Database (1992), market squid (combined with other squids and octopus)
represent a limited fishery in the general study region, occurring only at continental shelf depths
including Study Area 2 (Figure 3.4-2). Similarly, Bence et al. (1992) suggest that market squid
abundances are highest inshore, at depths less than 180 m. Market squid were collected as
incidental catch in Study Area 2 by SAIC (1992b); however, none were collected in any of the
other study areas or alternative sites.
3-208
-------
Pelagic Fishes
The predominant pelagic fishes, defined as those species which spend all or part of their life in
the water column (Moyle and Cech 1988), of commercial importance in the study region are
anchovies, herring, juvenile rockfishes, and hake. Some species such as salmon and tuna can
occur in large numbers seasonally while migrating through the general study region (Oliphant et
al. 1990).
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) are distributed from British Columbia to the tip of Baja
California, occurring from the surface to depths greater than 300 m (Love 1991). Northern
anchovy are a major component of the commercial and baitfish fisheries in California. For
example, anchovy harvests have varied from 508,772 pounds in 1977 to over one million pounds
in 1980 (Oliphant et al. 1990). Between 1983 and 1985 an average of almost 830,000 pounds
were taken, while in 1986 approximately 865,000 pounds, representing a total value of almost
$92,000, were collected in the San Francisco region (Oliphant et al. 1990). Bence et al. (1992)
indicated that juvenile northern anchovy were most abundant in the shallow inshore areas such
as Study Area 2.
Pacific herring catches within the San Francisco region were consistently high from 1983 through
1985, averaging over 16 million pounds per year (Oliphant et al. 1990). The 16.4 million pounds
collected in 1986 represented a value of almost $5.3 million. Pacific herring were collected by
SAIC (1992b) in low numbers in Study Area 2, representing incidental catch. Similarly, the
MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992) reports that pelagic fishes, including anchovy
and Pacific herring, were collected only in low numbers in the catch blocks corresponding to
Study Area 2 (Figure 3.4-3).
Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) can occur in dense midwater schools and range in
distribution from the Bering Sea to Baja California at depths between 10 to 1,000 m (Love 1991).
However, this species is not normally targeted by recreational fishermen because of its deep
distribution, and is a smaller component of commercial fisheries in the San Francisco region.
SAIC (1992b) collected Pacific hake in low numbers using bottom trawls in Study Area 2 and
in adjacent mid-depth and Pioneer Canyon locations. Bence et al. (1992) concluded that Pacific
hake had their highest abundances at intermediate depths corresponding to areas such as the
shallow portions of Study Area 3 (i.e., not including Alternative Site 3). Although this species
is not currently taken in high numbers, it represents a valuable potential fishery.
Other pelagic species having considerable commercial value are salmon and tuna. Salmon
(chinook and coho) in the San Francisco region are a popular partyboat and commercial species,
normally trolled for at depths of up to 600 m (MBC 1989). In 1986, over 2.7 million pounds
of salmon were taken in the San Francisco region, accounting for a value of approximately $5.6
million. In 1988, the California salmon fishery catch increased to approximately 6.4 million lbs
(PFMC 1993). Since 1988, this fishery has steadily declined with catches in 1992 totaling
approximately 550,000 lbs (J. Lee, CDFG pers. comm. 1993). Albacore tuna (Thurtnus
alalunga), a valuable gamefish for recreational and sport fishermen (MBC 1987), are most
3-209
-------
abundant from August through October (Squire and Smith 1977). In 1986, over 500,000 pounds
of albacore, representing an estimated value of $326,000 (Oliphant et al. 1990), were taken in
the San Francisco region.
Roundfishes
Roundfish fisheries in the San Francisco region are comprised primarily of lingcod, sablefish and
hake (discussed above). Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) typically occur in nearshore coastal
environments from the Gulf of Alaska to Ensenada, Mexico (Love 1991). Juvenile lingcod are
primarily pelagic and distributed nearshore (Bence et al. 1992), while larger juveniles live near
the bottom over a variety of habitats including sand and gravel and eelgrass beds. Adults
typically are found on soft bottoms, moving into rocky areas as they grow older (Love 1991).
Lingcod are taken by sport and recreational fishermen as well as commercially. Between 1983
and 1985 an average of almost 860,000 pounds were taken in the San Francisco region. In 1986,
over 400,000 pounds representing a total value of almost $140,000 were taken in the San
Francisco region (Oliphant et al. 1990). During trawl surveys by SAIC (1992b), lingcod were
only collected in Study Area 2; however, these represented only low abundances of juveniles.
Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) occur from the inner shelf to depths of almost 3,000 m (Miller
and Lea 1972). Juvenile sablefish occur on the shelf and upper slope, while spawning adults
occur deeper than 1,000 m. The highest reported densities of sablefish are at depths between 324
and 990 m (Allen and Smith 1988). In the study region, sablefish were caught in trawls
primarily between 128 and 1,097 m, with the highest catches between 366 and 823 m (Jow
1992). This species also is taken in traps and longlines at deeper depths usually between 384 and
1,262 m. Between 1983 and 1985, an average of almost 1.9 million pounds were taken in the
San Francisco region, while approximately 3.4 million pounds (a value of almost $1.4 million)
were collected in 1986 (Oliphant et aL 1990). Sablefish were collected during trawl surveys by
SAIC (1992b) in Study Areas 2, 3, and 4; however, their abundances were highest in adjacent
mid-depth and Pioneer Canyon locations at depths between 252 to 1,170 m. No sablefish were
collected by Cailliet et al. (1992) in Study Area 5, including the Alternative Site 5 region.
Groundfishes
Groundfish fishery resources in the study region are diverse and comprised of a number of
rockfishes (primarily including shortbelly, widow, boccacio, canary, chilipepper, yellowtail, and
thornyheads), and flatfishes (Dover sole, petrale sole, English sole, rex sole, and sand sole). In
1987, commercial groundfish landings of more than 20,000 metric tons were recorded within the
Monterey International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) Region, exclusive of foreign
fishing and joint ventures (Battelle 1989). Data on commercial groundfish resources for Study
Areas 2 through 5 primarily are taken from the MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database
(1992) and CDFG Trawler Database (Jow 1992), while recreational catches are from the CDFG
Recreational Fisheries Database (1992).
3-210
-------
Landing data for groundfishes have a number of limitations including how certain groups are
classified. For example, chilipepper rockfish may be grouped in "rockfish", "chilipepper", or
"chilipepper/boccacio" categories. The potential inaccuracy of many of these landing reports
must be considered because numerous databases are available for analysis of commercial
landings, and conflicting information may be contained within and between each of them.
Rockfishes. The rockfish complex consists of a number of species (Sebastes spp. and
Sebastolobus spp.) collected from the middle continental shelf to areas deeper than 1,400 m;
however, most rockfishes are taken commercially at depths between 100 to 400 m (MBC 1987).
Most deepwater species of thornyheads (Sebastolobus spp.) are taken at depths between 90 to 800
m, although some have been fished at depths as great as 1,400 m (Allen and Smith 1988). The
most important rockfish species in terms of annual revenues to commercial fisheries are
chilipepper (Sebastes goodei), boccacio (S. paucispinis), splitnose (S. diploproa), yellowtail (5.
flavidus) and widow rockfish (5. entomelas). Widow rockfish catches reached their highest
total in 1982, with almost 12 million pounds collected representing a value of approximately $1.6
million (Oliphant et al. 1990). Oliphant et al. (1990) presents combined data for chilipepper and
boccacio. Chilipepper/boccacio catches from 1983 through 1985 averaged over 3.4 million
pounds, while in 1986 approximately 1.8 million pounds representing a value of $570,000 were
taken (Oliphant et al. 1990). SAIC (1992b) collected 12 species of rockfishes throughout the
study region. ' Chilipepper and shortbelly (5. jordani) had the highest abundances in Study
Area 2, as well as in adjacent mid-depth and Pioneer Canyon locations. Midwater trawls,
conducted by Bence et al. (1992) indicated juvenile rockfish as a group were consistently most
abundant inshore, including depths similar to Study Area 2, but also were relatively abundant in
some offshore locations including the region of Study Area 5 and Alternative Site 5. In contrast,
abundances in Study Areas 3 and 4 were somewhat less, representing moderate to high numbers
(Bence et al. 1992).
Flatfishes. Dover sole (Microstomas pacificus) comprise the largest flatfish fishery in the San
Francisco region. They are collected from the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands southward to
central Baja California on the inner continental shelf to depths greater than 900 m, but primarily
are taken commercially in trawls at depths between approximately 300 and 900 m (Love 1991;
MBC 1987). In 1986, Dover sole landings in the San Francisco region totaled almost 6.3 million
pounds representing a value of over $1.6 million (Oliphant et al. 1990). Dover sole were
collected by SAIC (1992b) within Study Areas 2 and the shallow parts of Study Areas 3 and 4
(not including Alternative Sites 3 or 4). The highest numbers of Dover sole collected by SAIC
(1992b) were in the mid-depth and Pioneer Canyon locations at depths ranging from 252 to
500 m.
Petrale sole occur from the Bering Sea southward to northern Baja California, but are most
abundant from southern California northward (Love 1991). They are taken at depths ranging
from the intertidal to greater than 600 m, but are collected most often between 100 to 300 m.
This species is taken by sport and recreational fishermen, as well as by commercial trawlers.
From 1983 to 1986, an average of nearly 400,000 pounds per year of petrale sole were taken in
the San Francisco region, representing an average value of $300,000 annually (Oliphant et al.
3-211
-------
1990). Bence et al. (1992) and Jow (1992) suggests that the highest abundance of this species
is at depths less than 180 m, corresponding to similar depths as Study Area 2. SAIC (1992b)
collected this species infrequently and in low numbers in Study Area 2.
English sole are found from the Aleutian Islands to southern Baja California, with their
distribution centered from the Gulf of Alaska to southern California, at depths ranging from
intertidal to almost 600 m (Love 1991). Historical population centers of English sole in
California are located off San Francisco, Eureka, Fort Bragg, Monterey, and Santa Barbara (MBC
1987; Frey 1971). From 1983 to 1985 an average of over 700,000 pounds of English sole were
taken in the San Francisco region, while nearly 900,000 pounds representing a value of almost
$327,000 were taken in 1986. Within the study region, the major trawl fishery for this species
occurs between 37 and 146 m, corresponding to Study Area 2 depths (Jow 1992). SAIC (1992b)
collected this species in moderate numbers within Study Area 2. Consistent with their relatively
shallow depth distribution, English sole were not observed in Study Areas 3, 4, and 5.
Rex sole have a similar distribution as Dover sole and English sole and are taken at depths
ranging from the intertidal to at least 900 m, but are most frequently collected at depths between
100 to 150 m (Love 1991). In the study region, trawl catches were recorded from depths
between 18 and 914 m, with most catches occurring between 366 and 549 m depth (Jow 1992).
Although this species does not comprise a major part of the commercial flatfish catch in the San
Francisco region, an average of over 300,000 pounds was taken between 1983 and 1985, while
over 400,000 pounds representing a value of almost $152,000 were taken in 1986. Rex sole were
collected by SAIC (1992b) in Study Area 2, as well as at adjacent mid-depth and Pioneer Canyon
locations. This species was not collected in any of the other study areas. Bence et al. (1992)
indicate that juvenile rex sole collected in midwater trawls had the highest abundances in Study
Area 5 relative to the other study areas. In contrast, research bottom trawls indicated that adult
rex sole were most abundant at depths between 100 to 500 m, corresponding to depths such as
Study Area 2 and the shallow part of Study Area 3 (Bence et al. 1992).
3.4.1.2 Potential Fisheries
In general, limited fisheries currently exist in depths greater than 900 to 1,440 m (R. Lea, CDFG,
pers. comm. 1991). However, data on deep demersal fishes with fisheries potential are available
from studies conducted in other areas at similar depths (Pearcy et al. 1982; Stein 1985; Wakefield
1990). Currently, the only deep demersal species being targeted are various grenadiers (rattails).
Several fish species represent a potential future fishery resource. Potential or currently
underutilized species include shortbelly rockfish, Pacific sanddab, jack mackerel, ocean sunfish.
Tanner crab, king crab, rock crabs, krill, giant Pacific octopus, spiny dogfish, sea cucumber,
sheep crab, grenadier, hagfish, sharks, and skates (NMFS 1983; S. Kato, NMFS, pers. comm.
1991). Shortbelly rockfish have been identified by NMFS Tiburon as an unexploited fishery with
major potential (Chess et al. 1988; Lenarz 1980). Bence et al. (1992) indicated high abundances
of certain species of juvenile rockfishes in Study Area 5 which are an important potential
component to the commercial fishery in that area. Other less heavily fished species include
3-212
-------
hagfish (Eptatretus spp.), for which a substantial trap fishery exists for their skins even though
these skins are of poor quality, Fishing is difficult, and pay for fishermen is low. Wakefield
(1990) found black hagfish (£. deani) to be predominant along camera sled transects off Point
Sur from depths between 400 and 1,200 m, with a strong peak in abundance within the 600 m
depth zone. Wakefield (1990) estimated that 82% of the total population of black hagfish resided
in this depth zone. Hagfish were collected infrequently by SAIC (1992b) within the entire study
region and only in Study Area 3 at approximately 1,000 m depth.
In summary, of the four LTMS study areas, Study Area 2 contains the most substantial
commercial fisheries resources and is considered by commercial fishermen to be a very
significant area (P. Parravano, Halfmoon Bay Fisherman's Association, pers. comm. 1990). The
area is dominated by market fishes such as rockfishes, flatfishes, salmon, and tuna. The shallow
parts of Study Areas 3 and 4 (not including Alternative Sites 3 and 4) contain some commercially
important species such as flatfishes, rockfishes, salmon, and tuna. The deeper parts of Study
Areas 3 and 4 (including Alternative Sites 3 and 4) and Study Area 5 have limited commercial
fisheries resources.
3.4.2 Mariculture
Several mariculture operations exist in nearshore embayments of the San Francisco Bay region.
These consist primarily of oyster culturing operations in Tomales Bay and Drakes Estero sites
leased from CDFG. However, these operations are located over 20 nmi from the nearest study
area (Study Area 2) and over 50 nmi from the alternative sites, and therefore are very unlikely
to be affected by use of any of the sites.
Mariculture activities in Tomales Bay consist of relatively small lease areas (4-120 hectares).
The majority of oysters raised and marketed are giant Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) with
a commercial value in 1990 of over $800,000 (T. Moore, CDFG, pers. comm. 1992). The
remaining mariculture species in Tomales Bay consist of European oysters valued at over
$5,000/yr and mussels valued at $18,000/yr in 1990 (T. Moore, CDFG, pers. comm. 1992).
Oyster culture in Drakes Estero represented approximately 30% of California's total commercial
crop in 1990 (T. Moore, CDFG, pers. comm. 1992). The primary lease in Drakes Estero covers
425 hectares and runs until 2015 (National Park Service 1986). The giant Pacific oyster is the
principal species cultured.
3.4.3 Shipping
Ships from six publicly used ports, 11 military installations, and several proprietary installations
use the 11 navigable waterways in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. It is estimated that
$5.4 billion of economic activity is directly dependent on deep and shallow draft navigation
channels in the San Francisco Bay and Delta regions (COE 1990b). Commercial shipping
supports up to 35,000 full-time jobs, exclusive of jobs supported by Navy activities.
3-213
-------
Movements of all types of vessels within the Bay have exceeded 61,000 per year since 1980. and
annual vessel movements in 1991 exceeded 86,000 (Table 3.4-1). A vessel movement is defined
as any occasion when a vessel enters San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean, moves within
the Bay, or departs the Bay for the Pacific Ocean. The majority (81%) of these movements are
by small vessels such as ferries, tugs, and dredge barges and primarily involve transits within the
Bay.
The Coast Guard has established a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) to reduce vessel collisions and
groundings and potential environmental or other resource damage that could result from such
incidents. As a safety measure, VTS has established a precautionary zone and vessel traffic lanes
around major traffic intersections (see Figure 2.1-3). A precautionary zone 22.1 km in diameter
is located west of San Francisco Bay and facilitates safe vessel turning movements into and out
of the Golden Gate. VTS serves in an advisory capacity, coordinating and monitoring vessel
movements using commercial and surveillance radar as well as closed circuit television, and
utilizes a radio network to communicate information to inbound, outbound, and within the Bay
vessels (Ogden Beeman 1991). Traffic data are maintained by vessel type for movements within
the Bay, but are not maintained for movements through the Golden Gate, in the precautionary
zone, or in the vessel traffic lanes. Approximately 38% of arriving and departing vessels use the
Northern Traffic Lane, 20% the Western, and 42% the Southern. The majority of tanker traffic
uses the Western Traffic Lane. The Coast Guard does not specifically track vessel traffic within
any of the LTMS study areas (Lt. Cmdr. Gibson, USCG VTS, pers. comm. 1992).
Movements through the Golden Gate account for only a small percentage (6.9%) of all vessel
traffic, although they represent a large percentage of the commercial cargo. Coast Guard, Navy,
tanker, and other large vessel movements. A summary by vessel type of the percentage of total
vessel movements that include transiting through the Golden Gate is presented in Table 3.4-2.
These movements represent approximately 99% of all military and commercial traffic, but very
few recreational vessel movements. Accurate transit data on recreational and small vessel,
including fishing vessel, movements is unavailable since they do not participate in the Coast
Guard's VTS (Lt. Cmdr. Gibson, USCG VTS, pers. comm. 1992). However, they are estimated
to be about 25 to 50 times the number of large commercial and military vessel movements. This
summary is based on the professional judgment of Coast Guard personnel, and reflects traffic
conditions during a typical year in the 1980's.
Vessels transporting dredged materials to a disposal site would traverse the traffic lanes shown
in Figure 2.1-3 and contribute to the total traffic volume. Based on conservative assumptions of
approximately one barge-load every 12 hours (see Section 4.4), this would equate to
approximately 730 additional vessel transits. Given the rough or foggy conditions that may be
common in the study region (see Section 3.2.1), there is some small risk of collisions by towed
barges and hopper dredges within the Bay and the traffic lanes leaving the Bay. However,
historically the number of collisions or near collisions among vessels within and near San
Francisco Bay has been small. Between 1980 and 1989, collisions occurred an average of three
times per year and represent a comparatively small number given the high overall traffic volume.
Overall, incidents of all types, including collisions, occurred an average of six times per year.
3-214
-------
Table 3.4-1. Total Vessel Transits in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1980-1991.
Vessel
Types
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Commercial
8102
7191
6516
6633
7225
6653
5982
6298
6090
5761
5877
5876
Hazardous
58
93
87
81
93
85
52
83
79
95
83
97
Navy, Surface vessels
669
847
850
892
840
796
866
1227
1359
2236
1913
1823
Coast Guard
1173
4275
4266
2999
3578
3567
3411
5697
2096
2572
1907
1788
Navy, Submarines
83
139
112
1333
146
87
97
71
67
67
70
69
Foreign Navy
34
28
17
60
30
34
26
25
40
45
59
49
Tugs without Tows
4176
5076
4919
5207
4326
3267
2804
1611
1070
868
525
517
Tugs with Tows
13386
16003
17792
15812
14978
13504
14139
14091
13507
13790
14553
13081
Deep Draft
185
159
103
135
152
158
180
194
219
248
205
700
Femes
26467
24993
24008
28710
28306
31307
41605
45564
45520
56036
58343
56100
U.S. Government
0
0
0
0
344
771
659
830
906
935
1081
904
Non-Channel 13
(Large Vessels
Not Using VTS)
1201
1348
1945
1415
1735
2036
2061
1787
722
532
310
236
Dredges
2669
2309
2638
2804
2780
7544
6943
5270
2813
2819
2390
1914
Tankers
3404
3401
2939
2904
2664
2374
3194
3206
3644
3907
3684
3570
Passenger Ships
0
0
0
0
100
146
213
119
83
65
70
157
TOTAL
61607
65862
66192
67785
67297
72329
82232
83073
78215
89976
91070
86891
SOURCE: Lt. Cdr. Gibson, USCG VTS, pers. comm. 1992.
AX0047 W31
-------
Table 3.4-2. Percentage by Category of Total Vessel Movements That Include
Transiting Through the Golden Gate.
Vessel Category
Percentage
Commercial
95%
Hazardous
80%
Navy, Surface vessels
20%
Coast Guard
5%
Navy, Submarines
100%
Foreign Navy
100%
Tugs without Tows
45%
Tugs with Tows
5%
Deep Draft
95%
Ferries
0%
U.S. Government
25%
Non Channel 13 (Large vessels not using VTS)
5%
Dredges
5%
Tankers
45%
Passenger ships
95%
SOURCE: Lt Cdr. Gibson, USCG VTS, pers. comm. 1992.
AJC0048.W31
3-216
-------
Incidents involving tugs with barges or self propelled barges as recorded by VTS during the same
time period are presented in Table 3.4-3.
3.4.4 Military Usage
The San Francisco Bay region and adjacent Gulf of the Farallones represent a major area of
military usage, primarily by the U.S. Navy. Within the Bay, the Oakland Naval Supply Center
and Alameda Naval Air Station are major facilities (Navy 1993). The Alameda Naval Air Station
currently is used for homeporting two aircraft carriers, three cruisers, and one destroyer tender.
Although on the current base closure list, Alameda NAS will be active while operations are
phased out. The Oakland Naval Supply Center is homeport to two replenishment oilers, one
combat replenishment ship, one naval hospital ship, and 28 Military Sealift Command Pacific
ships. Maintenance dredging of these facilities is needed to ensure that the berths are accessible
to large Naval vessels. The Navy's Third Fleet regularly utilizes the Gulf of the Farallones
region for offshore air, surface, and submarine operations. Naval activity within San Francisco
Bay averaged approximately 157 vessel movements (including submarines) per month in 1991
(Lt. Cmdr. Gibson, USCG VTS, pers. comm. 1992).
The Navy maintains five submarine operating areas (U1-U5), located 45 to 56 km from the
Golden Gate (see Figure 2.1-4). Area U-l is not used regularly, while the remaining areas
receive moderate use (an average of 10 days per month). Use of submarine operating areas
typically is associated with trial diving exercises and equipment checkouts. The Navy would
consider dredged material disposal in these areas to be incompatible with submarine operations
(E. Lukjanowicz, U.S. Navy, pers. comm. 1992). Submarine transit lanes vary in width from 13
to 18.5 km and run parallel to the mainland and west of Bodega Head. The exact locations of
active transit lanes are periodically designated by the Navy in advisories to the Coast Guard
(E. Lukjanowicz, U.S. Navy, pers. comm. 1992). When lanes are active, other vessels in the
vicinity are warned against towing submerged objects within traffic lanes. The Navy also
conducts aircraft and surface vessel exercises, often in conjunction with submarine operations,
in an area that encompasses North Farallon Island and Noonday Rock along its southern
boundary. Activities include anti-submarine warfare training, air-intercepts, surface vessel
coordination, and dropping inert ordinance. These exercises typically represent 15 use-days per
quarter per year.
In addition to the Navy's activities, the USCG supports infrequent aerial overflight missions
throughout the area. The USCG conducts approximately five helicopter sorties per week around
the Farallon Islands for serial offshore enforcement purposes, and search and rescue missions are
conducted to a variety of destinations along the coast. The USCG also maintains a lighthouse
on Southeast Farallon Island, thus requiring regular flights of maintenance personnel from San
Francisco to the lighthouse post.
3-217
-------
Table 3.4-3. Incidents Involving Tugs, Barges, and Self Propelled Dredges Within and
Near San Francisco Bay, 1980-1989.
NATURE OF INCIDENT
NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES
PERCENT
Collision
25
40.9
Grounding
13
21.3
Material Failure
8
13.1
Foundering or Flooding
5
8.2
Barge Breakaway
4
6.6
Steering Failure
3
4.9
Disabled
2
3.3
Weather Damage
1
1.7
TOTAL
61
100.0
SOURCE: COE 1992c.
AK0049 WS1
3-218
-------
3.4.5
Mineral Or Energy Development
Large repositories of oil and gas reserves are located in several areas along and offshore of the
California coast (F. White, MMS, pers. comm. 1992). However, there are no oil and gas
development activities or structures within the general study region, and all the potential lease
areas are over 200 miles from the alternative sites. This is due to current moratorium schedules
and technological constraints which have limited oil and gas development to depths less than
approximately 300 to 400 m. Therefore, no significant mineral or energy development activities
are likely in the vicinity of the study areas and alternative sites. In addition, it is unlikely that
any mineral or energy development will take place within any of the marine sanctuaries that
cover a large area of the Gulf of the Farallones or in State waters (waters up to three miles from
the coast) (K. Walker, California State Lands Commission, pers. comm. 1992). The future of
outer continental shelf lease sales has been addressed recently by a Presidential Task Force on
oil and gas development (KLI 1991) but the results have not yet been published nor any
recommendations implemented.
3.4.6 Recreational Activities
Recreational activities that occur within the Gulf of the Farallones include recreational fishing,
sailing, whale and bird watching, and commercial sport fishing (California Coastal Commission
1987). Predominant fishes taken by recreational fishermen include rockfishes, king and chinook
salmon, tuna, and Dungeness crabs (CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database 1992).
Weather permitting, offshore tours to the GOFNMS are operated by Oceanic Society Expeditions
on each weekend day through the summer and fall months (June-September). Nature
organizations visit the Farallon Islands infrequently, conduct other commercial ventures, or
operate whale watching trips during the winter and spring migrations. On average, over 10,000
people per year have participated in these tours between 1984 and 1992 (M.J. Schramm, Oceanic
Society Expeditions, pers. comm. 1992). Large numbers of bird watchers also made boat trips
to the GOFNMS and adjacent areas (greater than 2,500 people per year) to observe the rookeries
(M.J. Schramm, Oceanic Society Expeditions, pers. comm. 1992). The majority of recreational
traffic occurs on weekends. An average of five sailboats per month, mostly originating from San
Francisco Bay, have been observed in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands (M.J. Schramm,
Oceanic Society Expeditions, pers. comm. 1992). In addition, several motor boat and sailing
clubs use the Farallon Islands as a turning point during sponsored races that can occur throughout
the year (M.J. Schramm, Oceanic Society Expeditions, pers. comm. 1992).
3.4.7 Cultural and Historical Areas
Designation of the GOFNMS, the CBNMS, and the MBNMS is intended to preserve the natural
environment and to recognize the increasing "cultural" value placed on areas that are free from
the effects of technology. Wildlife tours are popular cultural events around the Farallon Islands.
Naturalist and zoological societies, such as the Audubon Society, conduct one or two tours
annually, and Oceanic Society Expeditions conducts a tour every Saturday and Sunday from June
3-219
-------
to mid-November (M.J. Schramm, Oceanic Society Expeditions, pers. comm. 1992). However,
use of any of the alternative sites should not significantly affect these activities beyond normal
navigational precautions.
No known man-made cultural or historical resources are located in the study areas and alternative
sites. This conclusion is based on a file review conducted of the California Archaeological
Inventory and listings in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Inventory of
Historic Resources. Further, no known shipwrecks of cultural or historical significance are
reported within the study areas. According to the "Submerged Cultural Assessment" (which
includes the California region), published jointly by NOAA and the National Park Service, only
one vessel is located near Study Area 3. This is the aft portion of the PUERTO RICAN, which
sank in 1984 one mile inside the boundary of the GOFNMS near the historical 100 Fathom site
(located at 37°30.6' N, 123°00.7' W). However, this vessel has little historic value (Delgado and
Haller 1989).
3-220
-------
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses the significance of potential impacts of the proposed and alternative actions
on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments at the preferred and alternative sites.
Environmental consequences are evaluated separately for the preferred alternative (Section 4.2),
the No-Action Alternative (Section 4.3), and other ocean disposal alternatives (Section 4.4).
Site-specific impacts associated with dredged material disposal at the alternative sites are also
summarized and compared in Chapter 2 according to the five general and eleven specific criteria.
The significance of potential environmental impacts associated with each of the alternatives is
classified according to the following scheme (modeled after EPA 1988):
• Class I: Significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to insignificance.
No measures can be taken to avoid or reduce the adverse impacts to
insignificant or negligible levels.
• Class II: Significant adverse impacts that can be mitigated to insignificance.
These impacts potentially are similar in magnitude to Class I impacts, but the
severity can be reduced or avoided by implementation of specific mitigation
measures.
• Class ID: Adverse but insignificant impacts or no effects anticipated. No
mitigation measures are necessary to reduce the magnitude or severity of these
impacts.
• Class IV: Beneficial effects. These effects could improve conditions relative
to existing or pre-project conditions. These can be classified further as
significant or insignificant beneficial effects.
The term "significant" is used to characterize the magnitude of potential impacts; a significant
impact is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial change to resources in the vicinity of
or adjacent to a proposed ODMDS. In the following sections, the rationale for characterizing
potential impacts as significant or insignificant, distinctions between localized and regional spatial
scales of impacts, and the duration (short-term versus long-term) of these potential impacts are
identified. Associated mitigation measures are discussed where appropriate.
4-1
-------
A summary of potential impacts on important resources of the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environments of each alternative site is presented in Table 4.1-1. Further
evaluations and comparisons of the alternative sites with respect to EPA's specific site selection
criteria are presented in Table 2.2-1. Resources for which comparisons can be made among the
alternative sites are addressed separately by site in Sections 4.2 and 4.4. Resources or
environmental conditions, such as ocean currents, which are not affected by the proposed action
are addressed genetically for all sites within each respective section.
4.2 Preferred Alternative
This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed actions on the physical, biological,
and socioeconomic environments of the preferred alternative. Alternative Site 5. Potential
impacts of these actions on the environments of the other ocean disposal alternatives. Alternative
Sites 3 and 4, are addressed in Section 4.4.
Although some dredged material disposal has occurred at the Navy Ocean Disposal Site (NODS),
no specific data on the actual effects of disposal operations presently are available. Thus,
evaluation of potential effects on sea bottom and water column environments at the preferred and
alternative sites relies on modeling the initial deposition of dredged material and dispersion of
suspended particles and on information from studies conducted at existing ODMDSs. Where
possible, differences between the preferred and alternative sites in the magnitude of expected or
model-predicted spatial and temporal impacts are specified in this section and in Section 4.4.
Other sources of information concerning environmental impacts of dredged material disposal are
based almost exclusively on research and monitoring of nearshore, shallow-water sites. Effects
from dredged material disposal at deep-water sites are not well known. Of the more than 150
dredged material disposal sites in U.S. coastal waters, most are in water depths of less than 20 m
(EPA 1980). Some limited information on environmental consequences of dredged material
disposal in deep water areas is available. For example, information exists for the Yabucoa
Harbor, Puerto Rico, dredged material disposal site at depths between 377 and 914 m (Stoddard
et al. 1985) as well as sites located off southern California in 100 to 300 m of water
(SAIC 1990a,b).
Therefore, the following discussions of potential impacts are based primarily on results of shallow
water disposal site studies and the environmental characteristics of the preferred and alternative
sites (see Chapter 3). Some of the impacts and processes occurring at these shallow water sites,
such as burial and potential mortality of some infaunal and epifaunal species can be extrapolated
to deep water environments. However, the lower continental slope environment, within which
the preferred and alternative sites are located, represents a unique combination of geological,
hydrographic, and biological features that must be considered when evaluating the consequences
of ocean disposal of dredged material in these environments. Therefore, as appropriate, limits
of present knowledge are identified along with the uncertainties of extrapolating this information
to the deep-water environments of the LTMS study region.
4-2
-------
Table 4.1-1.
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts at the Preferred Alternative and Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
Description
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
OTHER OCEAN ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Site 5
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 4
Impact
Class'
Spatial
Extent*
Temporal
Extent3-
Comment
impact
Class
Spallal
Extent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
Impact
Class
Spatial
Extent
Temporal
Extern
Comment
Physical Environment
Air Quality
III
R
S
III
R
S
III
R
S
Waler Quality
- Turbidity
III
R
E
III
R
E
III
R
E
- Dissolved Oxygen
III
L
E
III
L
E
III
L
E
- Pollutants
III
L
S
Given thai
material Is
stilable quaBty
III
L
S
Given that
material is suitable
quality
III
L
S
Given that
material is
suitable quality
Geology
• Grain Size
1
L
E
1
L
E
1
L
E
- Sediment Quality
III
L
E
Given Ihd
notorial Is
suitable
quality
III
L
E
Given that
material Is suitable
quality
III
L
E
Given that
materia! Is
sulable quality
1 Impact Class: I = Significant; II = Significant, but can be reduced by mitigation; III = Insignificant or none; IV = Beneficial.
1 Spatial Extent: S = Confined within site boundaries; L = Localized (up to 1 nmi outside of site boundaries); R = Regional (beyond 1 nmi from site boundaries).
3 Temporal Extent: S = Short term (less than or equal to 5 hours); E = extended (greater than 5 hours).
4 Potential interferences mitigated by specifying barge transit areas/Benefit of enhanced access in dredging areas.
5 NA = No known resources: Spatial and temporal extent of impacts not applicable.
' Potential interferences near Farallon Islands mitigated by specifying barge transit areas.
AKOOJO.WJI
-------
Table 4.1-1. Continued.
*-
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
OTHER OCEAN ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Site 5
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 4
Description
Impact
Class'
ft
Temporal
Extent3
Comment
Impact
Class
Spatial
Brtent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
Impact
Class
Spatial
Extent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
Biological Enwonment
- Plankton
III
L
S
III
L
S
III
L
S
- Benthic Infauna
1
L
E
1
L
E
1
L
E
- Benthic Epifauna
1
L
E
1
L
E
1
L
E
- Demersal Fish
III
L
E
III
L
E
III
L
E
- Pelagic Fish
III
L
S
III
L
S
III
L
S
• Birds
III
L
S
III
L
S
III
L
S
- Mammals
III
L
S
III
L
S
III
L
S
- Threatened/
Endangered
III
L
S
III
L
S
III
L
S
' Impact Class: I = Significant; II = Significant, but can be reduced by mitigation; III = Insignificant or none; IV = Beneficial.
' Spatial Extent: S = Confined within site boundaries; L = Localized (up to t nmi outside of site boundaries); R = Regional (beyond t nmi from site boundaries).
3 Temporal Extent: S = Short term (less than or equal to 5 hours): E = extended (greater than 5 hours).
4 Potential interferences mitigated by specifying barge transit areas/Benefit of enhanced aocess in dredging areas.
s NA = No known resources: Spatial and temporal extent of impacts not applicable.
6 Potential interferences near Farallon Islands mitigated by specifying barge transit areas.
AK0050 W3I
-------
Table 4.1-1. Continued.
Description
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
OTHER OCEAN ALTERNATIVES
Aftematlye Site 5
Alternative Site 3
Alternative S&e 4
Impact
Ctas1
Spatial
Extent4 .
Temporal
Extent1
Comment
Impact
Class
Spatial
Extent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
Impact
Class
Spatial
Extent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
- Sanctuaries
II or ill
L
S
Potential effects
Iromspiib
nitlgated Of
specifying aarge
transit areas
II or III
L
S
II or 111
L
S
Socioeconomic Environment
- Fisheries
Commercial
III
L
E
III
L
E
III
I
E
Recreational
III
L
E
III
L
E
III
L
E
- Shipping
III or IV
R
E
Footnote 4
III or IV
R
E
lit or
IV
• R
E
• Mineral
III
NA
NA
Footnote 5
III
NA
NA
III
NA
NA
1 Impact Class: I = Significant; II = Significant, but can be reduced by mitigation; III = Insignificant or none; IV = Beneficial.
' Spatial Extent: S = Confined within site boundaries; I = Localized (up to 1 nmi outside of site boundaries); R = Regional (beyond 1 nmi from site boundaries).
1 Temporal Extent: S = Short term (less lhan or equal 1o 5 hours); E = extended (greater than 5 hours).
4 Potential interferences mitigated by specifying barge transit areas/Benefit of enhanced access in dredging areas.
5 NA = No Known resources: Spatial and temporal extent of impacts not applicable.
* Potential nlerferences near FaraOon Islands mitigated by specifying barge transit areas.
AX0050.W5I
-------
Table 4.1-1. Continued.
Description
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
OTHER OCEAN ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Site 5
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 4
Impact
Class'
Spatial
Extend
Temporal
Extent1
Comment
bnpact
Class
Spatial
Extent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
Impact
Class
Spatial
Extent
Temporal
Extent
Comment
- Military Usage
III
S
S
III
S
S
III
S
S
- Recreational Usage
II
R
S
Footnote 6
III
R
S
III
R
S
- Cultural/Historical
II
R
E
Footnote 0
III
L
E
III
L
E
- Public
Health/Welfare
III
L
E
III
L
E
III
L
E
' Impact Class: I = Significant; II = Significant, but can be reduced by mitigation; III = Insignificant or none; IV = Beneficial.
' Spatial Extent; S = Confined within site boundaries; L = Localized (up to 1 nmi outside of site boundaries); R = Regional (beyond 1 nmi from site boundaries).
3 Temporal Extent; S = Short term (less than or equal to 5 hours); E = extended (greater than 5 hours).
4 Potential interferences mitigated by specifying barge transit areas/Benefit of enhanced access in dredging areas.
s NA = No known resources: Spatial and temporal extent of impacts not applicable.
6 Potential iiterferences near FaraSon Islands mitigated by specifying barge transit areas.
AK0O5OWJI
-------
4.2.1
Effects on the Physical Environment
These sections address potential effects of dredged material disposal at the preferred alternative
site on regional meteorology and air quality, physical oceanography, water quality, geology, and
sediment quality.
4.2.1.1 Air Quality
Potential impacts to regional air quality associated with dredged material disposal operations at
the preferred alternative site were evaluated using an EPA air quality model. The model
assumptions and results are summarized in the following section.
Initial screening modeling was performed for carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOJ to determine impacts to air quality. Effects from the
emissions of diesel engines on barge tugs were calculated using an EPA model (ISCST2) that
was designed to compute air pollutant concentrations from various types of emission sources.
EPA guidelines (EPA 1992b) were followed for the modeling analysis.
Air pollutant emissions from barges during transit between the Oakland inner, outer, and middle
harbors and the preferred alternative site were modeled as eight, one km2 volume sources grouped
into one line source. The line source stretched from south of Treasure Island to a point 15 km
southwest of the Golden Gate Bridge and followed a path along the deep water shipping channel.
Initial dispersion coefficients and other related variables were determined following EPA
guidance (EPA 1992b).
Emission factors for barge tugs were taken from "AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors" (EPA 1985). Other assumptions for barge tugs included a draft of 12 to 18 feel, 900
horsepower diesel engine, speed of 8 km/hr (4.3 knots), fuel consumption of 44 gal/hr, and 2
trips per day. Meteorological data were obtained from EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning
and Standards Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (OAQPS TTN). The surface
meteorological data were from San Francisco International Airport data for 1989 and the mixing
height data was from Oakland International Airport data for the same year.
The model calculated concentrations for a receptor grid that covers all of San Francisco and parts
of Sausalito, Berkeley, Alameda, and western Oakland. Concentrations of pollutants were
averaged for one hour, 24 hours, and one year. The model output tabulated the highest
concentrations for each receptor and the highest ten concentrations within the grid for each
averaging period. These concentrations are compared to State and Federal ambient standards.
Table 4.2-1 presents the modeled concentrations and the regulated limits. Based on these model
results, no significant effects to air quality were indicated along the presumed route of the barges
transporting dredged material to the preferred alternative site. Therefore, effects from barge tug
emissions on air quality within the general LTMS study region are considered negligible, and use
of an ODMDS for dredged material disposal is estimated to represent a Class in impact.
4-7
-------
Table 4.2-1. Model-Predicted Maximum Concentrations of Air Pollutants in Central San
Francisco Bay and the Corresponding Air Quality Standards.
The predicted maximum concentration represents the highest concentration within a receptor grid
from ambient concentrations plus project-related (dredged material barge transit) operations.
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Predicted Maximum
Concentration
Standard
California Federal
CO
1 hour
14.2 ng/m3 (0.012 ppm)
20 ppm 35 ppm
24 hour
0.62 |ig/m3 (0.0005 ppm)
Annual
0.03 |ig/m3 (0.00003 ppm)
NO,
1 hour
115 ng/m3 (0.06 ppm)
0.25 ppm1
24 hour
5.0 ng/m3 (0.0027 ppm)
Annual
0.27 ^ig/m3 (0.0001 ppm)
0.053 ppm
VOC
kg/day
2.6 kg/day
68 kg/day
'Standard for N02; the comparison assumes that all of the NO, is N02.
AKOQ51.W5I
4-8
-------
4.2.1.2
Physical Oceanography
The proposed use of an ODMDS for dredged material disposal is not expected to have any
measurable effect on the regional or site-specific physical oceanographic conditions (Class III).
Instead, the prevailing oceanographic processes will strongly influence the dispersion and
long-term fate of dredged material discharged at the preferred alternative site. In particular,
currents will affect the dispersion of particles in the water column and subsequent water quality
conditions (discussed in Section 4.2.1.3), as well as settling and initial deposition of dredged
material on the sea floor (discussed in Section 4.2.1.4). The oceanographic conditions that are
important to assessments of impacts on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments
are summarized below.
Although the circulation patterns over the continental shelf and slope areas of the study region
share some similarities with other regions of the California coast, there are specific current
patterns that are unique to this region (Section 3.2). These patterns include: (1) near-surface flow
over the slope that is more poleward than expected; (2) tidal effects which can be larger and
amplified at different frequencies than those in other areas; (3) the unique spatial pattern of the
California Undercurrent; and (4) a non-local source for the upwelled waters occurring on the
shelf (Section 3.2). All of these characteristics would affect the resuspension, dispersal, and
ultimate fate of dredged material deposited at the preferred and the alternative sites.
On the outer shelf, tidal and low frequency (subtidal) currents combine to generate currents near
the sea bottom with speeds greater than 45 cm/sec (Noble et al. 1992). These currents are
powerful enough to resuspend and transport fine sands. Therefore, any material containing fine
sand or smaller grain sizes can be moved by currents within this region in the direction of
predominant current flow. In addition, large currents from surface waves are expected to reach
the seabed over the outer shelf. When surface wave currents combine with lower frequency
flows near the bottom, the erosive potential of the currents over the outer shelf is greatly
enhanced (Grant and Madsen 1979). The tendency for currents near the bottom to flow
poleward, especially during winter when large surface waves are generated by winter storms,
suggest that any fraction of dredged material deposited on the shelf eventually could move along
the isobaths into the GOFNMS.
Persistent poleward flow occurs in the upper 1,000 m of the water column over most of the year
(Section 3.2.2). This poleward flow is interrupted by equatorward events which can last as long
as a month. A strong seasonal pattern in the current regime was not apparent from recent EPA
studies (Noble et al. 1992). However, there was an abrupt transition to a less energetic regime
with more variable current directions from approximately the middle of August until November,
after which more energetic but intermittent poleward flow persisted through the winter. There
is evidence that the poleward flow is strongest over the inner slope at about 100 m depth near
Alternative Sites 3 and 4 but moves offshore to the north in the region of the preferred alternative
site. The inner slope currents offshore of the Farallon Islands are particularly weak below the
shallow surface layer. Currents below 800 to 1,000 m depth are small magnitude, low frequency
flows and are dominated by tides. Flows on the outer shelf appear to be separated and unrelated
4-9
-------
to flows over the slope (Noble et al. 1992). The time and space varying current field has a major
influence on dispersion and deposition in deep water.
The local topography of a site is expected to cause enhanced flow and veering in the currents
near the bottom. Because enhanced tidal flows generally are stronger than subtidal near-bottom
currents, tidal movements represent the largest contributor to the erosive characteristics at the
different sites. The near-bottom currents at mooring Stations B and C, located near the southern
boundary of Study Area 3, and mooring E, located in deeper water near the eastern boundary of
Study Area 5, had maximum current speeds between 37 and 43 cm/sec (Figure 3.2-2). Mooring
D, located to the south of Alternative Site 3, and F, located on the upper slope inshore from
Study Area 5, had relatively lower near-bottom tidal currents (see Section 3.2.2; Figure 3.2-2).
Thus, material deposited near Stations B, C, or E would be eroded more easily than material
deposited at Stations D or F. The near-bottom subtidal flow direction suggests that resuspended
materia] at Station B will be dispersed in both directions along the isobaths. Resuspended
material at Station C would be carried poleward, and resuspended material at Station E would
be carried eastward up the axis of a small, unnamed submarine canyon. However, because
Station E is in 2,000 m of water, it is not expected that resuspended material would move onto
the shelf, but rather would remain in the deeper portion of the canyon.
Upwelling processes can affect the dispersal of material suspended in the water column; however,
recent data from EPA surveys indicate that the local upwelling in the Gulf of the Farallones is
weaker than at other sites along the California coast (Ramp et al. 1992). The majority of the
cold saline water on the shelf during summer is advected horizontally into the region from a
strong upwelling center north of Point Reyes. Therefore, it is very unlikely that material,
including dredged material, suspended in the waters over the slope would be transported via
locally upwelled water onto the shelf. Further, water quality modeling results indicate that
significant transport of suspended material to shelf areas from disposal activities at the preferred
or alternative sites would be very unlikely (Section 4.2.1.3).
4.2.1.3 Water Quality
This section addresses the predicted behavior of dredged material to be discharged at an
ODMDS, and impacts on regional and site-specific water quality. An initial discussion of
dredged material settling characteristics is followed by a description of a numerical model
developed specifically for simulating the transport and fate of dredged material disposed at the
three alternative disposal sites. The model results are used to predict the effects of disposal
operations on water quality and chemical constituent concentrations.
Dredged Material Settling Behavior
Dredged material disposal typically has a short term (several hours to days) impact on the water
column following discharges of solids and solutes from a barge (e.g., Gordon 1974). The
greatest proportion of dredged material consists of negatively buoyant solids that sink as a turbid
suspension through the water column to the sea floor. Dissolved constituents of dredged material
4-10
-------
are entrained in the turbulent water associated with the convective descent. Predictions of the
impacts of the descending plume on the ambient water quality depend on the settling velocity of
individual particles or particle aggregates, particle concentrations, particle chemistry, water depth,
and the presence and strength of water column density stratification (i.e., the pycnocline). The
fate of dissolved components depends on their solubility and reactivity with the entrained ambient
water and particles, and with the mixing properties of the ambient flow field.
The proposed ODMDS is expected to receive dredged sediment of two general types: "mostly
sand" (76% sand, 21% clay, and 3% silt) and "clay-silt" (74% silt, 5% clay, and 21% sand)
(Section 3.1). The settling velocities of the medium sand and coarser material have been
measured in the laboratories (Table 4.2-2). These measurements can be used to estimate the
theoretical transit time in a motionless water column. However, the actual (in situ) settling
velocities of individual particles may vary considerably depending on changes in particle
concentrations, the density of the water column, and water column turbulence.
Sediment dispersion models (e.g., Koh and Chang 1973) provide reasonably accurate predictions
of the transport, fate, and deposition footprint of the coarse fractions of dredged material. This
accuracy is achievable due to the availability of empirical settling velocity data for these coarse
fractions. Unfortunately, large uncertainties in actual settling velocities of fine particles in
oceanic environments greatly limit the accuracy of the numerical models for predicting the
transport and fate of fine fractions, which make up a considerable volume of dredged material.
The settling behavior of very fine sand and smaller particles is difficult to estimate because these
fractions rarely consist of discrete particles (Bokuniewicz et al. 1978). Very large aggregates
(mud "clasts" up to 1 m in diameter) may form the bulk of disposed material, particularly when
mechanical clam shell dredges are used to excavate cohesive clay and mud from channels and
basins. The rate of convective descent of typical estuarine (e.g., from San Francisco Bay)
dredged material consisting of large, cohesive mud clasts has been measured as approximately
1 m/sec (Bokuniewicz el al. 1978); the exception was the 3 to 5% (by weight) of the material
that comprises the fine silt fraction, which had a sedimentation rate of about 0.7 cm/sec. Smaller
aggregates (up to about 1 mm in size) also dominate the muddy slurry associated with dredged
muds and fine sands. The high surface area and surface molecular charges associated with fine
particles, particularly clay minerals, result in particle-to-particle aggregation in marine waters.
Also, the presence of biologically-produced films, which coat the surfaces of small particles,
serve to bind fine particles into low density organic-mineral aggregates. Zooplankton grazing
also has been shown to result in repackaging of suspended particles into rapidly settling fecal
pellets (Capuzzo 1983).
Individual particle settling velocities (Table 4.2-2) were calculated using theoretical rates. Based
on density and weight differences, the settling velocities of aggregates can be much higher than
settling rates of their individual component particles. However, no empirical data exist for
accurately estimating the settling velocities of such aggregates (Komar et al. 1981) with the
exception of the information on some gelatinous zooplankton pellets, which have settling
4-11
-------
Table 4.2-2. Particle Size Classes and Sinking Velocities Used in the Sediment
Deposition Model.
Time
Horizontal
Partide
Sinking
to Sink
Distance
Diameter
Velocity
1,000 m
Traveled at
Percent
Class
Name
(nm)
(mfeec)
(hours)
0.1 m/sec (km)
by Weight'
1
Coarse Sand
1,000
0.086
3.2
1.15
1.1
2
Medium Sand
500
0.041
6.8
2.45
23.9
3
Fine Sand
250
0.016
17.4
6.26
43.4
4
Very Fine Sand
125
0.0052
53.4
19.22
7.6
5
Coarse Silt
62
0.0014
198.4
71.42
3.3
6
Clay-Silt
31
0.0005
556
200.0
10.4"
7
Clay-Silt Clumps
—
0.15
1.85
0.67
10.3"
' Material Composition Oakland NSC Sfte.
"Assumes 50% dumping of Clay-Silt Material.
Source: SAIC (1992e).
AK0033.W5I
4-12
-------
velocities ranging between 1,800 and 2,700 m per day. Therefore, the behavior of these
aggregates or clumps cannot be accurately predicted using the sediment dispersion models.
Coarse sand (and larger) size fractions and large, cohesive, silt-clay mud clasts settle rapidly to
the bottom and accumulate close to the point of disposal. Slower settling fractions decelerate as
the descending plume loses its negative buoyancy as it penetrates deeper in the water column.
In shallow (i.e., less than 100 m) regions, the descent plume may reach the sea floor prior to
achieving neutral buoyancy, and "dynamic collapse" will occur at the bottom. In deeper regions,
the plume may achieve neutral buoyancy at some intermediate depth in the water column. At
this level, the momentum of convective descent is lost through dynamic collapse of the plume.
Thereafter, particle behavior is largely controlled by passive, horizontal dispersion of the fine
fraction.
The depth at which convective decent changes to neutral buoyancy is largely a function of
volume of the barge load (Stoddard et al. 1985), but other factors such as dredged material
characteristics, water depth, and water column stratification have a significant effect on the depth
of dynamic collapse. When dynamic collapse occurs in the water column, the neutrally buoyant
plume may achieve the depth of a local pycnocline, and slowly settling particles can accumulate
and spread laterally along this density interface with the potential for farfield dispersion by
horizonal advection. Therefore, the greatest potential for long-term, water column impacts and
farfield dispersion is associated with slowly settling, organic-mineral aggregates within depth
regions of neutral particle buoyancy and pycnoclines. Further details of the physical processes
affecting the behavior of dredged material in the open ocean are provided below as part of the
numerical modeling discussion.
Introduction to the Numerical Model of Dredged Material Transport
Numerical models of dredged material disposal, transport, and fate have been developed and
validated for disposal at shallow water sites (e.g., Trawle and Johnson 1986). However, these
models were not well suited for predictions of the dispersion and transport of dredged material
in deep-water environments such as the alternative sites. To address the specific objectives of
the LTMS, SAIC (1992e) developed a numerical model to predict the three-dimensional transport
of dredged material discharged at Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5. This model predicted the
following:
• Three-dimensional transport pathways of the dredged material from single
discharges;
• The concentration of dredged material within discrete disposal plumes (clouds)
at various depths in the water column;
• The probability of dredged material entering one of the National Marine
Sanctuaries at concentrations above a conservative estimate of ambient
concentrations.
4-13
-------
• The pattern and thickness of material that will be deposited on the sea floor
following long-term (e.g., 1-year) disposal operations.
For this application, SAIC (1992e) developed a simple particle tracking and settling model. This
model predicts the location and concentration of settling clouds following release from the
surface. The model consisted of two stages representing the physical processes affecting
transport and dispersion of dredged material in a deep-water environment The first stage
entailed statistical analysis of the percentage of disposal events that contact a particular location
within the modeled region. The resultant statistic is referred to as the "visitation frequency."
Particulate concentrations within the cloud and the duration of water column exposure to excess
turbidity from disposal also were calculated for a variety of scenarios and material types.
The second stage of the model calculates the areal coverage and thickness of material deposited
on the sea floor throughout the study region (Section 4.2.1.4). The results are based upon
tracking individual particle clouds as they settle and become diffused and advected by the current
field.
Figure 4.2-1 summarizes the physical processes governing the behavior of dredged material, as
represented by the model. The model generates a variety of graphical and quantitative results,
the most important of which can be grouped into two categories: (1) particulate concentrations
in the water column, and (2) material accumulation on the sea floor. Discussion of these input
conditions, physical processes, and model results is provided below.
Model Input Conditions
As illustrated in Figure 4.2-1, a variety of data and information is required as input to the model.
Each of these input categories is discussed briefly below.
Model Characteristics:
The model grid extended from 37° to 38° N and from 122° to 124° W,
representing an area of roughly 100 km x 160 km. Model elements were 250-m
square such that the high-resolution component of the model grid consisted of
over 320,000 elements.
The model was run with time-varying input conditions (e.g., currents, disposal
operations, etc.) at 1-hour time intervals to provide fine-scale temporal resolution
of the various processes affecting settling, transport, and dispersion of the dredged
material.
Disposal Operations:
The model assumed that dredged material disposal would occur as discrete events,
representing releases from a barge of 6,000 yd3 every 8 to 12 hours over a period
of approximately one year. These are worst case estimates based on projections
from the COE. Barges used for the Navy 103 project at NODS have 3,000 yd3
4-14
-------
Disposal
Operations
Material
Characteristics
Regional
T opography
Water Column
Structure
Regional
Currents
INPUT
CONDITIONS
I
I—
Oi
Initial
Dilution
Particulate
Cloud Formation
Horizontal
Dispersion
Horizontal
Transport
Seafloor
Deposition
PHYSICAL
PROCESSES
Material Accumulation
on Seafloor
v^!:: .vs% x&.vwxvSsi'::
MODEL
RESULTS
Figure 4.2-1. Model of Dredged Material Transport and Fate.
-------
volumes. This would represent a total annual volume of 6 million yd\ Simulated
releases were made at random locations within a 2-km diameter circle within each
of three alternative sites.
Dredged Material Characteristics:
Simulations were made using two material types: "clay-silt" (Tl) and "mostly
sand" (T3), as described previously under dredged material settling behavior. For
each type, the material was assumed to consist of seven particle-size classes, each
having a class-specific sinking rate (Table 4.2-2). Particle settling velocities were
based on theoretical sinking rates using Stoke's law in a quiescent fluid. Settling
velocities of clay-sized particles are known to increase when concentrations are
high ( > 25 mg/1) due to the effects of clumping on settling rates. Rapidly settling
clay-silt clumps (class 7) were included in material Tl.
Regional Topography:
Numerical simulations were made for dredged material releases from Alternative
Sites 3, 4 and 5. The water depth within each of the model's 250 m-square
elements was derived from the high-resolution bathymetric data obtained from
NOAA Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surveys. The average water depths at
the disposal location within Alternative Sites 3 and 4, and the preferred alternative
site were 1,457 m, 1,701 m, and 2,726 m, respectively.
Water Column Structure:
The model assumed homogeneous density throughout the water column.
Sensitivity tests have not been conducted to determine the effects of stratification,
but these effects are expected to be small compared to uncertainties in other
physical processes such as particle settling rates, horizontal dispersion, and
advection.
Regional Currents:
Actual current meter data from the EPA measurement program (Section 3.2.2)
were used to develop a time-varying, 3-dimensional velocity field throughout the
study region. The EPA measurement program consisted of an approximately one
year (March to February) deployment of current meters at six locations in the
region (see Figure 3.2-2). The water depths at these mooring locations ranged
from 92 to 2,000 m. The deepest mooring, within the southeast portion of Study
Area 5, provided current velocity data from near-surface to near-bottom.
Although this array of current meter moorings provided a characterization of the
temporal and spatial variability throughout the study region, none of the
measurements were from water depths greater than 2,000 m (such as the majority
of Study Area 5). The model used the 2,000-m current data for all greater depth
levels. This should not have a major effect on the model predictions as the most
intense and persistent dispersal processes reside within the upper 1,500 m of the
water column.
4-16
-------
Model Components and Implied Physics
Effects on water quality from dredged material disposal at the preferred and alternative sites were
evaluated by using the model to determine the dispersion and dilution of suspended panicles at
varying distances and times following a disposal event The model calculated the probability,
or visitation frequency, of particle clouds moving over specific locations in the vicinity of the
sites. The model simulated individual discharge events and predicted the behavior of material
that settles according to individual particle size classes.
The duration of turbid plumes near the discharge site will vary with the frequency and location
of disposal events. Although the model assumed that disposal would occur every 8 to 12 hours,
the actual frequency of disposal events at an ODMDS is likely to be less frequent. As a result,
impacts on water quality are expected to be transitory under normal, intermittent site use.
Furthermore, disposal will be permitted within a defined area of the disposal site (= a 2 km
circle), but not necessarily at the same position each time. Consequently, plumes would not
originate from the same location. The direction of transport for individual plumes would also
vary depending on the prevailing current patterns.
During a disposal event, the first stage of the model involves initial, barge-induced mixing which
results in a well-mixed surface-layer plume (cloud) that is 20 to 50-m thick. It is assumed that
all particle momentum is lost at the end of this first stage. This initial disposal cloud was
modeled as a circular "slab" with a diameter of 100 m and a thickness of 50 m. The "mostly
sand" type material, as modeled, contained a maximum concentration of 5,290 mg/1 of fine sand
class particles. For the "clay-silt" type material, the maximum concentration of fine silt particles
is 2,500 mg/1. These initial particle concentrations would be approximately 1,000 times higher
than background (ambient) suspended particle concentrations of approximately 1 to 5 mg/1 (see
Section 3.2.3).
The model assumes that the initial cloud separates into seven clouds comprising the different
particle size classes (Table 4.2-2). Because each cloud has different bulk settling rates, they
would be transported and dispersed at different rates if the current velocities and horizontal
dispersion rates differed with depth in the water column.
Under the assumption of constant dispersion, concentrations of particles in these separate clouds
would decrease at a constant rate with time following release from the barge. The model
predicted that the average particle concentration within the clouds would decrease to background
concentrations (conservatively assumed to be approximately 1 mg/1), or particles would be
deposited on the seabed, within about two days for most particle size classes. During this time,
if the cloud remained in the water column, the cloud diameter would increase by a factor of 30
or more. Primary exceptions to these time limits for cloud dispersion (known as the cloud age
limit) were clouds of fine silt (class 6) which had high initial concentrations that would remain
in the upper water column for many days.
4-17
-------
It is important to note, however, that these estimates of cloud dilution and particle concentrations
are highly dependent on the assumed value of the diffusion coefficient. Values used for the
model are smaller (i.e., more conservative) than have been measured directly in the deep ocean
(Ledwell and Watson 1991), but are consistent with the behavior of oceanic turbulence on spatial
scales associated with the characteristic size of the clouds. Using horizontal diffusion coefficients
closer to those measured by Ledwell and Watson (1991) would reduce the cloud age limit by
factors of 5 to 10 times (i.e., the time required for particle concentrations to reach background
concentrations would be reduced from five days to 12 to 24 hours.) Thus, these estimates are
conservative, but more accurate predictions cannot be made unless the coefficient is directly
measured in the field.
The final stage of the model involves settling of individual particle clouds, leading to particle
deposition on the sea floor or transport out of the model grid prior to deposition. This stage is
discussed in Section 4.2.1.4.
Model Predictions of Particle Clouds
The numerical predictions of the behavior of particle clouds created from dredged material
disposal at the preferred and alternative sites provide quantitative estimates of the probability of
occurrence, areal coverage, particle concentration, and depth of particle clouds throughout the
study region. Each run tracked disposed particles for 48 hours using current data for the entire
12-month current measurement program (SAIC 1992e). Combining results from the individual
disposal events over all seasons, the model estimated the probability (visitation frequency) over
a one-year period that the water column above individual "grid" locations on the sea floor would
experience the passage of the particle cloud associated with a discrete discharge event within 48
hours of release. For example, a location having a visitation frequency of 5% for a class 4 (very
fine sand) particle corresponds to a probability of 5 out of every 100 disposal plumes containing
very fine sand particles passing over that location. The model also calculated the average depth
in the water column (cloud depth) of the cloud as it passed over the location and the time
required for the cloud to pass over the location (exposure time). Because diffusion in the vertical
direction is considered minimal as compared to diffusion in the horizontal direction, the modeled
cloud maintains a vertical thickness of 50 m as it passes through the water column (Figure 4.2-2).
Average cloud depths increase in proportion to average cloud age and particle size due to the
constant settling rate for each cloud (class of particles). Thus, a cloud of coarse sand (class 1)
would descend to the bottom within a few hours and would affect the water column only within
a few kilometers of the discharge point. In contrast, coarse silt particles (class 5) would descend
only a few hundred meters within a period of two days, and would be dispersed greater distances
from the discharge point. In the model, individual particle size clouds separate due to different
settling velocities and would not be expected to contact each other after disposal. Characterizing
the dredged material as consisting of discrete particle size classes is appropriate for the purposes
of a practical model, although it is more likely that actual particle sizes and sinking speeds would
represent a continuum.
4-18
-------
Figure 4.2-2. Schematic of a Particle Cloud Sinking Through the Water Column.
T=0, T=l, and T=2 correspond to time at the initial disposal and subsequent time
intervals during cloud descent through the water column.
Particle concentrations are indicated by relative shades of grey.
Source: SA1C 1992e.
AK0161
4-19
-------
The calculated visitation frequencies and average suspended particle concentrations associated
with discharges from the preferred and alternative sites are summarized in Table 4.2-3. Selected
results from the preferred alternative site are given below:
• Coarse sand (class 1) reached the sea floor roughly 10 h after disposal because
of its rapid settling rate. The affected area was only 48 km2, which was
equivalent in area to a circle with radius of 4 km. Note that the model placed
all barge releases within a circle having a diameter of 2 km.
• Very fine sand (class 4) attained conservative background particle
concentrations (~ 1 mg/1) and cloud depths of roughly 600 to 850 m at 48 h
following disposal. The affected area (the region having particle
concentrations above 1 mg/1) was roughly 42 times the area of the preferred
alternative site.
• Clay-silt material (class 6) spread widely, affecting an area of 3,681 km2 with
particle concentrations greater than 1 mg/1. This affected area was roughly
20% of the model grid and 170 times the size of the preferred alternative site.
Cloud depths of this slowly sinking material ranged from roughly 130 to 200
m after .5 days.
• Clay-silt clumps (class 7), whose settling rates exceeded those of the coarse
sand, reached the sea floor in roughly 5 hours. The affected area, 23 km2, was
equivalent in area to a circle with a radius less than 3 km.
These results indicate that the affected area can vary greatly (from 23 to 3,681 km2) and the
mean cloud depth will also vary (from 54 m to the sea floor) depending upon the size class of
material discharged. Mean visitation frequencies within the preferred alternative site were more
consistent, ranging from roughly 2 to 8%. In other words, the likelihood that any individual
model cell (i.e., in the water column above a 250-m by 250-m area on the bottom) within the
preferred alternative site would be affected by clouds having particle concentrations greater than
1 mg/1 ranged from 2 to 8 occurrences in 100 disposal events. This probability is higher for
model cells in close proximity to the disposal location, as represented by maximum visitation
frequencies that exceeded 70% in Table 4.2-3. Note that only part of the water column above
a cell is likely to be affected by particle clouds. Deeper portions of the water column will be
affected at relatively greater distances from the disposal site.
The results for Alternative Site 3 (Table 4.2-3) generally were similar to those for the preferred
alternative site:
• The affected area for each size class ranged from a minimum of 13 km2 for
the clay-silt clumps to a maximum of 7,855 km2 for the slowly settling clay-
silt material.
4-20
-------
Table 4.2-3. Model-Predicted Disposal Plume Visitation Frequencies, Mean Depth, and Exposure Times for Simulated
Discharges at the Preferred Alternative (Alternative Site 5) and Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
Area affected corresponds to the area defined by the 1 mg/1 suspended panicle concentration contour (i.e., the assumed background
concentration). Visitation frequency represents the probability or percentage of the total number of disposal events in which a cloud of
individual size classes of particles would pass over a particular location on the seafloor. Cloud depth is the average (mean) and standard
deviation (SD) of the depths in the water column of the cloud as it passes over a location. Exposure is the length of time thai a position in
the water column would experience higher concentrations of particles relative to background levels. Cloud age is the time required since
disposal for particle concentrations within the cloud to reach background levels or for particles to settle on the bottom. Model-predicted
values based on current data for the period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992.
Preferred Alternative (Alternative Site 5)
Particle Size Class
Area Affected
(km2)
Visitation Frequency
Cloud Depth
Maximum
Exposure (hrs)
Maximum
Cloud Age
(hrs)
Mean (%)
Maximum (%)
Mean (m)
± SD (m)
1: Coarse Sand
48
6.0
49.2
2393
370
2.6
10
2: Medium Sand
102
8.2
62.7
2237
388
5.5
21
3: Fine Sand
336
8.0
64.0
1902
398
13.2
48
4: Very Fine Sand
932
4.1
54.1
725
113
14.0
48
5: Coarse Silt
603
2.1
28.4
112
17
7.7
24
6: Clay-Silt
3681
3.8
37.2
166
36
43.9
120
6*: Clay-Silt*
1245
5.2
74.4
54
5
6.7
24
7: Clay-Sift Clumps
23
5.2
39.3
2335
360
1.5
5
'Diffusion coefficient increased from 1 m2/sec to 10 m2/sec.
Source: SAIC (1992e).
AK00J2.WJI
-------
Table 4.2-3. Continued.
Alternative Site 3
Panicle Size Class
Area Affected
(km2)
Visitation Frequency
Cloud Depth
Maximum
Exposure (hrs)
Maximum
Cloud Age
(hrs)
Mean (%)
Maximum (%)
Mean (m)
± SD (m)
1: Coarse Sand
30
3.4
21.3
1237
241
1.4
6
2: Medium Sand
96
3.9
28.6
1326
233
3.3
14
3: Fine Sand
414
4.2
35.1
1315
265
9.8
41
4: Very Fine Sand
1227
3.0
22.8
675
122
16.0
48
5: Coarse Silt
1082
1.4
20.3
115
32
7.0
24
6: Clay-Silt
7855
2.2
19.7
168
28
42.0
120
6*: Clay-Silt*
1717
4.3
62.2
54
5
6.1
24
7: Clay-Silt Clumps
13
2.7
18.7
1073
244
1.0
3
Alternative Site 4
Particle Size Class
Area Affected
(km2)
Visitation Frequency
Cloud Depth
Maximum
Exposure (hrs)
Maximum
Cloud Age
(hrs)
Mean (%)
Maximum (%)
Mean (m)
± SD (m)
1: Coarse Sand
32
3.7
29.6
1404
284
1.6
6
2: Medium Sand
98
4.7
35.3
1505
298
3.4
16
3: Fine Sand
457
4.8
35.6
1511
315
10.9
43
4: Very Fine Sand
1321
3.0
24.9
694
128
15.4
48
5: Coarse Silt
1217
1.3
16.0
115
15
6.9
24
6: Clay-Silt
7708
2.3
19.7
164
29
42.8
120
6*: Clay-Silt*
1913
3.9
55.4
55
5
6.1
24
7: Clay-Silt Clumps
13
4.3
23.9
1378
328
1.0
3
•Diffusion coefficient increased from 1 m2/sec to 10 m2/sec.
Source: SAIC (1992e).
AK0052.W5I
-------
• Cloud age and cloud depth were similar to those of the preferred alternative
site, except in cases when the material reached the bottom and consequently,
cloud age was reduced and cloud depth was equivalent to the water depth.
(Note that the mean depth for Alternative Site 3 was 1,457 m compared to
2,726 m for the preferred alternative site.)
• Visitation frequencies for all particle classes at Alternative Site 3 were less
than those for the preferred alternative site, apparently due to increased
variability in local currents near Alternative Site 3.
The results for Alternative Site 4 (Table 4.2-3) were very similar to those for Alternative Site 3
as reflected by the modeled data on the affected area, visitation frequencies, exposure times, and
cloud age. Maximum cloud depths for Alternative Site 4 were greater than observed for
Alternative Site 3, because the average water depth at Alternative Site 4 was approximately
250 m greater.
Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2.-5 illustrate the spatial distribution of visitation frequencies and average
particle concentrations for clay-silt material (class 6) discharged at the preferred alternative site
and at Alternative Sites 3 and 4, respectively. Spatial results are presented for this particle class
because it has the slowest settling rates of the seven classes modeled, the longest water column
residency time, the largest horizontal dispersion, and the largest affected area. Consequently, it
represents the worst case condition. In Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-5, the green contour labeled
1.00 mg/1 delineates the minimum particle concentration determined by the model. Lower
concentrations are not shown because they are below a conservative estimate of the background
concentration, and probably cannot be detected with standard sampling methods.
For the preferred alternative site, dredged material concentrations exceeding 1 mg/1 will extend
over a large area with a preferred orientation toward the northwest due to the predominant flow
during the observation year (Figure 4.2-3). Transport along local bathymetric contours toward
the southeast also is evident. Concentrations greater than 2 mg/1 extend over smaller areas within
and adjacent to the preferred alternative site. Concentrations greater than 10 mg/1 are not
expected outside of the immediate disposal region.
The spatial distribution of visitation frequencies for disposal at the preferred alternative site
(Figure 4.2-3) is similar to the modeled distribution of particle concentrations. Visitation
frequencies greater than 5% generally extend to the northwest from the disposal site; lower
frequencies also extend to the west and southeast.
Spatial results for Alternative Site 3 (Figure 4.2-4) were significantly different than those at the
preferred alternative site. At Alternative Site 3, dredged material concentrations exceeding 1 mg/1
extended over a broad area to the north, west, and south of the disposal site. Particle dispersion
was more multi-directional, with considerably less topographic influence than observed for the
preferred alternative site. The inshore boundary for the 1 mg/1 concentration corresponded
closely with the 200 m isobath. The area affected by concentrations greater than 2 mg/1 was
4-23
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-24
-------
36.0
37.0
37.0
-124.0
-123.I
Figure 4.2-3. Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Particle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments
Discharged at the Preferred Alternative Site.
Visitation frequencies (in percent) represent the probability of the total number of
disposal events in which a cloud of particles would pass over a location on the
seafloor. The circle within the study area represents the location of initial disposal.
The concentration contour represents the suspended particle concentration (mg/1)
within a cloud as it passes a location. Results were based on current data for the
period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992, and used a diffusion coefficient of
D=1 m2/sec.
Source: SAIC 1992e.
AK0162
p. 1 d 2
4-25
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4.2-3. Continued.
AK0162WS1
4-26
-------
-124.0
-122.7
38.0
37.0
38.0
37.0
¦124.0
-122.7
Figure 4.2-4.
AKQ163
p. 1 Of 2
Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Particle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments
Discharged at Alternative Site 3.
Visitation frequencies (in percent) represent the probability of the total number of
disposal events in which a cloud of particles would pass over a location on the
seafloor. The circle within the study area represents the location of initial disposal.
The concentration contour represents the suspended particle concentration (mg/1)
within a cloud as it passes a location. Results were based on current data for the
period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992, and used a diffusion coefficient of
D=1 m2/sec.
Source: SAIC 1992e.
4-27
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4.2-4. Continued.
4-28
-------
37.0
£X- - i,
>. I n I Ills l°Cono»n t r o 11 Mtvt —25Q&. —ag/.& \i ~ \
' Ar»4^Cov«rsd : 77q4mt J ?)
ilian" 4 naxlmum : '2.3 i"^19:7 Pereanl - '
¦ 124.0
Figure 4.2-5.
AK0164
p lo(2
Model-Predicted Visitation Frequencies (red) and Average Particle
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments
Discharged at Alternative Site 4.
Visitation frequencies (in percent) represent the probability of the total number of
disposal events in which a cloud of particles would pass over a location on the
seafloor. The circle within the study area represents the location of initial disposal.
The concentration contour represents the suspended particle concentration (mg/1)
within a cloud as it passes a location. Results were based on current data for the
period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992, and used a diffusion coefficient of
D=lm2/sec.
Source: SAIC 1992e.
4-29
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4.2-5. Continued.
AK0I64.W3I 4-30
-------
greater than observed for the preferred alternative site and distributed equally in all directions.
The spatial distribution of visitation frequencies was similar to the distribution of particle
concentrations.
Results of visitation frequencies and particle concentrations for Alternative Site 4 (Figure 4.2-5)
were similar to the results from Alternative Site 3, with broad spreading of material to the north,
west, and south. The 1 mg/1 particle concentration boundary corresponded with the inshore
topography as was observed for the other sites. Further discussion of model predictions of water
quality effects on Alternative Sites 3 and 4 is provided in Section 4.4.
Potential Impacts on Adjacent Marine Sanctuaries
Model results indicated that clouds of coarse to very fine sands and coarse silts (particle classes
1 through 5 and class 7) likely would not be transported across the GOFNMS, CBNMS, or
MBNMS boundaries (i.e., probabilities less than 0.2%). Clay-silt particles (class 6) represent the
only size class of material with a predicted likelihood of being transported across sanctuary
boundaries under the conservative assumptions of high initial concentrations, low dispersion rates
(D = 1 m2/sec), and ambient suspended particle concentrations of 1 mg/1. Based on the model,
plumes of fine grained sediments, representing only a fraction of disposed material, were
estimated to cross the GOFNMS and/or MBNMS boundaries from only 0.2 to 5% of the disposal
events regardless of which site was used for dredged material disposal. The predicted particle
concentrations within plumes crossing the sanctuary boundaries would be approximately 1 to 2
mg/1 and within the range of presumed background or ambient levels (Figures 4.2-3 through
4.2-5). Thus, dredged material disposal would not be expected to result in measurably elevated
concentrations within the sanctuaries. Concentrations at the CBNMS boundary would not be
expected to be elevated above background concentrations at any time. The calculated average
depths of the plumes at the sanctuary boundaries would range from approximately 60 to 800 m.
Using higher dispersion rates (e.g., D = 10 m2/sec) in the model would result in lower visitation
frequencies and particle concentrations in the vicinity of the sanctuary boundaries, as
demonstrated in Figure 4.2-6 for disposal from the preferred alternative site.
The differences in results from the three sites were due primarily to differences in the variability
of currents at the sites. At each site, the three particle classes having slow settling velocities
(classes 4, 5 and 6) remained in the . upper water column and had very little overlap in depth
ranges. The dispersive effects of the strong and variable currents in the upper water column
resulted in very large areas being affected by these size classes, but at low concentrations.
Sensitivity of Model Parameters
The oceanographic regime over the approximately one year (March to February) current meter
deployment period varied considerably between the first and second half of the records. The first
(spring-summer) deployment was characterized by strong northward flow, whereas the second
deployment (fall-winter) exhibited weak, intermittent flow followed by episodic northward flow.
Consequently, model runs performed independently with the two portions of the current records
4-31
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-32
-------
Concentrations (green) for Clay-Silt (Class 6) Sediments
Discharged at the Preferred Alternative Site Using a Diffusion
Coefficient of D=10m2/sec.
Visitation frequencies (in percent) represent the probability of the total number of
disposal events in which a cloud of panicles would pass over a location on the
seafloor. The circle within the study area represents the location of initial disposal.
The concentration contour represents the suspended particle concentration (mg/1)
within a cloud as it passes a location. Results were based on current data for the
period March 15, 1991, through February 15, 1992.
Source: SAIC 1992e.
AK0185
p. 1 0)2
4-33
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4.2-6. Continued.
AK0165.W3I
4-34
-------
exhibited considerably more dispersion of material during the spring-summer period. For the
spring-summer period, more material was lost through the model boundaries, water column
particle distributions were greater, and deposition thicknesses were less than for the fall-winter
period. These results demonstrate that temporal variations in currents have a major effect on the
water column distribution and deposition of particles released at all three sites.
The model used a dispersion coefficient of 1 m2/s to represent the horizontal diffusion during
model runs. Tests conducted to determine the model's sensitivity to this coefficient revealed that
the results were relatively insensitive to variations in this coefficient for values less than 10 m2/s.
However, as shown in Figure 4.2-6, a dispersion coefficient of 10 m2/sec results in appreciably
lower visitation frequencies and particle concentrations outside of the disposal site. Values for
the horizontal diffusion coefficient greater than 10 m2/sec are not realistic for this area, as
indicated by results from tracer studies conducted over the slope to the south of the region
(Ledwell and Watson 1991). Similarly, if higher background concentrations of suspended
particles (i.e., greater than 1 mg/1) are assumed, then the relative visitation frequencies in areas
away from the disposal location, particularly near the sanctuary boundaries, would also be
appreciably lower. This is because the model assumes that when the dredged material particle
concentration reaches the background particle concentration, the particle cloud can no longer be
distinguished.
Sensitivity tests also were performed to determine the effect of varying the depth of initial plume
release from 20 to 250 m. This test was conducted to determine whether the elimination of the
physical stages associated with convective descent and mid-depth dynamic collapse had a major
effect on the results of the model. The test illustrated that the results were insensitive to
variations in the disposal depths over this range, and hence, the simple physics of the model are
representative of the complex physical processes associated with dredged material settling.
Water Quality Effects
Potential impacts on water quality from dredged material disposal are expected to be transient
at the preferred alternative site, therefore representing Class III impacts. These changes
correspond to localized increases in turbidity, reductions in light transmittance, and increases in
dissolved and particulate concentrations of trace chemical constituents contained in the dredged
material. The following is a discussion of generic effects; expected effects for the preferred
alternative are summarized below.
Chemically reduced inorganic compounds associated with particles sinking through the upper
water column (generally above a depth of 400 m) may be oxidized, causing a transient increase
in the chemical oxygen demand. Oxidation of labile organic material consequently may reduce
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water. However, because the upper water column in the
study region is well oxygenated, this effect may be more pronounced at depths corresponding to
the oxygen minimum zone (OMZ) where dissolved oxygen concentrations are naturally low (i.e.,
less than 2.8 mg/1; Figure 3.2-7).
4-35
-------
Similarly, depending on the chemical composition of the dredged material, elevated
concentrations of sinking particles may cause changes in the concentrations of trace chemical
constituents in the water column. Because the bulk chemical composition of the dredged material
is not known, assessments of the contributions of suspended particles to changes in water quality
at the preferred and alternative sites, and subsequent comparisons to marine water quality criteria,
presently are not possible. However, these chemical concentrations are expected to be low
because dredged material must be tested and the results meet established criteria in order to be
acceptable for disposal (see Section 4.6). Evaluations of changes in water quality due to a
specific disposal event will be made during the permitting process for individual dredging
projects.
Dredged material disposed at an ocean site also can introduce dissolved solutes or gases, such
as hydrogen sulfide, methane, manganese, iron, ammonia, and phosphorus, that occur naturally
in estuarine sediments such as San Francisco Bay. These may be introduced in solution or
subsequently released into ambient waters by desorption from particles and/or release of trapped
interstitial gas from the break-up of falling cohesive mud clasts. Material deposited on the
bottom represents a second source of dissolved compounds (Salomons et al. 1987). Once solid
particles reach the sea floor, changes in pH and redox potential (Eh), and benthic organism and
microbial activity, can redissolve metals and organic compounds. Remobilized, dissolved
compounds can accumulate in sediment porewaters or in water overlying deposited material or
sediments (Forstner and Wittman 1983; Bryan 1984; Graybeal and Heath 1984; Landner 1986;
Salomons et al. 1987).
The chemical fate of dissolved contaminants in seawater will be affected by a variety of physical,
chemical, and biological processes. These factors include: (1) circulation and mixing processes;
(2) the presence of organic matter, clays, iron and manganese oxides and hydroxides; (3) salinity;
(4) biological uptake processes; (5) chemical conditions (Eh, pH) in the sedimentary and water
environment: and (6) the properties of the compound itself. Water circulation may be the most
important factor affecting dispersal of contaminants in the oceans (Bryan 1984). Dissolved
constituents also are diluted as the discharged material settles through a deep water column. In
the deep ocean, near-bottom currents are capable of dispersing dissolved materials that have
diffused out of deposited sediments. Conversely, local topographic depressions, such as
submarine valleys or troughs, have the potential to trap finer-grained sediments which often
contain relatively higher concentrations of trace chemical constituents.
Organic matter, clays, and iron oxides all have the ability to absorb dissolved organic compounds,
metals, and salts due to the ion-adsorptive properties (Lee 1975; Stumm et al. 1976; Hem 1977;
Kerndorf and Schnitzer 1980; Leckie et al. 1980; Davis and Gloor 1981; Tipping 1981; Forstner
and Wittman 1983; Hunter 1983; Balistrieri and Murray 1986; Landner 1986). Present evidence
suggests that cycling and residence times of dissolved and particulate metals in the oceans are
controlled by a combination of biological scavenging and uptake by surface-reactive particles
(Fisher et al. 1991). Bio-concentration of metals through uptake by zooplankton may result in
the production of metal-rich zooplankton fecal pellets. These particles serve as an important
vehicle for the rapid removal and sedimentation of contaminants to the sea floor (Capuzzo 1983),
4-36
-------
and affect the residence times of elements in the ocean (Fowler 1977; Cherry et al. 1978; Fisher
et al. 1991).
Adsorption and scavenging of metals by organic particles or organic coatings on particles is
another important process that removes metals from the water column (Brewer and Hao 1979;
Balistrieri et al. 1981; Forstner and Salomons 1982; Balistrieri and Murray 1983, 1984; Hunter
1983; Bryan 1984; Collier and Edmond 1984; Honeyman et al. 1988). Particle concentrations
in the water column may be the most important variable affecting metal removal (Capuzzo 1983;
Honeyman et al. 1988). Organic matter appears to have greater ability to form complexes with
metals than with inorganic minerals (Balistrieri et al. 1981). Desorption of metals may be driven
by interactions with particulate or dissolved ligands (or both) in seawater (Erel and Morgan
1991). Thus, the fate of metal contaminants, even in the dissolved phase, is strongly affected by
the number and kinds of particles that are present in the descending or dispersing plume and in
the ambient water column.
Once particles have reached the sea floor, reducing conditions may develop again beneath the
oxidized surface sediment layer, particularly if concentrations of labile organic carbon are greater
than about 1%. Thus, remobilization of metals from particles could occur in both the water
column (OMZ) and in the sediment column, resulting in a release of dissolved metals to the
overlying water or to porewater.
The mobility of certain metals is strongly affected by pH and the Eh of the environment Metals
which become soluble under reducing conditions include iron, manganese, and mercury (Bothner
et al. 1980), whereas oxidizing conditions favor the release of cadmium, nickel, lead, and zinc
(Bryan 1984). Dissolution of certain metals under anoxic conditions is balanced by their
precipitation as metal sulfides. The dissolution of iron or manganese oxides releases other
metals, such as zinc, copper, cobalt, nickel, and lead, and organic compounds which were
adsorbed to these compounds (Elderfield and Hepworth 1975; Bryan 1984).
Biological activity, including bioturbation and microbial activities, in sediments also can
remobilize contaminants in deep-sea surface sediments (Graybeal and Heath 1984). Microbial
decomposition of organic matter, including organic compounds, can transform compounds from
one form to another, potentially affecting their toxicity, mobility, and release to the water column
(Metcalf 1977; Col well and Saylor 1978; Bryan 1984).
Effects to water quality from dredged material disposal at the preferred alternative site are
considered Class III potential impacts because plumes are expected to disperse within 48 hours
of discharge, no build-up or accumulation of particles within the water column is expected, and
changes to water quality parameters (e.g., turbidity, light transmittance, dissolved oxygen
concentrations) are expected to be transient and localized within the discharge plume. Disposal
operations should have insignificant effects on concentrations of contaminants in the water
column, given that only dredged material of suitable quality will be permitted for disposal.
4-37
-------
4.2.1.4
Geology and Sediment Characteristics
Dredged material disposal operations at the preferred or alternative sites are not expected to result
in any significant changes in regional bottom topography or sediment transport processes,
although minor accumulations of sediments could occur within the sites, as discussed below. In
the vicinity of the alternative sites, where depths are greater than 1,400 m and bottom slopes are
relatively slight, mounding of bottom sediments or slight changes in sediment stability conditions
are not a primary concern (Class III impact). However, accumulation of dredged material, and
associated changes in the sediment characteristics may cause impacts to benthic-dwelling
organisms (Sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3).
The model of dredged material dispersion (see Section 4.2.1.3) was used to predict dredged
material deposition under varying disposal scenarios and environmental conditions at the
alternative sites. Results from the modeling activities are presented below, followed by a
discussion of potential effects within the sites and adjacent marine sanctuaries.
Overview of Particle Deposition (Footprint) Model
As described in Section 4.2.1.3, the first stage of the model (SAIC 1992e) predicts the time-
varying, three-dimensional distribution and concentrations of dredged material in the water
column following individual releases of 6,000 yd3 of material. The second stage of this model
has the capability for predicting the thickness and areal extent (footprint) of dredged material that
will settle on the sea floor in the region encompassing the alternative sites and a broad, adjacent
region of the continental slope.
The particle size composition of the dredged material planned for disposal at the ODMDS is not
known precisely because of the wide variety of sediment types occurring at potential dredging
sites within the Bay. It is likely that the majority of the material to be disposed at an ODMDS
would be dredged using a clam shell dredge. As opposed to a suction-type dredge, this type of
dredging equipment does not add much water to the dredged material. Therefore, the dredged
material clumps likely would retain the physical character of the original Bay muds. The extent
to which cohesive materials become fluidized by the dredging operations in transit to the disposal
site presently is unknown. Therefore, for the purpose of the model, an assumption was made
of 50% clumping of the clay-silt material. Smaller clumping factors would result in smaller
maximum deposit thicknesses, but little or no change in the area covered with deposits thicker
than 1 mm. This is because fine silt material would be dispersed so widely that effects on the
predicted deposit thickness would be negligible. In contrast, sandy material contained in the
dredged sediments is not cohesive, and it would sink as individual particles instead of clumps
following disposal from a barge.
As noted in the prior discussion of the model (Section 4.2.1.3), two cases were assumed for the
average composition of material to be disposed at the alternative sites: clay-silt (74% silt, 5%
clay, and 21% sand) and mostly sand (3% silt, 21% clay, and 76% sand). Model results for
disposal of both material types at each of the alternative sites are presented in this section.
4-38
-------
The model simulations assumed that the momentum from the initial barge release dissipated at
a depth of 20 m, and particles acted independently at depths below 20 m. As a sensitivity test,
other simulations were performed which varied this depth between 20 and 250 m for a
continuous discharge over a one-year period in 1,000 m of water. The results did not change
significantly despite this variation in the depth of the initial release.
The model also assumed that discharges of 6,000 yd3 every 8 to 12 hours did not occur at the
same location each day. Instead, the discharge positions were randomized on a daily basis over
a region defined by a watch circle having a diameter of 2 km and centered in the southern to
central portion of the western boundary for each site.
As described in Section 4.2.1.3, the bathymetric data used in the model simulations were from
NOAA's EEZ side scan surveys. These data provided the highest resolution grid available for
the study region and resolved bathymetric features to an accuracy of a few meters.
The moored current measurements made by the EPA study (Section 3.2.2.2) provided the first
long-term, deep-water current data for this region. Because few current measurements have been
made over the continental slope off San Francisco, there was no basis for determining the
representativeness of these current measurements relative to long-term climatology or interannual
variability (see Section 3.2.2.1). The effects of seasonal and inter-annual variability of the region
was predicted by the model using segments of the approximate one-year data set (SAIC 1992e).
The distinct changes in the characteristics of currents between the first and second portions of
the study prompted the modeling of dredged material deposition over a one-year period as well
as for the two six-month periods. The first time period coincided with the complete period of
current measurements (March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992). The second and third
periods corresponded to the first and second six-month segments of the current records,
respectively. The first six-month period was characterized by a strong poleward flow, whereas,
the second six-month period was characterized by weak, intermittent flows followed by episodic
poleward events. These sensitivity tests revealed that the mean and maximum deposition
thickness decreased and the areas of deposition increased with increasing current speeds.
Further details on the input conditions and physical assumptions incorporated in the model are
presented in Section 4.2.1.3.
Results of Particle Deposition Model
Similar to the results of suspended particulate matter distribution in the water column, the particle
deposition results indicate that the slowly settling components cover a larger area of the sea floor
due to horizontal diffusion and transport of the slowly settling clouds. Table 4.2-4 presents the
model predictions of dredged material deposition, calculated for the period from March 15, 1991
to February 15,1992, for each of the alternative sites. Results are presented for both the clay-silt
(C-S) and mostly sand (M-S) materials, based on an annual disposal volume of 6 million yd3 of
material. The mean deposit thickness is the mean thickness of material within all model
4-39
-------
Table 4.2-4. Model-Predicted Deposit Thicknesses, Areal Coverage, and Material
Losses Due to Transport Outside of the Model Boundaries
Based on current data for the period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992.
Alternative
Material
Mean Deposit
Maximum Deposit
Percent
Area
Site
Type1
Thickness
Thickness
Loss
Covered
(mm)2
(mm)
(km2)3
3
C-S
7.94
727.2
19.3
362.8
M-S
4.46
62.0
11.4
624.4
4
C-S
9.78
788.3
21.4
283.8
M-S
5.25
69.4
12.7
500.1
5*
C-S
9.75
493.2
27.1
278.6
M-S
5.87
65.5
16.2
449.1
'C-S = Clay-Silt Mixture, M-S = Mostly Sand Mixture.
2For deposits with thicknesses greater than 1 mm.
3Area covered by deposits with thicknesses greater than 1 mm.
'Preferred Alternative Site.
Source: SAIC (1992e).
AK00S6.W51
4-40
-------
locations (i.e., 250-m x 250-m areas) that contain at least 1 mm of accumulated dredged material.
The maximum deposit thickness corresponds to the thickness within a single, 250-m by 250-m
location within the model grid containing the greatest amount of dredged material .
The table also presents the area of sea floor covered by deposits with thicknesses exceeding 1
mm at the end of the model period. The percentage of material that would be transported out
of the model boundaries (defined in Section 4.2.1.3) is also presented. The model predicts that
roughly 19 to 27% of the clay-silt material would be lost through the lateral boundaries of the
model compared to 11 to 16% of the mostly sand material. Material that exits the modeled
region prior to deposition eventually would be deposited on the sea floor far from the disposal
site, with respective accumulation thicknesses of less than 1 mm for the modeled discharge
volumes (6 million yd3).
As indicated in Table 4.2-4, the type of dredged material (clay-silt versus mostly sand) had a
major effect on the predicted thickness and affected area of deposition. For example, mean
deposit thicknesses of clay-silt material were nearly twice those of mostly sand material, while
the area covered by the mostly sand material was 60 to 75% greater than the area of the clay-silt
deposit. Variations in deposit thickness and affected area due to location of the alternative sites
were considerably smaller than variations due to the material type. Note, however, that the mean
deposit thickness was less than 1 cm for both material types and for all areas (for the model
period).
The largest differences between the predicted behavior of the two material types was observed
for the maximum deposit thickness. Due to the rapidly settling clumps within the clay-silt
material, maximum deposits for the clay-silt material were roughly 7 to. 12 times greater than for
the mostly sand material. Although the settling rates of sand components are considerably greater
than settling rates for fine-grained material, the clumps of fine material reach the sea floor much
sooner than the sand components. For example, at depths of 2,000 m, fine sand would reach the
sea floor in approximately 34 hours, whereas clumps of fine-grained material would reach the
sea floor in approximately 4 hours.
A summary of the model results for dredged material deposition following disposal from each
of the alternative sites is given below.
Disposal at the preferred alternative site (Alternative Site 5):
• The mean and maximum deposit thicknesses for the clay-silt material were
approximately 10 and 490 mm, respectively, compared to 6 and 66 mm for the
mostly sand material.
• Mean deposit thicknesses for a specific material type varied only a small
amount between the preferred alternative site and Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4-41
-------
• Maximum deposit thickness for the clay-silt material at the preferred
alternative site was roughly 65% less than the maximum deposit at the other
two sites, presumably due to the greater water depth at the preferred
alternative site.
• Deposit thicknesses greater than 1 mm covered an area of 278 km2 for the
clay-silt material and 449 km2 for the mostly sand material. (For comparison,
the area of the preferred alternative site is 22 km2.)
• Approximately one-quarter of the clay-silt material disposed at the preferred
alternative site was lost through the lateral boundaries of the modeled region;
a relatively smaller fraction of the mostly sand material was lost. Material
loss from disposal at the preferred alternative site was greater than loss from
disposal at the other two sites, presumably because of the northwestward flow
and the northerly location of the preferred alternative site relative to the
northern boundary of the model grid.
Disposal at Alternative Sites 3 and 4:
Model results for these two sites were very similar, partly because local currents were similar and
the mean water depths were in the range from 1,400 to 1,700 m, compared to a mean water depth
of over 2.700 m for the preferred alternative site.
• Mean deposit thickness for the clay-silt material was 8 to 10 mm, compared
to 4 to 5 mm for the mostly sand material.
• Maximum deposit thickness for the clay-silt material was 727 to 788 mm,
compared to 62 to 69 mm for the mostly sand material.
• Deposit thicknesses greater than 1 mm would cover an area of 283 to 362 km2
for the clay-silt material, and 500 to 624 km2 for the mostly sand material.
(For comparison, the areas of Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are 22 km2.)
• From 19 to 21% of the clay-silt material disposed at Alternative Sites 3 and
4 was lost through the lateral boundaries of the modeled region; a relatively
smaller fraction of the mostly sand material was lost. Material loss from
disposal at Alternative Sites 3 and 4 was less than at the preferred alternative
site, as discussed above.
Comparisons between results from model runs for the two six-month current measurement
periods generally indicated greater deposit thicknesses but over relatively smaller areas during
the August to February period, when currents were less intense, than during the spring
measurement period.
4-42
-------
Spatial Distribution of Dredged Material Deposition
The simulated depositional footprints for disposal of the clay-silt and mostly sand dredged
materials at the preferred and alternative sites are shown in Figures 4.2-7 and 4.2-8, respectively.
The contour lines correspond to deposit thicknesses of 1 mm, 10 mm, and 100 mm derived from
average thicknesses within model cells. Thus, a model cell (250 m x 250 m) covers an area
much larger than the dimensions of very small mounds that may result from disposal from
individual barge loads containing clumped material.
The 1 mm deposit thickness represents the minimum thickness that might be measured practically
using existing technologies under ideal conditions, and does not correspond to any known or
predicted adverse impact to the benthic environment. The 10 mm deposit represents an
intermediate thickness that was used as the basis for defining the size and shape of the preferred
and alternative sites (Section 2.2).
The 1 mm and 10 mm deposit thickness contours for the clay-silt material for all three sites do
not extend into any of the National Marine Sanctuaries. The 1 mm deposit thickness of the
mostly sand material discharged at the preferred alternative site extends into the GOFNMS,
whereas the sandy particle bottom deposits corresponding to Alternative Sites 3 and 4 do not
cross sanctuary boundaries.
Modeling the 1 mm and 10 mm deposit thicknesses was intentionally conservative for predicting
potential effects, but was considered useful for possible monitoring purposes to determine where
measurable amounts of dredged material would be deposited. These deposit thicknesses are much
lower than 100 mm (10 cm) that might be expected to cause significant impacts (e.g.,
smothering) to benthic organisms (Rhoads and Germano 1990; see Section 4.2.2.2). Also,
impacts associated with 100 mm thicknesses would result from instantaneous deposition, whereas,
the modeled deposits were accumulated over a period of one year. The predicted deposits were
discontinuous in some areas because of the effects of topographic irregularities on the deposition
patterns.
The particle deposition model assumes that deposition of material is cumulative. It does not
account for losses due to sediment transport processes such as bottom current resuspension and
transport and/or mass movement, which would reduce the estimated thickness of the deposit but
also increase the bottom area affected. The preferred alternative site is located within a
depositional zone characterized by low kinetic energy and fine grain size sediments with a
relatively high organic content (Section 3.2). It is expected that the depositional characteristics
of the site will minimize bottom current-induced dispersion of deposited dredged material. Use
of the site over a period of 50 years would increase the predicted deposit thicknesses as well as
the areas covered by deposits with thicknesses exceeding 1 mm. However, over time, physical
and biological (e.g., bioturbation) processes may transport and mix the dredged material with
existing and recently-deposited sediments. The expected result is reduced differences between
the physical characteristics of the dredged material and those of existing sediments and reduced
potential impacts.
4-43
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-44
-------
Figure 4.2-7. Model-Predicted Bottom Deposit Thicknesses (in mm) from Discharges
of Six Million yd3 of Clay-Silt Type Material over a One-Year Period
at the Preferred Alternative Site (red), Alternative Site 3 (green), and
Alternative Site 4 (blue).
The solid black lines near the respective 2 km watcb circles (i.e., discbarge point)
correspond to deposit thicknesses of 100 mm, 200 mm, etc. The circle within the study
area represents the location of initial disposal. Results are based on current data for the
period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992 and used a diffusion coefficient of
D=1 m2/sec.
Source: SAIC 1992e.
4-45
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4.2-7. Continued.
AK0I67 W51 A , ,
4-46
-------
Figure 4.2-8. Model-Predicted Bottom Deposit Thicknesses (in mm) from
Discharges of Six Million yd3 of Mostly Sand Type Material over a
One-Year Period at the Preferred Alternative Site (red), Alternative
Site 3 (green), and Alternative Site 4 (blue).
The circle within the study area represents the location of initial disposal. Results are'
based on current data for the period March 15, 1991 through February 15, 1992 and
used a diffusion coefficient of D=lm2/sec.
Source: SAIC 1992e.
4-47
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 4.2-8. Continued.
4-48
AK0168.W3I
-------
Because the grain size and chemical characteristics of sediments potentially discharged at the
ODMDS are not known precisely, the specific effects of dredged material disposal on long-term
changes to the properties of the bottom sediments cannot be evaluated or quantified accurately.
Sediments must be evaluated using testing procedures for dredged material described in
EPA/COE (1991) to ensure that chemical constituents are not present at concentrations that would
be toxic or cause adverse impacts due to bioaccumulation by marine organisms. Only material
deemed acceptable under these protocols would be approved for disposal at an ODMDS.
Effects from dredged material disposal at the preferred alternative site on sediment grain size are
expected to represent a Class I impact This impact would be localized and would persist for the
duration of site use, assuming a continuous disposal schedule. Effects to sediment chemical
quality are considered a Class IE impact due to the requirements for testing for adverse effects
per the Green Book protocols prior to disposal.
4.2.2 Effects on Biological Environment
The following sections discuss the potential consequences of the proposed action on the
biological environments associated with the preferred alternative site.
4.2.2.1 Plankton
Any significant water column impacts to the pelagic ecosystem would most likely involve those
planktonic organisms that come in contact with slower-settling particles, such as silts, in regions
of neutral buoyancy, such as the pycnocline. The impact of suspended particles from dredged
material disposal on planktonic organisms is expected to be minimal for the rapidly settling size
fractions, including sand and clay-silt aggregates, that reach the bottom within a few minutes to
hours (see Section 4.2.1.4).
Some effects of water column turbidity on open ocean planktonic species have been addressed
experimentally by a study designed to predict the impact of surface discharges of deep-sea muds
simulating a manganese mining operation (Hirota 1981). These results indicated increased
mortality and lower recruitment rates in 12 species of epipelagic copepods and one species of
mysid exposed in the laboratory. However, mortality of copepods collected in the field from a
simulated plume showed only slightly higher mortality relative to reference populations collected
from outside the plume (Hirota 1981).
A laboratory study of exposure of the copepod Calanus helgolandicus to fine-grained red bauxite
muds showed lower survival, growth rates, and body weight at concentrations above 6 mg/1
(Paffenhofer 1972). This same type of mud resulted in decreased egg hatching success and
lowered survival of larval Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) and adversely affected embryo
development and larval feeding at concentrations in the range of 600 to 7,000 mg/1
(Rosenthal 1971).
4-49
-------
The results from these studies cannot be extrapolated directly to dredged material disposal
because most of the adverse biological effects were related to organisms ingesting mineral-rich
and nutrient-poor deep-sea ooze or bauxite "red mud". These nutrient-poor suspensions resulted
in starvation of the exposed species. Because dredged material plumes will typically consist of
relatively organic-rich muds, and will be transient in nature, similar impacts to planktonic
organisms are unlikely.
Potential effects of disposal-related turbidity on planktonic organisms are difficult to assess due
to the transient nature of the dredged material plume and the free-floating or mobile
characteristics of the organisms. Turbid plumes associated with dredged material disposal can
temporarily attenuate light penetration into the water column, thereby reducing primary
production by phytoplankton. Measurements of primary production in a disposal plume showed
50% reduction in productivity compared to that of ambient phytoplankton populations (Chan and
Anderson 1981). However, this effect lasted only a few hours until the plume dissipated.
Additional factors which complicate these assessments are seasonal and annual variations in
plankton productivity, standing stock, and species composition (Section 3.3.1).
Since the duration of potential plume exposure is short and of limited spatial extent, the overall
effect of disposal on plankton communities at the preferred alternative site is expected to be
insignificant (Class III; Table 4.1-1). This conclusion also is based on substantial natural
variation in plankton communities throughout the general study region. The highest plankton
abundances are inshore of the preferred and alternative sites and there are no distinguishable
differences between the sites.
4.2.2.2 Infauna
Impacts of Burial
As dredged material accumulates on the sea floor, benthic organisms in the area of initial
deposition may be impacted. However, information on the response of deep-water organisms to
burial or smothering is limited. The ability of buried infauna (or epifauna) to reestablish normal
depths and orientations within bottom sediments is an adaptation for surviving burial from natural
events such as storm-related changes in sedimentation or slumping. In deep water, particularly
on the continental slope, turbidity currents, submarine slumps, and debris flows can be major
natural causes of burial (Hollister et al. 1984). The frequency of disturbance and depth of burial
are also critical for determining the response of infauna to burial. Frequencies of disturbance that
are less than one year tend to keep the colonizing benthos in an early successional stage while
burial frequencies much greater than one year allow colonization of higher order successional
species with longer mean life-spans and more conservative reproductive strategies (e.g., Rhoads
et al. 1978).
Impacts to bottom-dwelling organisms from burial by either natural processes or dredged material
disposal can vary from negligible to localized mortality, depending on the rate of accumulation,
burial depth, textural and mass properties of the deposited sediment, burial time, water
4-50
-------
temperature, and the species experiencing burial. This type of impact has been quantified for
several species in estuarine environments. For example, Kranz (1974) determined the depth of
burial that caused mortality of several bivalve species. The critical burial depth for epifaunal
suspension feeders was less than 5 cm, while infaunal deposit-feeders could survive and burrow
through as much as 50 cm of overburden. In situ burial experiments by Nichols et al. (1978)
indicated that overburden thicknesses of 5 to 10 cm did not cause significant mortality to
"mud-dwelling" invertebrates as most of these motile infauna could initiate "escape" responses
by burrowing upward, while organisms covered with overburdens of 30 cm could not initiate
escape responses. Similar results for estuarine organisms were documented in a laboratory study
by Maurer et al. (1978), who also noted critical overburden thicknesses of 5 to 10 cm. The
critical burial depth for estuarine infauna therefore appears to range from 5 to 30 cm. The
response of a species to a specific overburden thickness can be estimated from how frequently
a species population experiences natural sediment burial. For example, species living on rippled
bottoms or sediments subjected to resuspension are better able to withstand burial by relatively
thick sediment layers than species living in low kinetic energy, low sedimentation rate areas.
Generalizations about critical burial depths based on shallow water data noted above are directly
applicable to Study Area 2 and perhaps the shallower part of Study Area 3. However, care must
be exercised in extrapolating these observations to deep water as comparable data on critical
burial depths for deep-sea benthos have not been fully investigated. The present information
comes from observations of the burial of benthos by "accidental" sedimentation events. Jumars
(1977) reported an accidental burial of benthos in the San Diego Trough (1,200 m depth) by a
small avalanche of sediment (2 to 10 cm thick) produced by a submersible. The next day, the
site was revisited and the submersible took cores through the new sediment layer. Organisms
were beginning to migrate upward through layers 1 cm thick, while deeper burial resulted in
increased mortality. The polychaete Prionospio spp. was noted to be an important casualty in
this experiment, suggesting that surface deposit feeders might be affected most by burial (Jumars
1977). Prionospio delta is present in water depths of > 2,000 m in the Farallones region. These
observations suggest that deposition of shallow layers of sediment at these depths might allow
deep water species to recover from burial, but that disposal layers substantially deeper than 10
cm might cause high local mortality. Support for this inference is presented from Study Area
5, sampled in 1990 and 1991 (SAIC 1991; SAIC 1992c). In 1990, high densities of infauna were
recorded at Station F-17, while in 1991 densities near Station F-17(B-5) were lower by a factor
of seven (see Section 3.3.2.1). Bottom photography showed a "hummocky" surface typical of
sedimentation deposits. One explanation for the change in density between 1990 and 1991 is
partial mortality related to an intervening depositional (burial) event.
Rapid burial of a benthic community by 30 to 100 cm thick, natural turbidity flows in the
Cascadia Channel (2,900 to 3,000 m depth) off the Oregon and Washington coast resulted in a
"no escape" response of the buried species. An inference of total mortality was based on the
absence of escape burrows across the contact zone between the buried and basal layers of the
overlying sediments (Griggs et al. 1969). There are no direct studies on the ability of slope-
dwelling infauna to escape from thinner deposits of sediments. However, based on the
considerable abilities of many species to burrow through and modify natural sediments (Hecker
4-51
-------
1982), it is likely that many slope infaunal species would have the ability to survive periodic
burial by submarine slumping or moderate amounts of dredged material.
In summary, available information on shallow-water infaunal invertebrates indicates that the rapid
accumulation of sediments (either natural sediments or dredged material) in thicknesses exceeding
approximately 5 to 30 cm can result in significant mortality of the buried species. Sessile or
otherwise immobile species are the most sensitive to burial while mobile deposit-feeding infauna
have the greatest ability to escape upward through newly deposited sediments.
Colonization after Deposition
Colonization by infaunal organisms of deposited dredged material has been well documented in
shallow water environments, but equivalent studies at deeper depths are lacking. In most cases,
the colonization process in shallow water begins within a few days following cessation of
discharges (Germano and Rhoads 1984; Scott et al. 1987). The mode of colonization is sensitive
to the thickness of the deposit. For thin overburden layers (less than or equal to 10 cm), buried
adults have an upward escape response, with selective survival based on the ability of different
species to reestablish their natural vertical depth positions within the new sediments. When
dredged material accumulates in a thick mound, only the thin, distal edges of the deposit may
be colonized by this means. The thicker part of the deposit primarily is colonized through larval
recruitment or immigration of organisms from adjacent, undisturbed areas.
In shallow water (less than 50 m depth), colonization by adults (reburrowing) and larval
recruitment normally is very rapid, taking only a few days to weeks to establish a low diversity
but numerically abundant pioneering community. Rapid colonization is attributed to the presence
of competition-free space and the availability of detrital organic food that commonly is in greater
concentration in dredged material than on the ambient sea floor. In addition, the diffusion of
sedimentary sulfides from dredged material into the water column may serve as a larval
settlement cue and as a nutritional factor for opportunistic species such as Capitella (Cuomo
1985; Tsutsumi 1992).
In shallow water disposal site studies, three phases of macrofaunal recolonization have been
described (Rhoads and Germano 1982, 1986, 1990; Scott et al. 1987). This successional
paradigm is based on "...the predictable appearance of macrobenthic invertebrates belonging to
specific functional types following a benthic disturbance" (Rhoads and Boyer 1982). The first
infaunal organisms (Stage I) to colonize a disposal site by larval recruitment are usually small
opportunistic polychaetes, such as Spionidae and Capitellidae. Species within these families are
commonly associated with frequently disturbed and/or organically enriched areas (Pearson and
Rosenberg 1978). The worms form dense lube mats and feed at, or near, the sediment surface.
Within one or two years, these dense polychaete assemblages may be replaced by dense
aggregations of tubiculous amphipods and tellinid bivalves (Stage II). Densities of pioneering
species on dredged material often are significantly higher than densities on the ambient bottom.
Disposal sites can exceed the secondary productivity measured on the natural sea floor by a
factor of six fold or more (Rhoads et al. 1978). The degree of enhancement of secondary
4-52
-------
productivity is proportional to the amount of labile organic matter in the dredged material
because organic detritus serves as food for many resident benthos. This high secondary
productivity may account for intensive foraging by mobile predators observed at many disposal
sites (SAIC 1989a).
Larval recruitment and establishment of Stage III species on a disposal site requires several years
because these organisms tend to have more conservative reproductive strategies, slower
population and developmental growth rates, and longer mean life spans (Pearson and Rosenberg
1978; Rhoads et al. 1978; Hecker 1982). Stage III species are "head-down" deposit feeders and
are commonly encountered as part of the equilibrium community on ambient mud bottoms
adjacent to disposal sites. Stage III species typically consist of deep burrowing polychaetes (e.g.
Maldanidae, Pectinariidae), caudate holothurians, infaunal ophiuroids, or burrowing urchins.
Deep burrowing is accompanied by vertical bioturbation of both particles and pore-water fluids
to depths of 10 to 20 cm or more. Bioturbation modifies sediment chemistry through oxidation
of the sediment column and advective exchange of sulphate, ammonia, or nitrate across the
sediment water interface (Aller 1982; Rice and Rhoads 1989). Similarly, bioturbation can change
the chemical properties of dredged material and its associated constituents (Rhoads et al. 1977).
A series of biological, physical, and chemical changes occur over a period of several months to
years after disposal operations cease. The changes include gravitational compaction and
biological modifications as well as the reshaping of the deposit in relation to current-mound
interactions. Small-scale boundary roughness of cohesive materials is reduced over time as
surficial bioturbation and surface current scour reduce elevations and fill in depressions.
Diversion of flow over a mound can result in a local change in mound texture as fine-grained
sediments are eroded, leaving a coarser surface layer. Long-term bioturbation by Stage III
species can result in a progressive increase in fluidization and oxidation of the surface of a
dredged material deposit Furthermore, bioturbation can cause pelletization and repackaging of
organic-mineral aggregates which decreases the overall cohesiveness of fine-grained sediments
(Rhoads 1991) and often results in the surface becoming physically destabilized (Rhoads and
Boyer 1982). Such biogenic processes can contribute to destabilization of the bottom over the
long term, especially on slope environments (Hecker 1982).
The successional changes described above for shallow water disposal sites apply only to sites that
experience "normal" succession. Normal succession involves rapid initial colonization
progressing to Stage ID within one to two years. Such a progression can be retarded or stopped
if disposal operations are continuous or frequent, if the disposed material experiences erosion and
dispersal, or if the disposal area is seasonally or permanently affected by low dissolved oxygen.
The relationship between near bottom dissolved oxygen and the successional model indicates that
mobile epifauna or demersal species avoid regions with dissolved oxygen concentrations below
approximately 3 mg/1. Dissolved oxygen concentrations below about 1.4 mg/1 appear to prevent
successful colonization of Stage III taxa (Tyson and Pearson 1991). The ecological and
physiological effects of low oxygen conditions can be compounded by hydrogen sulfide and/or
methane gas associated with organically enriched hypoxic habitats. TTiese compounds may
further stress benthic species. Additionally, if pollutants are present, the ability of an oxygen-
4-53
-------
stressed organism to survive exposure may be significantly reduced. These synergistic effects
are poorly known. The shallow portions of Study Areas 3 and 4 are within or near the OMZ
(Section 3.2), but the preferred and alternative disposal sites are located in waters deeper than
the OMZ. Disposal at any of the sites is unlikely to result in reduced colonization due to low
oxygen tensions.
The successional patterns described above for shallow-water disposal sites have been compared
to results from studies at deeper water dredged material disposal sites off Los Angeles (LA-2)
in 110 to 320 m of water (SAIC 1990a) and off San Diego, CA (LA-5) in 100 to 220 m of water
(SAIC 1990b). The dredged material disposed at these sites was from their respective
metropolitan harbors and comprised a wide range of textures including sandy material and
cohesive mud clasts overlying ambient silt-clays and very fine sands. Presumably due to the
relatively deep water at these two sites, the dredged material footprints were in the form of thin
deposits. All parts of the dredged material mounds were colonized by benthic organisms, and
relatively fresh dredged material could be distinguished from older dredged material by the
degree of bioturbation, depth of oxidation of the sediment column, and successional status. Stage
I and III species were present both on and off the dredged material. Therefore, similar
colonization by benthic infauna is expected at the deep-water alternative sites off San Francisco.
Studies of colonization of experimental sediment trays deployed in the deep-sea, and research on
the effects of natural disturbances such as submarine slumping on the rate of colonization,
diversity, abundance, and biomass of benthic communities provide some information on rates of
recolonization as compared to shallow water systems. Some studies of deep-sea colonization
indicate that early colonies may occur in lower densities than the natural communities, even after
two years (Grassle and Morse-Porteous 1987), suggesting that deep-sea recruitment rates and
succession may operate very differently than those in shallow water. Also, observations of
repopulation at depths greater than 2,000 m in the Bay of Biscay have shown rapid colonization
within six months by opportunistic species resulting in abundances in experimental trays that
were five times higher than on the ambient bottom (Desbruyeres et al. 1980). These observations
suggest that some deep-water colonization shares attributes with shallow-water succession.
However, when organic-rich, shallow-water sediments were introduced into an oligotrophic deep-
water environment, some studies indicated inhibition of colonization (Desbruyeres et al. 1980)
while others showed a stimulatory or enhancement effect (Griggs et al. 1969; Jumars and Hessler
1976).
Predicting the responses of infaunal communities to disposal within the preferred and alternative
sites is difficult because of the wide range of results from the few relevant studies on
recolonization in deep-water environments. However, the dispersion modeling results indicate
that the impact of disposing 6 million yd3 of sand, silt, and clay over a period of one year at all
sites will result in most of the dredged material footprint being less than 10 cm thick. The only
part of the footprint that might be thick enough to cause extensive burial and mortality is the
relatively small central mound formed by rapidly settling cohesive material (see Figure 4.2-6).
Therefore the impact class for the central mound is estimated to be Class I for the preferred and
alternative sites (Table 4.1-1) and is expected to persist throughout the duration of site use.
4-54
-------
Infaunal communities at the preferred alternative site are expected to be significantly impacted
(Class I) in a localized area by dredged material disposal. Spionid polychaetes, which are
relatively common at this site, likely would be sensitive to sedimentation caused by burial, as
discussed above. However, because overall species richness and density is slightly lower at this
site (Section 3.3.2.1), the overall composite impact should be less than at Alternative Sites 3
and 4. Also, recovery or recolonization of the benthic populations at the preferred alternative site
following dredged material disposal might be slower than in Alternative Sites 3 and 4 because
the flux of organic material needed to provide food and stimulate reproductive processes in
benthic invertebrates is generally lower with increasing depth. The preferred alternative site is
approximately 1,200 m deeper than Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4.2.2.3 Epifauna
Predicting the effects of dredged material disposal on pelagic and deep-water demersal megafauna
is difficult because most studies on the impacts of dredged material have focused on infaunal
species assemblages and community characteristics in estuarine environments (Wainwright et al.
1992). Few studies have been conducted on megafaunal invertebrates, especially deep-sea species
such as those occurring at the preferred and alternative sites.
Following dredged material disposal, it is likely that relatively motile pelagic megafauna, such
as euphausiids, siphonophores, and various gelatinous species (cnidarians), would be most
affected by suspended sediments causing displacement through avoidance of, or escape behavior
from, the disposal plume. Although limited information is available concerning pelagic
megafauna within the general study region, some information can be extrapolated from midwater
trawls conducted by Bence et al. (1992) and from incidental catches in bottom trawls by SAIC
(1992b). In general, some pelagic species of cephalopods (not including market squid) were
found by Bence et al. (1992) at depths greater than 1,200 m, corresponding to depths similar to
those of the preferred and alternative sites. Other pelagic species, including euphausiids, are
patchy in their distributions within the sites (Bence et al. 1992). However, as noted above,
potential impacts to these pelagic species probably would be insignificant due to their distribution
over broad depth and geographic ranges and at least localized ability to avoid disposal plumes.
Similar to the potential impacts noted for infauna (Section 4.2.2.2), slow-moving epifaunal
invertebrates such as seastars and sea pens may become buried and smothered as dredged
material is deposited on the bottom within the alternative sites, while more motile benthic taxa
such as some crustaceans may be displaced as a result of escape responses. Also similar to the
infauna, recovery and recolonization of an impacted area will depend on the frequency and
severity of the disturbance and the species involved. Thus, recolonization is expected by
individuals able to escape burial, larval recruitment, and immigration from adjacent, undisturbed
areas (e.g., SAIC 1989b). Based on uncertainties and variability in the timing of these events,
some recovery may occur within hours to days, but full recovery could require a few years.
However, accumulation of dredged material should be localized, and there are no known
epifaunal species of limited geographic distribution within the preferred or alternative sites.
4-55
-------
Therefore, based on an assumption of significant but localized impacts, particularly to some slow-
moving epifauna, potential impacts (worst case) are projected to be Class I (Table 4.1-1).
There are few differences between the preferred alternative site and Alternative Sites 3 and 4 in
the taxonomic composition, density, and biomass of epifauna (Section 3.3.2.2). The predominant
species within the site (e.g., sea cucumbers, seastars, and brittlestars) are slow-moving and have
the greatest potential for burial and possible mortality. Therefore, potential, localized impacts
from dredged material disposal at the preferred alternative site are expected to be significant and
designated as Class I, persisting throughout the duration of site use.
4.2.2.4 Fishes
Information on direct impacts of dredged material disposal on fish communities is extremely
limited. Most studies on the effects of dredging and dredged material disposal on fish
communities have focused on larvae and eggs in estuarine environments (Auld and Schubel 1978;
Johnston and Wildish 1981). However, results from these studies suggest that if disposal of
dredged material does not significantly affect these sensitive life stages, then plankton, fishes, or
commercial fisheries also should be unaffected by disposal events.
Pelagic Species
During a disposal event, the greatest impact to pelagic fish species may be from increased
turbidity within the disposal plume, which may limit the feeding efficiency of visually-oriented
predators. However, most of the near-surface pelagic species characteristic of the preferred and
alternative sites are highly mobile species, such as juvenile rockfishes, salmon, tunas, and
mackerels (Section 3.3.3), which may actively avoid the disposal plume. Deep-water
mesopelagic and bathypelagic species such as deep-sea smelts and lantemfishes characteristic of
the region also should be able to avoid the disposal plume, although there are no specific studies
on avoidance behavior in these fishes. Therefore, it is estimated that potential impacts of dredged
material disposal on pelagic fishes will be insignificant and are designated as Class III.
Demersal Species
The number of demersal fish species, density, and biomass at the preferred and alternative sites
is relatively low (Section 3.3.3). Impacts from dredged material disposal are expected to be
insignificant, particularly due to the relatively high mobility of most species. Some relatively
sedentary demersal species such as eelpouts (Zoarcidae) may be less able to avoid burial from
rapidly accumulating sediments than more mobile species such as rattails (Macrouridae), which
may escape disposal areas entirely. These species also may be displaced from primary deposition
areas, but following recolonization by prey species, eventually may return to areas affected by
disposal. Therefore, because the preferred and alternative sites are located in relatively deep
water and have similar species composition with low fish densities and biomass, potential impacts
are estimated to be localized and insignificant (Class HI) (Table 4.1-1).
4-56
-------
The preferred alternative site has similar numbers and types of fishes as Alternative Sites 3 and 4
(Section 3.3.3). These include pelagic, offshore species such as salmon, tunas, and mackerels.
Pelagic species are expected to be least impacted by dredged material disposal due to their high
mobility. Alternatively, demersal species within the site such as codling and eelpouts, have lower
mobility, and thus are expected to be more impacted by disposal than pelagic species. However,
the relatively low numbers of demersal fish species and abundances found within the preferred
alternative site (Section 3.3.3) suggest that impacts will be minimal. Some feeding habitat may
be lost temporarily following disposal activities. However, demersal species should return to the
affected areas following recolonization by prey species. Overall, potential impacts of dredged
material disposal on fishes at the preferred alternative site are expected to be insignificant and
designated as Class III.
4.2.2.5 Marine Birds
Information concerning impacts of dredged material disposal to resident and migrating bird
populations is limited. Potential impacts may include ship-following behavior, temporary
reductions in prey items, and visual impairment of marine birds foraging in the vicinity of the
disposal plume.
It is common for many species of birds to follow ships. The regular occurrence of dredged
material barges and tugs transiting to and from the preferred alternative site may potentially
distract some marine birds from their normal feeding activities and/or passage routes. However,
the increase in vessel traffic created by dredged material barges is considered insignificant when
compared to existing ship traffic (Commander S. Tieman, U.S. Coast Guard, pers. comm. 1992).
It is anticipated that many pelagic prey organisms will exhibit various escape behaviors in
response to dredged material disposal. Thus, following a disposal event the immediate area may
contain temporarily reduced populations of some organisms, including juvenile rockfish,
anchovies, euphausiids, and squid, that are important prey items for marine birds that breed and
nest on the Farallon Islands (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990; Ainley and Allen 1992). Therefore,
foraging success of marine birds may be reduced temporarily following disposal activities.
However, because these prey species characteristically are patchy in their distribution (see
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.3), localized reductions in prey densities may not significantly affect
feeding behavior of marine birds in the region.
It has been suggested that reductions in water clarity following disposal operations may
temporarily inhibit feeding activities of marine birds that typically forage in surface waters (Navy
1993). Computer model results indicated that the finer silt-clay components of dredged material
may require up to approximately 48 hours to reach presumed background concentrations of
1 mg/1, and particle clouds could affect an area over 3,600 km2 (Section 4.2.1.4), thereby
potentially limiting the foraging efficiency of deeper water bird predators. In addition, attraction
of marine birds to positively buoyant particles remaining at the surface following disposal
suggests that some marine birds may expend substantial energy with limited prey acquisition.
However, dispersion modeling results indicated that mean plume depths increase with distance
4-57
-------
from the disposal site. Thus, significantly reduced clarity in surface waters likely is restricted
to the immediate release site. Further, permit conditions will ensure that dredged material
contains negligible quantities of buoyant (floatable) debris. Therefore, these potential impacts
should be localized and of relatively short duration; consequently, they are not expected to affect
significantly the breeding, feeding, or passage of marine birds that occur broadly throughout the
study region.
Based on the above information, dredged material disposal impacts on marine birds are
designated as Class III. The types of impacts are expected to be similar at the preferred and
alternative sites; therefore differences in disposal consequences to marine birds should be related
primarily to differences in the relative abundance of marine bird species within each site (see
Section 3.3.4).
The preferred alternative site is located approximately 25 nmi from the breeding and nesting
grounds of the Farallon Islands. As compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4, survey results suggest
that the preferred alternative site receives the highest use by marine birds (Section 3.3.4). Thus,
potential impacts (Class HI) to marine birds are expected to be greatest, but still insignificant,
at the preferred alternative site as compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4..
4.2.2.6 Marine Mammals
The potential impacts of dredged material disposal to marine mammals are expected to be similar
to those of marine birds. These impacts include temporary impairment of foraging activities
attributable to disturbances caused by disposal and subsequent reductions in water clarity (see
Section 4.2.2.5).
An additional potential impact may be alteration of marine mammal passage routes to avoid noise
from ship traffic or from increased water turbidity during or following disposal activities.
Further, noise may influence non-auditory physiology (Fletcher 1971), increasing the stress
response and lowering resistance to disease. Because ship noise levels correlate generally with
vessel size, speed, and load, larger, faster ships underway with full loads (or towing/pushing
loads) may emit more sound than smaller, slower, and lighter ships (Richardson 1991). In
addition, ships with older auxiliary equipment such as generators and compressors radiate more
noise than modern, well-maintained vessels (Richardson 1991). Some studies have suggested that
the noise associated with increased vessel traffic may affect marine mammal migration routes.
Specifically, it has been suggested that increased ship traffic in Japanese waters disturbed
migration routes of minke and Baird's beaked whales (Nishiwaki and Sasao 1977). Baleen
whales such as grays, humpbacks, and blues sometimes move quickly away from approaching
vessels, although there is little evidence that they are affected after the vessel has passed.
However, based on limited data, Richardson (1991) suggests that ship noise has little impact on
pinnipeds. Although vessel traffic may potentially impact marine mammals, the increase in ship
traffic attributable to dredged material barges is considered insignificant in relation to existing
traffic (Commander S. Tiernan, U.S. Coast Guard, pers. comm. 1992).
4-58
-------
Dohl et al. (1983) indicated that gray whales may change their course to avoid turbid plumes
caused by run-off from rivers and bays. Similarly, experiments with dolphins (Tursiops
truncatas) suggested that they were able to detect and avoid oil patches using echolocation,
especially if air bubbles were present in the patch (Geraci and St. Aubin 1987). Thus, it is
possible that marine mammals capable of detecting differences in water turbidity may alter their
route to avoid a disposal area.
However, vessel noise and plume impacts to marine mammals are temporary and localized to the
immediate vicinity of the disposal site, and are not expected to affect breeding, nursery, or
feeding areas for adults or juveniles. Thus, potential impacts to marine mammals are
characterized as Class III (Table 4.1-1). These potential impacts are similar for the preferred and
alternative sites. As described for marine birds, differences in potential disposal effects on
marine mammals are based on comparisons of their relative abundances within each of the sites
(see Section 3.3.5).
Survey results suggest that the preferred alternative site receives the highest use by marine
mammals (Section 3.3.5) as compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4. Thus, impacts to marine
mammals are expected to be greatest but still insignificant at the preferred alternative site as
compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4.2.2.7 Threatened. Endangered, and Special Status Species
As described in Section 3.3.6, eight known threatened or endangered species occur somewhat
regularly in the general study region. These include four whale species (humpback, blue,
finback, and sperm), one pinniped species (northern sea lion), two bird species (peregrine falcon
and California brown pelican), and one fish species (winter-run chinook salmon).
Potential impacts of dredged material disposal on whale and pinniped species may include
temporary impairment of feeding activities and avoidance of barge vessels and the disposal
plume, as described in Section 4.2.2.6. Impacts to peregrine falcon include the potential for ship
following behavior which may affect normal feeding or passage activities. California brown
pelican and winter-run chinook salmon populations occur primarily over the continental shelf (see
Section 3.3.6), and thus are not expected to be significantly impacted by disposal activities within
any of the sites.
Due to the temporary nature and localized spatial distribution of disposal activities, potential
impacts to area endangered species are estimated to be insignificant (Class III). The types of
potential impacts are expected to be similar at the preferred and alternative sites. However,
differences in disposal consequences between sites can be identified based on the relative
abundances of threatened or endangered species at the alternative sites (See Section 3.3.6) as
described below.
Compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4, the preferred alternative site is a relatively high use area
for threatened or endangered marine bird and mammal species (Section 3.3.6). Therefore,
4-59
-------
potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are expected to be higher but still
insignificant at the preferred alternative site than at Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4.2.2.8 Marine Sanctuaries
Six designated national marine sanctuaries, refuges, or special biological resource areas occur
within the study region. One or more of these areas lies within 5 nmi of the preferred and
alternative sites (Section 3.3.7). These areas contain a wide variety of sensitive habitats and
biological resources including threatened and endangered species.
Disposal of dredged material from San Francisco Bay will not occur within the boundaries of any
of the national marine sanctuaries, refuges, or areas of special biological significance. However,
because the dredged material barges must transit through one or more of the marine sanctuaries
to reach any of the sites, accidents or overflow from the barges could result in inadvertent
releases of dredged material within sanctuary boundaries.
The volumes of dredged material released by single or isolated incidences likely would be small
(e.g., 3,000 yd3 for a single barge load) and environmental consequences would depend on
location of the discharge, rate and direction of plume dispersion, and specific resources in the
path of dispersing material. Dredged material released within or immediately adjacent to a
sensitive habitat, and repeated discharges over a longer time period, could result in more
significant environmental impacts. However, the probability of these circumstances will be
reduced or mitigated by specifying that barges use specific transit routes that avoid sensitive
habitats (Class II impact).
The Farallon Islands lie in the direct route of barges transiting from San Francisco Bay to the
preferred alternative site. Accidental discharge or overflow of dredged material near the Farallon
Islands should be avoided as specified in permit conditions. Mitigative measures as discussed
above indicate that potential disposal impacts at the preferred alternative site are Class II.
4.2.3 Effects on Socioeconomic Environment
The following sections discuss the potential consequences of the proposed action on the
socioeconomic environment associated with the preferred and alternative site. Resources
addressed include commercial fishing, commercial and recreational shipping, mineral and oil and
gas development, military usage, recreational activities, cultural resources, and public health and
welfare.
4.2.3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fishing
Analysis of the MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992) and CDFG Recreational
Fisheries Database (1992) indicated that the majority of commercial and recreational fisheries are
located predominantly in the continental shelf region. Extremely limited fishing activity occurs
over the slope areas corresponding to the preferred and alternative sites (Section 3.4.1). The
4-60
-------
commercial fishery data suggest that some minor catches of tunas, mackerels, and some flatfishes
were taken from the region of Alternative Sites 3 and 4, while tunas and mackerels were taken
in low numbers in the region of the preferred alternative site (MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries
Database 1992).
Most species targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen in offshore areas such as the
alternative sites are fast-moving pelagic fishes such as salmon, tunas, and mackerels. According
to Bence et al. (1992), juvenile rockfishes are abundant offshore in the preferred and alternative
sites but are somewhat more abundant in the region of the preferred alternative site. However,
because all the sites are located far offshore (e.g., 45 to 55 nmi), where most commercial and
recreational fishing is limited, and because these species are mobile and should be able to avoid
the disposal plumes, there should not be any significant impacts to these fisheries at any of the
sites. Therefore, impacts are considered to be Class HI.
Historical catches within the region of the preferred alternative site are somewhat lower than
those for the regions of Alternative Sites 3 and 4. Thus, potential fishery impacts at Alternative
Site 5 may be relatively lower as compared to Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4.2.3.2 Commercial Shipping
The preferred and alternative sites are located outside of designated commercial vessel traffic
lanes and away from any restricted passage areas, precautionary zones, or anchorages for
commercial shipping. Dredged material barges using an ODMDS would represent additional
vessel traffic within the study region. However, the magnitude of this additional ship traffic is
expected to be negligible (Section 3.4.3), representing a Class III impact that is not expected to
vary significantly between sites. Furthermore, because the ultimate purpose of dredging
operations is to provide adequate water depths and access to vessel traffic for channels and berths
within the Bay, the proposed action could be considered a Class IV (beneficial effect) impact.
4.2.3.3 Mineral or Energy Development
As discussed in Section 3.4.5, no oil and gas development activities occur within the general
region of the preferred or alternative sites, and the closest potential lease blocks are more than
200 miles from the sites. This is based on current moratoriums on development, and present
technological limitations which restrict these activities to depths shallower than approximately
300 to 400 m (Section 3.4.5). The average depth at the preferred alternative site is over 2,000 m.
Further, because of the deep bottom depths at the sites, no other mineral development activities
are likely to occur. Therefore, use of any of the sites for dredged material disposal will not
interfere with or impact existing mineral resources or energy development operations in the
foreseeable future (Class III impact).
4-61
-------
4.2.3.4
Military Usage
Military usage of the LTMS study region, including areas in the vicinity of the preferred and
alternative sites, is considered to be significant (Section 3.4.4). In particular, submarine operating
areas are delineated near but outside of Alternative Sites 3, 4, and 5 (Figure 2.1-5). With
exception of operating area U1 which is used infrequently, submarine operating areas U2 through
U5 are used by the Navy an average of 10 days per month for trial diving exercises and
post-overhaul checkouts. However, because the preferred and alternative sites are located outside
of the operating areas, dredged material disposal at any of the sites is expected to have negligible
impacts (Class III) on military operations in the region. Use of an ODMDS is not expected to
interfere with any other military vessel traffic or training exercises. Although the preferred
alternative lies near submarine operating area U4, use of the site for dredged material disposal
is not expected to adversely impact military activities (Class III impact).
4.2.3.5 Recreational Activities
Recreational activities in the general vicinity of the preferred and alternative sites are centered
around the Farallon Islands. Although specific data are unavailable, recreational activities such
as sailing, fishing, or whale watching, within the boundaries of the alternative sites are generally
infrequent (Section 3.4.6). Therefore, potential impacts from use of the alternative sites for
dredged material disposal are considered insignificant. Potential effects of dredged material barge
traffic on recreational boating or fishing within the vicinity of the Farallon Islands could be
mitigated by requiring barges to stay within defined traffic lanes and avoid the areas immediately
around the Farallon Islands.
Of the three alternative sites, the preferred alternative lies closest to the Farallon Islands. Thus,
relative to Alternative Sites 3 and 4, potential impacts to recreational activities may be greatest
at the preferred alternative site. However, as noted, restricting dredged material barges to
specified traffic lanes will mitigate potential impacts (Class II).
4.2.3.6 Cultural and Historical Resources
As discussed in Section 3.4.7, no known shipwrecks of cultural or historical importance, or other
man-made cultural or historical resources, are located within the immediate vicinity of the
preferred or alternative sites. Therefore, designation of an ODMDS is not expected to have any
significant effect on historical resources. Oceanic tours or expeditions by wildlife and naturalists
groups are concentrated around the Farallon Islands and Cordell Banks. Potential interferences
from dredged material disposal operations would be limited to minor navigational conflicts with
dredged material barges in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands. However, these potential
interferences could be mitigated by specifying barge transit lanes that avoid the vicinity of the
Islands. Therefore, these potential impacts are considered Class II.
4-62
-------
4.2.3.7
Public Health and Welfare
There are no obvious impacts to public health and welfare associated with the designation of an
ODMDS (Class III). Collisions between a dredged material barge and a commercial or
recreational vessel, or operation of a dredged material barge in the Gulf of the Farallones during
extreme weather conditions, could endanger human lives. However, these events are expected
to be rare (Section 3.4.3). Conversely, maintenance dredging of navigational channels within San
Francisco Bay supports the continued operation of several ports and, consequently, promotes local
and regional commerce.
Potential impacts to public health and welfare associated with disposal at the preferred alternative
site are insignificant (Class III) due to the projected rare occurrence of vessel collisions near the
site.
4.3 No-Action Alternative
As stated in the Purpose of and Need for Action (Section 1.2), it is the intent of this EIS to
identify and designate an ODMDS that is suitable for approved Federal and permitted dredging
projects. Selection of the No-Action alternative would not fulfill the LTMS goal of providing
a long-term, multi-user ODMDS for disposal of dredged material from San Francisco Bay. In
the absence of a designated ODMDS, or Section 103 interim ODMDS, other disposal options,
such as within the Bay or at nonaquatic sites, would be required for dredged material.
Alternatively, planned dredging would have to be delayed until a suitable disposal option is
identified. Cessation of dredging would result in shoaling within the main shipping channels,
thus impairing and potentially endangering shipping operations within the Bay, with associated
impacts on the economy of the region and the logistical needs of the Navy (COE 1990b).
Selection of the No-Action Alternative per se would result in no impacts or changes to the
existing environmental conditions at the preferred or alternative sites due to dredged material
disposal operations. However, the consequences of the No-Action Alternative may cause varying
environmental impacts. For example, non-ocean disposal options, such as the use of sites within
the Bay or nonaquatic sites also would result in location-specific environmental impacts. At this
time, the ability of non-ocean sites to receive the volume of dredged material planned for the next
50 years is not known. However, the nature and extent of potential impacts at nonaquatic sites
and sites within the Bay presently are being evaluated by the In-Bay and Nonaquatic/Reuse
LTMS Work Groups. Disposal of dredged material at a Section 103 ocean disposal site would
result in some impacts on conditions at the Section 103 Site, although the magnitude of these
impacts would depend on the volume and characteristics of the dredged material and the physical
and biological conditions at the particular site.
Selection of the No-Action Alternative would preclude the use of ocean disposal as a long-term
management option and would result in a failure to meet LTMS objectives, with unknown
consequences (COE 1992a). Therefore, EPA proposes to designate an ODMDS based on the
preferred alternative described in this DEIS.
4-63
-------
4.4
Other Ocean Disposal Alternatives
This section describes the potential environmental consequences of dredged material disposal at
Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4.4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
These sections address potential effects of dredged material disposal at the other ocean disposal
alternatives on regional meteorology and air quality, physical oceanography, water quality, and
sediment quality.
4.4.1.1 Air Quality
Potential impacts to regional air quality associated with dredged material disposal at Alternative
Sites 3 and 4 were evaluated using the same EPA air quality model and assumptions as
summarized in Section 4.2.1.1 for the preferred alternative site. As noted for the preferred
alternative site, no significant effects on air quality were indicated along the anticipated route of
the barges transporting dredged material to Alternative Sites 3 and 4 (Table 4.2-1), therefore
representing a Class ID impact
4.4.1.2 Physical Oceanography
Similar to the preferred alternative site, the use of Alternative Sites 3 and 4 would not have any
measurable effect on the regional or site-specific physical oceanographic conditions, and therefore
is predicted to represent a Class III impact. The prevailing oceanographic processes will strongly
influence the dispersion and long-term fate of dredged material discharged at the alternative sites.
The overall circulation patterns that would affect disposal activities are summarized in
Section 4.2.1.2.
In general, poleward current flows are typical of the upper 1,000 m of the water column over
most of the year, with the strongest flows over the inner slope region, including the general area
of Alternative Sites 3 and 4 (Section 3.2.2). Near-bottom currents in the vicinity of Alternative
Site 3 (Mooring D) were characterized by relatively low speeds and thus were less likely to erode
sediments than currents measured at Station E near the eastern boundary of Study Area 5
(Section 3.2.2). No specific information from the current meter program is available for
Alternative Site 4. Based on the data presented in Section 3.2.2, it is very unlikely that
upwelling would be a significant mechanism at either of the alternatives to transport dredged
material from slope to shelf environments.
4-64
-------
4.4.1.3
Water Quality
Potential impacts on water quality from dredged material disposal at Alternative Sites 3 and 4
were addressed by disposal plume modeling (SAIC 1992e), as discussed in Section 4.2.1.3 for
the preferred alternative. Similar to the preferred alternative, changes in water quality such as
localized increases in turbidity, reductions in light transmittance, and increases in dissolved and
particulate concentrations of trace contaminants that could result from dredged material disposal
are expected to be transient, and therefore represent Class III impacts.
Alternative Site 3
Results from the water quality model (SAIC 1992e) indicated that dredged material plumes
comprising class 1 through class 6 particles would disperse over areas of 13 to 7,855 km2 in the
vicinity of the site, (assuming a conservative background suspended particle concentration of
1 mg/1, conservative dispersion rates, and conservative initial and background concentrations;
Table 4.2-3). The mean plume visitation frequencies over these affected areas would range from
approximately 1 to 4%, and the predicted maximum exposure times would range from 1.0 to 42
hours for individual particle size classes. The mean cloud depth over the affected area for
individual particle size classes would range from 54 m for clay-silt particles to approximately
1,300 m for fine and medium sand particles (Table 4.2-3). The areas affected and the water
column residence times would be expected to vary as a function of the particle size. Larger
particles with higher sinking rates would have shorter residence times and deeper cloud depths.
In contrast, smaller particles with lower sinking rates would have longer residence times and
shallower cloud depths because stronger and more variable near-surface currents would disperse
the plumes over relatively larger areas. Dredged material disposal at Alternative Site 3 would
be expected to result in concentrations from approximately 1 to 2 mg/1 of fine-grained (class 6)
suspended particles at the MBNMS boundary for 0.2 to 5% of the discharge events, and
concentrations from approximately 1 to 2 mg/1 of fine-grained particles at the GOFNMS
boundary for 1 to 5% of the discharge events. Particle concentrations at the CBNMS boundary
were not expected to be elevated above background concentrations (Figure 4.2-4). Clouds of
larger dredged material particles would not be expected to cross any of the sanctuary boundaries.
Based on the above information, effects on water quality from dredged material disposal at
Alternative Site 3 are considered Class HI because the plumes are expected to disperse within
48 hours of discharge, no build-up or accumulation of particles within the water column is
expected, and changes to water quality parameters (e.g., turbidity, light transmittance, dissolved
oxygen concentrations) are expected to be transient and localized within the discharge plume.
Disposal operations should have insignificant effects on concentrations of contaminants in the
water column, given that only dredged material meeting Green Book criteria (EPA/COE 1991)
will be permitted for disposal at the ODMDS.
4-65
-------
Alternative Site 4
The water quality model results (SAIC 1992e) indicated that disposal plumes comprising class
1 through class 6 particles would affect areas up to 7,708 km2, although the mean visitation
frequency over this area would range from approximately 1 to 5% (Table 4.2-3). The mean
cloud depth would vary from 55 to 1,511 m, and the maximum exposure time would range from
approximately 1.0 to 43 hours. Use of Alternative Site 4 would result in concentrations from
approximately 1 to 2 mg/1 of fine-grained particles at the GOFNMS and MBNMS boundaries for
approximately 0.2 to 1.0% of the discharge events (Figure 4.2-5). Clouds of coarser panicles
would not be expected to reach the sanctuary boundaries. Effects on water quality from dredged
material disposal at Alternative Site 4 are considered Class HI, similar to those discussed for
Alternative Site 3.
4.4.1.4 Geology and Sediment Characteristics
Potential impacts on sediment characteristics from dredged material disposal at Alternative Sites
3 and 4 were evaluated by deposition modeling (SAIC 1992e) as discussed in Section 4.2.1.4 for
the preferred alternative site. Specific effects of dredged material disposal on long-term changes
to the grain size and chemical characteristics of the bottom sediments cannot be determined
quantitatively. Although localized and extended impacts to grain size may be expected,
significant effects on sediment quality would not be anticipated, given that only dredged material
of suitable quality will be approved for disposal at an ODMDS.
Alternative Site 3
The deposition model (SAIC 1992e) calculated that disposal of 6 million yd3 over a one-year
period at Alternative Site 3 would result in bottom deposits of clay-silt and mostly sand material
with thicknesses greater than 1 mm covering areas of approximately 360 and 620 km2,
respectively. The maximum deposit thicknesses for these material types would be approximately
730 and 62 mm, respectively, and the mean deposit thicknesses over these areas would be 7.9
and 4.5 mm, respectively. The model-predicted bottom deposit with thicknesses greater than or
equal to 100 mm would cover an area of 5.91 km2 based on a discharge of 6 million yd' of clay-
silt materials over a one-year period.
Clay-silt material would produce the greatest thickness (approximately 70 cm) near the disposal
site center due to deposition of rapidly-settling clumps. The maximum thickness of mostly sand
material is an order of magnitude lower (approximately 60 mm). Because the alternative site
boundaries were defined to encompass the 10 mm deposit thickness contour for clay-silt material
(Section 2.2), deposits of both clay-silt and mostly sandy material with thicknesses greater than
10 mm would, by definition, be contained within site boundaries.
Deposition of dredged material could result in a significant localized alteration of the bottom
sediment grain size properties (Class I impact; Table 4.1-1). The extent of this alteration would
depend on the grain size distribution of the dredged material. Although it is desirable to
4-66
-------
minimize these differences, it is likely that some of the material disposed at the ODMDS would
contain sand-sized sediments that do not occur naturally at the site. This impact would be
expected to persist at least for the duration of the site use, assuming continuous disposal
schedules. Subsequent return to pre-disposal conditions could result from extended interruption
of disposal operations and natural particle deposition, dispersion, and mixing processes
(Section 4.2.2.2). Contours for the model-predicted 1 mm and 10 mm deposit thicknesses
extended towards the northwest (Figure 4.2-7), but there was no indication that these deposits
would affect Pioneer Seamount (to the west of Alternative Site 3) or other hard-bottom features
that might occur in the vicinity of the site.
Effects from dredged material disposal on the chemical characteristics of the site sediments
cannot be determined accurately because the organic content and trace contaminant concentrations
in the dredged material are not known. Conclusions that disposal operations at Alternative Site 3
would represent a Class III impact on sediment quality assume that the dredged material has
satisfied Green Book testing criteria designed to establish that the material is of suitable quality
for ocean disposal (EPA/COE 1991).
Alternative Site 4
The deposition model (SAIC 1992e) predicted that disposal of 6 million yd3 per year of clay-silt
and mostly sand type material at Alternative Site 4 would result in bottom deposits with
thicknesses greater than 1 mm covering areas of 280 and 500 km2, respectively. The maximum
deposit thicknesses for these material types would be approximately 790 and 69 mm,
respectively, and the mean deposit thickness over these areas would be 9.8 and 5.2 mm,
respectively. The model-predicted bottom deposit with thicknesses greater than or equal to 100
mm would cover an area of 5.88 km2 based on a discharge of 6 million yd3 of clay-silt materials
over a one-year period.
Effects from dredged material disposal at Alternative Site 4 on sediment grain size also are
expected to represent a Class I impact. This impact also would be relatively localized (i.e.,
corresponding approximately to the 10 mm footprint contour), but would persist for the duration
of site use assuming a continuous disposal schedule. Deposits with thicknesses between 1 and
10 mm would extend in a northwest direction beyond the site boundaries (Figure 4.2.7). The
extent of hard-bottom features in the adjacent portion of Pioneer Canyon presently is not known.
Regardless, it is unlikely that deposition of dredged material at a rate of 1 to 10 mm per year on
a hard substrate would have a significant impact on an attached epifaunal community which
might occur within the area (e.g., Lissner et al. 1991). Effects on sediment quality are considered
a Class III impact, as noted above for Alternative Site 3, and similar to the magnitude of effects
at Alternative Sites 3 and 5.
4-67
-------
4.4.2
Effects on Biological Environment
The following sections discuss the potential consequences of the proposed action on the
biological environments of Alternative Sites 3 and 4.
4.4.2.1 Plankton
As noted for the preferred alternative (Section 4.2.2.1), impacts on plankton from rapidly settling
dredged material particles such as sand and clay-silt aggregates are expected to be minimal
because of relatively limited exposure times (minutes to hours). Longer exposure times and
potentially greater impacts would be expected from slower-settling, fine-grained particles which
may concentrate more in regions of neutral buoyancy, such as the pycnocline. However, based
on the transient nature of the dredged material plume and the characteristically high seasonal and
annual variability in plankton communities, overall impacts are expected to be insignificant and
classified as Class III.
Alternative Site 3
Significant seasonal and annual variations in productivity, standing crop, and species composition
of plankton communities are evident from existing data of the general study region
(Section 3.3.1). Phytoplankton and zooplankton (including ichthyoplankton) abundances vary
seasonally, but are highest inshore of Alternative Site 3 and the lower slope environment.
Therefore, no significant effects (Class III) on plankton from the proposed action are expected
at this site (Table 4.1-1).
Alternative Site 4
Based on existing data on plankton communities of the general study region, no differences can
be distinguished in the productivity, standing crop, or species composition between Alternative
Sites 3 and 4. Therefore, potential impacts to plankton at this site also are classified as
insignificant (Class HI).
4.4.2.2 Infauna
As described in Section 4.2.2.2, potential impacts to infauna following dredged material disposal
include burial and smothering, and will be influenced by the frequency and severity of
disturbance and the capacity for species recolonization after the disposal event. Extensive burial
would be expected within a relatively small, central mound at each of the sites regardless of
which alternative was selected. Thus, relative differences in potential impacts are based on
differences in infaunal compositions and densities within each of the sites.
4-68
-------
Alternative Site 3
Burial and mortality of infauna at Alternative Site 3 are expected to be significant (Class I)
within the boundary of the 10 cm depositional area (e.g., up to 5.91 km2 for a discharge of
6 million yd3 per year) as noted in Table 4.1-1 and Figure 4.2-7. No species that are known to
be unique to the area or geographically limited in distribution are found at this site or at
Alternative Sites 4 or 5. However, the high abundances of filter-feeding amphipods found in
Alternative Site 3, among other deep-water parts of Study Area 3, were not found at any other
sampled locations within the study region. Overall infaunal densities are similar to Alternative
Site 4, but slightly higher than Alternative Site 5 (Section 3.3.2.1). Therefore, the impacts of
dredged material disposal at Alternative Site 3 are expected to be similar to those at Alternative
Site 4 but somewhat greater than those at Alternative Site 5 due to the relative differences in
infaunal densities.
Alternative Site 4
Similar to Alternative Site 3, impacts of dredged material disposal at Alternative Site 4 are
expected to be significant (e.g., over an area up to 5.88 km2 for a discharge of 6 million yd3 per
year) (Class 1) but localized. Based on infaunal densities (Section 3.3.2.1) the impacts at
Alternative Sites 3 and 4 are expected to be similar but somewhat higher than at Alternative
Site 5. However, Alternative Site 4 does not contain high abundances of filter-feeding
amphipods as found at Alternative Site 3.
4.4.2.3 Epifauna
Disposal impacts to slow-moving epifaunal species such as seastars and sea pens are expected
to be more significant as compared to impacts on more mobile species (e.g., many crustaceans)
which may respond to disposal events with various escape behaviors (see Section 4.2.2.3).
Although the taxonomic compositions of epifaunal species are similar at the preferred alternative
site and Alternative Sites 3 and 4, overall density and biomass of epifauna species at the
preferred alternative site can be characterized as low. Localized burial of epifauna would occur
at each of the sites within the 10 cm depositional contour. Thus, potential impacts are projected
to be Class I at each alternative site.
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 contains relatively high numbers of species, abundances, and biomass of
epifaunal organisms (Section 3.3.2.2). Predominant species, including sea cucumbers, seastars,
and brittlestars, are all slow-moving and would have the greatest potential for burial and possible
mortality. Based on this assumption and the conservative nature of the modeling, impacts are
estimated to be significant (Class I) and localized within the 10 cm depositional boundary at this
site, and are expected to persist throughout the duration of site use.
4-69
-------
Alternative Site 4
Similar to Alternative Sites 3 and 5, impacts of dredged material disposal at Alternative Site 4
are expected to be significant (Class I) but localized. This is based on similar epifaunal species
and densities at these sites (Section 3.3.2.2).
4.4.2.4 Fishes
Potential impacts to pelagic fishes following disposal activities could include a decrease in
feeding efficiency and an increase in avoidance behavior (Section 4.2.2.4). Potential disposal
impacts to demersal species could include burial (for relatively sedentary species), displacement,
and temporary habitat loss. However, because fish densities and biomass within the alternative
sites are relatively low and populations are widely dispersed throughout the region, potential
impacts are estimated to be insignificant (Class HI).
Alternative Site 3
Pelagic fishes such as salmon, tunas, and mackerels that occur in offshore areas such as
Alternative Site 3 should not be impacted due to their high mobility (Class III). Moreover, this
site contains relatively low numbers of demersal fish species and abundances (Section 3.3.3).
Although some feeding habitat may be temporarily lost following a disposal event, demersal
fishes are expected to return to these affected areas after a disposal event. Most species at this
site should be able to avoid impacted areas and would not be affected significantly by dredged
material disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are designated as Class ID.
Alternative Site 4
The number of species, densities, and biomass of fishes in Alternative Site 4 is similar to
Alternative Site 3 (Section 3.3.3); therefore, potential impacts of dredged material disposal at
Alternative Site 4 also are expected to be insignificant and classified as Class in.
4.4.2.5 Marine Birds
Potential impacts on marine birds from dredged material disposal are discussed in Section 4.2.2.5.
These impacts are expected to be similar and insignificant at the preferred and alternative sites.
Therefore, the discussion of differences in disposal consequences to marine birds focuses on
abundances of marine bird species within each site (see Section 3.3.4).
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 is located approximately 25 nmi from the Farallon Islands, an important
breeding, nesting, and feeding area for marine birds (Section 3.3.4). The combined results from
recent survey efforts (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990; Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and
Szczepaniak 1992) indicate that Alternative Site 3 receives relatively higher use by marine birds
4-70
-------
as compared to Alternative Site 4 but lower use than the preferred alternative site (Section 3.3.4).
Thus, the extent of potential impacts to marine birds occurring at Alternative Site 3 may be
relatively greater than at Alternative Site 4 and relatively less than at the preferred alternative
site. However, based on the transient nature of potential impacts, overall effects are estimated
to be insignificant and designated as Class HI.
Alternative Site 4
Of the three alternative sites, Alternative Site 4 is located the greatest distance (approximately
30 nmi) from the Farallon Islands breeding and nesting grounds. In contrast to Alternative Site 3
and the preferred alternative site, survey results for Alternative Site 4 indicate that it is a
relatively low use area for marine birds (Section 3.3.4). Therefore, it is expected that fewer
potential impacts (Class III) to marine birds would occur at Alternative Site 4 than at the
preferred alternative or Alternative Site 3.
4.4.2.6 Marine Mammals
Potential impacts on marine mammals from dredged material disposal are discussed in Section
4.2.2.6. These impacts are expected to be similar and insignificant at the preferred and
alternative sites. Thus, as for marine birds, differences in potential disposal effects on marine
mammals are based on relative abundances of marine mammal species within each site (see
Section 3.3.5).
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 does not appear to be within an important marine mammal passage area,
although it may be important as a feeding ground for some marine pinnipeds (Section 3.3.5).
The combined results from historic (Bonnell et al. 1983; Dohl et al. 1983) and recent marine
mammal surveys (Ainley and Allen 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak 1992) indicate that Alternative
Site 3 receives intermediate use by marine mammals as compared to lower use of Alternative
Sites 4 and higher use of the preferred alternative (Section 3.3.5). Therefore, although impacts
at the alternative sites can be defined as Class III, based on the transient nature of potential
effects, disposal impacts on marine mammals are expected to be greater at Alternative Site 3 than
at Alternative Site 4, but less than at the preferred alternative site.
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 is not located in close proximity to marine mammal breeding or feeding
grounds or important passage areas (Section 3.3.5). In contrast to Alternative Site 3 and the
preferred alternative, survey results indicate that Alternative Site 4 is a low use area for marine
mammals (Section 3.3.5). Thus, potential impacts on marine mammals are expected to be lower
(Class III) within Alternative Site 4 as compared to Alternative Site 3 and the preferred
alternative site.
4-71
-------
4.4.2.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species
As discussed in Section 4.2.2.7, the types of potential impacts to threatened and endangered
species are expected to be similar and insignificant at each of the alternative sites. Thus,
differences in disposal consequences to these species are based on their relative abundances
within each site.
Alternative Site 3
Compared to Alternative Site 4 and the preferred alternative, Alternative Site 3 is an intermediate
use area for endangered cetacean and threatened pinniped species, but it is a relatively low use
area for endangered marine bird and fish species (Section 3.3.6). Therefore, the magnitude of
potential impacts at Alternative Site 3 is expected to be greater than at Alternative Site 4 but less
than at the preferred alternative site. However, as noted for marine birds and mammals, the
transient nature of potential effects represents insignificant impacts (Class III).
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 is a relatively low use area for threatened or endangered marine mammals,
birds, and fish (Section 3.3.6). Therefore, the magnitude of potential impacts to threatened or
endangered species is expected to be lowest at Alternative Site 4 (Class ID) as compared to
Alternative Site 3 and the preferred alternative site.
4.4.2.8 Marine Sanctuaries
As discussed in Section 4.2.2.8, there are six national marine sanctuaries, refuges, or special
biological resource areas within the study region. These areas contain sensitive habitats in
addition to some biological species that are threatened or endangered (Section 3.3.7). Although
disposal of dredged material will not occur within any of these sensitive areas, there is some
concern that accidental overflow or discharge of dredged material in the vicinity of sensitive
areas may occur as dredged material barges transit to the disposal site. EPA and COE will
address these concerns through the site management and monitoring plan and special conditions
on permits for individual dredging projects. Therefore, potential impacts at the alternative sites
are expected to be Class II (significant adverse impacts that can be mitigated to insignificance).
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 is located south of the GOFNMS and west of MBNMS. Dredged material
barges must pass through one or both of these sanctuaries en route to and from this site. To
reduce or mitigate potential impacts caused by accidental overflow of dredged material from the
barges, specific transit routes will be identified that avoid sensitive areas within the sanctuaries
(e.g., Farallon Islands). Therefore, impacts at Alternative Site 3 are considered Class II.
4-72
-------
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 is located in a similar position as Alternative Site 3 (i.e., south of the
GOFNMS and west of MBNMS). Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive habitats within
sanctuaries from use of Alternative Site 4 also are designated Class II because specific transit
routes will be identified that avoid sensitive areas.
4.4.3 Effects on Socioeconomic Environment
4.4.3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fishing
As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1, the potential impacts of dredged material disposal on pelagic and
demersal fisheries are limited due to the high mobility of pelagic fishes that may avoid disposal
plumes, location of many demersal fish species inshore of the alternative sites, and overall
historical record of limited catches within any of the sites.
Alternative Site 3
In the vicinity of Alternative Site 3, most of the commercially and recreationally important
pelagic fishes, such as tunas and mackerels, are expected to be able to avoid dredged material
discharges. Therefore, the impacts on fisheries for pelagic species would be negligible
(Class III). Similarly, fisheries for demersal fishes, including some flatfishes, are located
primarily inshore of Alternative Site 3 (Section 3.4.1), indicating that potential impacts to these
species also would be insignificant (Class III).
Alternative Site 4
Commercial and recreational fishery resources in the region of Alternative Site 4 are very similar
to those of Alternative Site 3. Therefore, potential impacts are expected to be Class III, because
targeted pelagic species should be able to avoid disposal plumes, and the majority of demersal
fishery resources are located inshore of the alternative sites.
4.4.3.2 Commercial Shipping
All of the alternative sites lie outside of designated commercial vessel traffic lanes (see Section
4.2.3.2). The additional vessel traffic represented by dredged material barges transiting to and
from an ODMDS is expected to be negligible (Commander S. Tiernan, U.S. Coast Guard, pers.
comm. 1992) (Class III) and is expected to vary only slightly among sites.
4-73
-------
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 is located outside of commercial vessel traffic lanes. Therefore, impacts to
commercial shipping activities created by use of an ODMDS are considered to be Class III.
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 also is located outside of commercial traffic lanes. Therefore, similar to
Alternative Site 3, potential impacts on commercial shipping activities are considered to be
Class III.
4.4.3.3 Mineral or Energy Development
Mineral or energy development activities are currently restricted to depths less than
approximately 400 m, whereas bottom depths at the alternative sites are greater than
approximately 1,500 m (Section 3.4.5). In addition, the closest potential oil and gas lease block
is located over 200 miles from the alternative sites. Therefore, use of either of the alternative
sites for dredged material disposal is not expected to interfere with existing mineral resources or
energy development activities (Class IE impact).
Alternative Site 3
Due to its deep depths (approximately 1,500 m) and its distant location (over 200 miles) from
the closest potential lease block, impacts to mineral or energy development attributable to
dredged material disposal at Alternative Site 3 are considered to be Class in.
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 also is located in deep water (greater than 1,500 m) and is over 200 miles from
the nearest potential lease block. Therefore, impacts to potential mineral or energy development
activities also are considered to be Class EI.
4.4.3.4 Military Usage
As discussed in Section 4.2.3.4, military activities within the study region are primarily focused
on exercises conducted within five submarine operating areas. All of these areas lie outside of
the alternative site boundaries. Thus, use of an ODMDS site is not expected to interfere with
military activities (Class III).
4-74
-------
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 is located over 10 nmi from the nearest submarine operating area (U2).
Therefore, impacts on military activities related to dredged material disposal at Alternative Site
3 are considered to be negligible (Class III).
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 also is located over 10 nmi from the nearest submarine operating area (U5).
Similar to Alternative Site 3, impacts of disposal operations on military activities are considered
to be Class III.
4.4.3.5 Recreational Activities
Most of the recreational activities (sailing, whale watching, and fishing) within the study region
occur around the Farallon Islands (see Section 4.2.3.5). Such activities are infrequent within any
of the alternative sites. In addition, the restriction of dredged material barges to specified traffic
lanes will ensure that interferences between barges and recreational users of the Farallon Islands
will be minimized. Thus, potential disposal impacts on recreational activities are considered
negligible (Class HI).
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 is located over 20 nmi from the Farallon Islands. Therefore, as noted above,
potential disposal impacts on recreational activities are considered to be Class HI.
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 is located over 30 nmi from the Farallon Islands. Thus, similar to Alternative
Site 3, potential impacts are classified as Class IE.
4.4.3.6 Cultural and Historical Resources
No known cultural or historical resources exist within the alternative sites. Wildlife and
naturalist tours are concentrated around the Farallon Islands and Cordell Bank (at least 20 nmi
from the alternative sites). Therefore, potential impacts should be limited to possible navigational
conflicts between dredged material barges and naturalist vessels. However, these conflicts will
be mitigated by specification of barge traffic lanes that avoid the Farallon Islands region, thus
representing a negligible impact (Class III).
4-75
-------
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 3 is located over 20 nmi from the Farallon Islands. Therefore, potential disposal
impacts on cultural and historical resources are considered insignificant (Class III).
Alternative Site 4
Alternative Site 4 is located over 30 nmi from the Farallon Islands. Thus, similar to Alternative
Site 3, potential disposal impacts are considered insignificant (Class III).
4.4.3.7 Public Health and Welfare
As discussed in Section 4.2.3.7, disposal impacts on public health and welfare primarily are
associated with the potential for interferences between dredged material barges and commercial
and recreational vessels. The potential for such events is considered to be insignificant because
navigational interferences will be minimized by specifying that barge transit lanes and the overall
increase in vessel traffic is considered negligible (Section 4.2.3.7) (Class III).
Alternative Site 3
The potential for vessel interferences at Alternative Site 3 is expected to be negligible, as
discussed above. Therefore, potential impacts from disposal are considered to be Class in.
Alternative Site 4
Similar to Alternative Site 3, the potential for vessel interferences at Alternative Site 4 also is
expected to be insignificant. Therefore, potential impacts from disposal also are considered to
be Class III.
4.5 Other Alternatives
The environmental consequences associated with other general dredged material disposal options,
such as disposal at sites within the Bay, disposal at nonaquatic sites, or treatment/reuse, are being
evaluated by the LTMS In-Bay, Nonaquatic Reuse, and Implementation Work Groups.
Therefore, detailed evaluations and comparisons of the potential impacts associated with these
options are not addressed by this EIS. The specific environmental consequences of each of the
alternative disposal options will be evaluated, relative to the potential impacts from use of the
ODMDS, during the assessment of permit applications for individual dredging projects.
4-76
-------
4.6
Management of the Disposal Site
The primary goal of site management is to assure that the continued use of the disposal site will
not cause significant adverse impacts on the marine environment. Management of an ocean
disposal site consists of the following:
• Regulating the quantities and types of material, and the time, rates, and
methods of disposal;
• Maintaining an effective site monitoring program;
• Recommending changes for site use, disposal amounts, or designation for a
limited time based on periodic evaluation of site monitoring results; and
• Enforcing permit conditions.
Site management is accomplished through regulation of ocean dumping permit applications,
development and implementation of a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP), and
evaluation of permit compliance and monitoring results. Ocean dumping permits and site
management and monitoring are discussed in the following sections. The SMMP is detailed in
a separate document from this FEIS.
4.6.1 Ocean Dumping Permits
Permits are required for dredging projects which propose to use an ODMDS (except for COE
projects that do not require permits but require EPA approval). In general, the permit application
must demonstrate the need, other than for short-term economic reasons, to use the ODMDS.
Ocean disposal is permitable only if there are no practical alternatives. Some of the factors
evaluated in this process are the environmental risks, impacts, and costs of ocean disposal
compared to those of other feasible alternatives. Therefore, information required for permit
applications must be consistent with COE's Regulatory Program requirements (33 CFR 320-330),
NEPA regulations (33 CFR 230 and 325), and EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts
220, 225, 227, and 228), and may include the following:
• Written documentation of the need to dispose dredged material in the ocean;
• A description of historical dredging and activities at or adjacent to the
proposed dredging site that may represent sources of contamination to the site;
• The type and quantity of the dredged material proposed for disposal at the
ODMDS;
4-77
-------
• The existing condition of the proposed dredging area, including the proposed
dredging depths, overdredge depths, and depths adjacent to the boundary of the
proposed dredging area;
• Composition and characteristics of the proposed dredged material, including
the results from physical, chemical, and biological testing. These data will be
used to determine whether the proposed dredged material is suitable for
disposal at the ODMDS.
• An estimate of the planned start and completion dates for the dredging
operation; this information is needed to avoid potential resource conflicts and
may be used to schedule inspections at the dredging site and/or the disposal
site;
• A debris management plan that addresses the disposal of materials other than
the dredged sediment (e.g., pilings or metal debris) to ensure that these other
materials are not discharged at the ODMDS.
The need for ocean disposal is demonstrated when other, feasible alternatives have been
evaluated, and no practicable alternative locations, methods of disposal, or treatment technologies
exist to reduce adverse impacts from disposal.
The suitability of dredged material proposed for disposal at the ODMDS must be demonstrated
through appropriate physical, chemical, and biological testing according to the requirements and
procedures defined in EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts 220, 225, 227, and
228). Section 227.6 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations prohibits the disposal of certain
contaminants as other than trace chemical constituents of dredged material. Regulatory decisions
rely on assessments of the potential for unacceptable adverse impacts based on persistence,
toxicity, and bioaccumulation of the constituents, instead of specific numerical limits (EPA/COE
1991).
The present technical guidance for determining the suitability of dredged material involves a
tiered-testing procedure (EPA/COE 1991). This procedure includes four levels of testing: Tiers I
and II apply existing or easily obtained information and limited chemical testing to predict
effects. If these predictions indicate that the dredged material has any potential for significant
adverse effects, higher tiers are activated. Tiers III and IV utilize water column and benthic
bioassay and bioaccumulation tests to determine effects on representative marine organisms.
Dredged material proposed for ocean disposal will be tested for bioaccumulation potential
according to Green Book protocols (EPA/COE 1991). These protocols state that if testing results
indicate that the bioaccumulation of contaminants statistically exceeds that of reference-material
tests, the following eight factors will be assessed to evaluate LPC [Limited Permissible
Concentrations] compliance;
4-78
-------
• Number of species in which bioaccumulation from the dredged material is
statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the reference material;
• Number of contaminants for which bioaccumulation from the dredged material
is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the reference material;
• Magnitude by which bioaccumulation from the dredged material exceeds
bioaccumulation from the reference material;
• Toxicological importance of the contaminants whose bioaccumulation from the
dredged material statistically exceeds that from the reference material;
• Phylogenetic diversity of the species in which bioaccumulation from the
dredged material statistically exceeds bioaccumulation from the reference
material;
• Tendency for contaminants with statistically significant bioaccumulation to
biomagnify within aquatic food webs (Biddinger and Gloss 1984; Kay 1984);
• Magnitude of toxicity and number and phylogenetic diversity of species
exhibiting greater mortality in the dredged material than in the reference
material; and
• Magnitude by which contaminants whose bioaccumulation from the dredged
material exceeds that from the reference material also exceed the
concentrations found in comparable species living in the vicinity of the
proposed disposal site.
Management decisions concerning the use of the ODMDS in lieu of disposal sites within the Bay,
at nonaquatic sites, or other, approved treatment/reuse options, will be made according to
guidance presently being developed by the LTMS. Decisions regarding the suitability of dredged
material for ocean disposal will be guided by criteria contained in MPRSA and EPA's Ocean
Dumping Criteria (40 CFR Parts 220, 225, 227, and 228). MPRSA authorizes the COE to
administer the permit program for dredged material. The COE, San Francisco District will,,
prepare the Public Notice concerning the proposed disposal operation, and EPA Region IX as
well as other Federal and State agencies, will participate in the review of the application. In
accordance with 40 CFR 220.4(c), EPA Region IX will approve, disapprove, and propose
conditions on the MPRSA Section 103 permit. EPA Region IX will not approve the ocean
disposal of material which has the potential for significant adverse biological impacts.
Dumping permits subsequently issued for individual dredging projects may impose additional
conditions on the disposal operations to preclude or minimize potential interferences with other
activities and/or uses of the ocean. Management options for the permitting process may include:
full or partial approval of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal; limits on disposal
4-79
-------
volumes; seasonal restrictions (see Section 3.1.2); disposal within a spatially-limited portion of
the disposal site; or requirements, for example, for dredged material barge operators to stay
within specified transit paths, utilize navigation equipment with specified accuracy, and maintain
appropriate ship logs.
Measures to ensure that disposal occurs reliably within the boundaries of the designated ODMDS
are being developed jointly by EPA Region IX and the COE for incorporation into disposal
permits. EPA Region IX will work with the COE, San Francisco District and the U.S. Coast
Guard to inspect, monitor, and conduct surveillance of disposal operations in the San Francisco
area. If violations of the permit(s) are detected, EPA Region IX may take appropriate
enforcement actions as authorized under MPRSA Section 105(a).
4.6.2 Site Management and Monitoring
In accordance with 40 CFR 228.3, site management is the responsibility of EPA. However, 40
CFR Section 228.9(c) states that EPA will require full participation of permittees and will
encourage participation by other Federal, State, and local agencies in the development and
implementation of disposal site monitoring programs. Since COE is a major dredger and Federal
regulatory agency in the Bay, EPA will involve the COE in site management and monitoring.
Management decisions related to the proposed dredged material and the disposal operations will
be based on:
1. Compliance with applicable criteria defined in the EPA's Ocean Dumping
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 227.
2. Requirements imposed on the permittee under the COE's Permitting Regulations
at 33 CFR Parts 320-330 and 335-338.
3. Guidance on evaluation of disposal options developed by the LTMS
Implementation Work Group.
4. The potential for significant adverse environmental impacts at the ODMDS from
disposal of dredged material.
Existing regulatory information, such as the Federal Water Quality Criteria and the State of
California Water Quality Objectives, may also be used in some cases as management decision
points.
Management decisions will be implemented to reduce or mitigate any significant adverse
environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts from dredged material disposal are
considered significant, therefore constituting a basis for a management decision at the permitting
stage, when such impacts result in statistically significant changes (i.e., differences at the 95%
confidence level compared to the reference site) and/or pose an unacceptable risk to the marine
4-80
-------
environment or human health. Determinations will be based on appropriate statistical methods
to evaluate differences between the proposed dredged material and reference site conditions for
chemicals of concern, acute toxicity of the proposed dredged material, the magnitude of
bioaccumulation, and potential ecological impacts. The main concerns are: (1) disposal of
sediments that may cause significant mortality or bioaccumulation of contaminants within the
disposal site or adjacent to the site boundaries, and (2) adverse ecological changes to the
ODMDS and the surrounding sea floor. Changes in the benthic community inside the ODMDS
are expected because different grain size characteristics in the dredged material may promote
colonization of the site by different benthic species (Section 4.2.2). If dredged material is
detected outside of the disposal site, benthic community changes adjacent to the site may be
evaluated to determine whether these changes are acceptable.
Management options for the permitting process may include: (1) full or partial approval of
dredged material proposed for ocean disposal; (2) prohibition of sediments proposed for ocean
disposal; or (3) special management restrictions for ocean disposal of the proposed material,
including limits on disposal quantities, disposal frequencies, or disposal at specific areas within
the ODMDS. In addition to project-specific, site-use conditions, possible management restrictions
on use of the ODMDS will include the following considerations:
1. Material volumes:
• Disposal of unrestricted volumes is dependent on results from future
monitoring surveys.
2. Material suitability:
• The suitability of the material for ocean disposal must be demonstrated to EPA
and the COE in accordance with specifications and requirements of the Green
Book (EPA/COE 1991) and EPA Region IX's (1989) regional guidance for
sediment testing.
3. Time of disposal:
• Unrestricted seasonal use is dependent on results from future monitoring
surveys. Seasonal restrictions may be placed on the timing and/or frequency
of dredged material disposal as necessary to protect breeding, migrating, and
listed species.
• Barge transit from the Bay may be restricted when wave heights along the
route are predicted to exceed 18 feet When wave heights exceed 10 feet and
wave periods reach 9 seconds or less, extra precautions may be required to
prevent spillage or other loss of material during transit to the ODMDS. These
precautions may include a reduction of barge loading, in addition to any other
measure(s) deemed necessary by the tug captain, including canceling the trip
4-81
-------
until sea conditions have subsided or returning to the dredging site without
disposing the load.
4. Disposal technique:
• Barge load capacities may be limited for the initial trip(s).
• No water or dredged material will be permitted to leak or spill from barges
during transit to the ODMDS.
• Tugs with barges will remain outside of the territorial sea boundary
surrounding the Farallon Islands by following the inner portion of the
outbound western shipping lane for transit into and out of the Bay.
• When the disposal barge is west of the VSS, the tug shall proceed directly to
the ODMDS. The barges must be towed at least 3 nmi from the Farallon
Islands.
• The tug will be required to use navigation systems with specified minimum
accuracy and precision capabilities.
5. Placement of materials:
• All material will be discharged within a circle of specified diameter centered
at 37°39'N,123029'W.
• When dredged material is discharged, no portion of the barge shall be farther
than a specified distance from the center of the ODMDS.
6. Disposal monitoring and documentation:
• The permittee will maintain daily records of dredging operations,
transportation schedules, barge load volumes disposed, and exact location and
time of disposal.
• An inspector will be required to observe all dredging operations and submit
reports containing a description of operations.
• The permittee will be required to report any violations to EPA within 24
hours. In the event of a violation, the permittee must make all necessary
changes to bring disposal operations into compliance before making another
trip to the ODMDS.
4-82
-------
• Development and implementation of more sophisticated surveillance systems,
which can be demonstrated to EPA to be effective and capable of being
audited, may be substituted pending approval from EPA for one or more of the
above conditions.
Evaluations and possible revisions of these generic site-use conditions will occur at a minimum
frequency of once every five years. Additional conditions on use of the ODMDS may be
determined during the permit review process.
Once dredging and disposal operations have begun, management responsibilities, including
surveillance and inspection of dredging and disposal, will be initiated to ensure compliance with
permit conditions. Surveillance of the disposal operations will be carried out by the USGS's
Eleventh District with assistance from EPA Region IX and the COE's San Francisco District.
EPA Region IX has the authority, as defined in Section 105 of MPRSA, to enforce against illegal
disposal activities, including non-compliance with permit conditions. Management options by
the COE's San Francisco District could involve temporary or permanent withdrawal of a permit.
Surveillance and inspection may consist of one or more of the following:
1. On-board inspection by EPA Region IX or the COE's San Francisco District staff
to ensure that transportation and disposal of the sediments occur within the
designated discharge zone and that the permittee complies with all permit terms
and special conditions.
2. On-board inspection by a certified inspector hired by the permittee or a regulatory
agency to ensure that transportation and disposal of the sediment occurs within the
designated discharge zone and that the permittee complies with all permit terms
and special conditions.
3. Plots of barge navigation course while inside the disposal site boundaries.
Disposal contractors will be required to navigate using an electronic positioning
system or other approved navigation system with specified accuracy and precision.
Permittees may be required to provide a record of the barge navigation course,
annotated with the coordinates at the beginning and end of the disposal operation.
As an integral part of the SMMP, a tiered monitoring program was designed for the ODMDS to
provide data for site management. Tiered approaches to monitoring result in a highly structured
framework for hypotheses and observations, give management action thresholds or "triggers" and
provide guidance for evaluating appropriate management actions. The monitoring program
comprises three interdependent modules: a Physical Monitoring Module, a Biological Monitoring
Module, and a Chemical Monitoring Module. The Physical Monitoring Module will provide
information about the plume behavior in the water column and dredged material footprint on the
bottom. The Biological Monitoring Module provides information about the effects of the water
column plume on sea birds, marine mammals, and mid-water fishes. In the event that the
4-83
-------
dredged material footprint extends outside of the designated site, impacts on the benthos will be
investigated. The Chemical Monitoring Module provides data on sediment quality and will
evaluate bioaccumulation of contaminants in benthic organisms if trigger concentrations of
contaminants in sediments are exceeded. Tier 1 monitoring studies are performed as part of each
module. However, initiation of subsequent studies under Tiers 2 and 3 will be based on
exceedences of trigger levels specified in the SMMP.
The program design facilitates monitoring of both short-term (e.g., transient water column
impacts) and long-term (e.g., benthic) impacts, enabling EPA Region IX and the COE San
Francisco District to make management decisions in. a timely manner should potential or actual
unacceptable adverse impacts be detected. The physical, biological, and chemical monitoring also
will help these agencies to verify whether disposal operations are carried out in compliance with
permitting requirements and environmental regulations.
Specific questions to be addressed by the monitoring program will be based on outstanding issues
and concerns in the site designation process. These questions may include the following:
• Is the area affected by disposal of dredged material restricted to the disposal
site? (Impacts may be measured by changes in water quality, sediment grain
size, sediment chemistry, and biological communities, including benthic
invertebrates and fish).
• Does the model used to simulate the dispersal of dredged material accurately
predict movement of material through the water column and to the bottom?
• Do concentrations of chemicals of concern in sediments within and outside the
ODMDS exceed specific trigger levels?
• Is there significant bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants in local
organisms at the site?
• Do disposal operations have a significant impact on biological resources?
• Do disposal operations have a significant impact on the distribution or feeding^
habits of seabirds or mammals?
Monitoring of physical processes is focused on the potential transport of dredged material
following disposal. Field measurements will be necessary to answer specific management
questions concerning the transport of material out of the disposal site and, potentially, into the
GOFNMS.
If the field measurements and numerical model results show that dredged material does not leave
the site, then no management actions (relating to physical processes monitoring) will be
necessary. On the other hand, if material is exiting the site, then additional field measurements
4-84
-------
will be implemented to evaluate the horizontal transport of material suspended within the water
column and the potential accumulation of dredged material on the sea floor outside of the site
and/or within the GOFNMS.
Chemical monitoring is focused on the effects of dredged material deposition on the chemical
characteristics of bottom sediments within and adjacent to the ODMDS and potential effects of
biological uptake of contaminants associated with the bottom sediments. In particular, routine
monitoring of selected chemical constituents is performed to evaluate potentials for accumulations
in sediments and exposures of benthic and demersal organisms to toxic and/or biologically
available contaminants.
The biological monitoring module of the SMMP addresses the effects of dredged material
disposal on two marine ecosystem components: the pelagic (marine birds, mammals, and fish)
and the demersal (benthic invertebrate communities). Potential impacts to marine birds,
mammals, and fish are expected to be transient and occur within a limited time period during and
immediately after disposal operations, while impacts to the benthic community are expected to
last somewhat longer and be readily detected within the footprint area of dredged material
accumulation.
Management actions will be initiated if monitoring data indicate nonconformance with permit
conditions or if disposal activities have caused any of the following conditions:
• Significant accumulation of waste constituents at or within any shoreline,
marine sanctuary, or critical area;
• Biota, sediments, or the water column are adversely affected to the extent that
there are significant decreases in populations of valuable commercial or
recreational species, or in other species essential to the propagation of such
species;
• Significant adverse effects to populations of seabirds or marine mammals,
including threatened and endangered species of limited distribution;
• Material has accumulated to the extent that major uses of the site are impaired;
• Adverse effects to the taste or odor of valuable commercial or recreational
species; or
• Dredged material is identified consistently in toxic concentrations outside the
disposal site more than 4 hours after disposal [40 CFR 228.10 (c)(l)(i)-(v)].
Management actions to mitigate significant adverse impacts may include the following:
4-85
-------
• Revise the size or location of the disposal zone, or move the disposal zone;
• Enforce revised permit conditions on navigation and placement of barges in
the disposal zone;
• Limit the amount of dredged material disposed at the site each year;
• Limit the season of disposal;
• Evaluate the effect of the sediment plume on the exposed species;
• Reconfigure the boundaries of the disposal site;
• Initiate environmental studies for a new disposal site;
• Designate a new disposal site; or
• Implement other feasible and responsive management options that are
developed as the monitoring program progresses.
4.7 Cumulative Impacts as a Result of the Project
Ongoing and historical discharges in the LTMS study region are described in Sections 1.7 and
3.1.1. These discharges include disposal of dredged material at the Channel Bar ODMDS
(5.6 km from shore) and discharges of treated wastewaters from several coastal outfalls, including
the San Francisco Southwest Ocean Outfall (10.2 km from shore), City of Pacifica Outfall (0.8
km from shore), and Northern San Mateo County Outfall (0.8 km from shore). Disposal of 1.2
million yd3 of dredged material is permitted within Alternative Site 5 [coincident with the Naval
Ocean Disposal Site (NODS)] through December 1, 1994 as part of the Navy's MPRSA Section
103 Permit. Discontinued historical waste discharges in the LTMS study region include dredged
material disposal, acid waste, cannery waste, low-level radioactive waste, munitions, refinery
waste, and vessel and dry dock disposal (Figure 3.1-1).
Due to the large distances (greater than 45 nmi) from shore to the alternative sites, discharges
of treated wastewaters from nearshore outfalls are unlikely to cause any cumulative effects with
regard to designation or use of an offshore ODMDS. Ocean disposal of acid waste, cannery
waste, and refinery waste was discontinued approximately 20 years ago (in 1971-1972), and the
presence of residual wastes which could interact with discharged dredged material to produce
cumulative, adverse, environmental effects has not been detected (Section 3.2.5). Similarly, the
majority of the dredged material disposal activities were discontinued 14 to 25 years ago (BART
in 1967, COE Test Site in 1974, and the 100-Fathom Site in 1978). Present dredged material
disposal activities at the Channel Bar ODMDS are too far (approximately 45 to 55 nmi) from the
alternative sites to produce cumulative effects. Also, sandy material from the entrance channel
discharged at the site is not expected to contain chemical contaminants which could contribute
4-86
-------
to cumulative effects. In contrast, other discharge activities discussed below may have some
effect on the proposed actions due to the proximity of these historical discharge operations to one
or more of the alternative sites and the likelihood of residual contamination.
4.7.1 Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites
One of three radioactive waste sites (Site B in 1,800 m of water) is located in the vicinity of
Study Area 5 (Figure 3.1-1). The other two sites (Site A at 90 m depth and C at 900 m depth)
are within the GOFNMS and located approximately 20 nmi or more from the alternative sites.
However, the precise locations of the majority of the waste containers are unknown, and the
wastes may be spread over a large area within the general region. All known disposal of
containerized, low-level radioactive wastes at Sites A, B, and C was suspended by 1965. Due
to the expected residual radioactivity associated with this waste, some potential exists for
contamination of bottom sediments and organisms. The magnitude of the contamination, and
potential risks to environmental resources and human health, presently are being evaluated by
NOAA and EPA.
It is unlikely that dredged material disposal would cause cumulative effects in conjunction with
these low-level radioactive waste containers. In fact, deposition of dredged material could have
the effect of burying and further isolating some containers. Although the present condition of the
containers is unknown, it is unlikely that deposition of dredged material would result in any
substantial releases or dispersion of contaminated materials present at the site. It would not be
practical at this time to use dredged material specifically for burying waste containers because,
according to best available information, most of the containers are close to the Farallon Islands
and within the GOFNMS. The primary concern related to ODMDS designation is the potential
for accidental recovery of radioactive waste material during monitoring surveys of the ODMDS.
Inadvertent collection of some radioactive material has occurred in the southeastern portion of
Study Area 5, but outside of Alternative Site 5 (Lissner, SAIC, pers. obs. 1992). Therefore,
while cumulative effects are not a significant concern, it is important to address the feasibility
of monitoring an ODMDS situated in the vicinity of the radioactive waste disposal sites.
4.72 Munitions Waste Sites
The Chemical Munitions Dumping Area (CMDA) is located within Study Area 5 (Figure 3.1-1).
Two other disused munitions disposal areas are adjacent to Study Area 4. As with the
radioactive waste sites, disposal operations at the munitions waste disposal sites were terminated
over 20 years ago (by 1969). The potential exists for regional environmental contamination
and/or human health concerns from historically disposed chemical agents and explosives.
However, cumulative impacts from dredged material disposal are unlikely, and deposition of
dredged material could bury some munitions. The primary concern associated with designation
of an ODMDS would be accidental recovery of munitions wastes during monitoring surveys of
the ODMDS. Inadvertent collection of munitions near Alternative Site 5 has occurred (Lissner,
SAIC, pers. obs. 1992). Thus, while cumulative impacts are not considered significant, it is
4-87
-------
important to evaluate the feasibility of monitoring an ODMDS which lies in vicinity of the
historical munitions disposal sites.
4.7.3 Navy Section 103 Dredged Material Disposal
The Navy currently is discharging 1.2 million yd3 of dredged material at NODS under an
MPRSA Section 103 permit (No. 19260E48) issued by the COE San Francisco District. Dredged
material disposed at the NODS could contribute to cumulative effects associated with any
subsequent use of Alternative Site 5 for other dredged material disposal operations. As required
under MPRSA, any dredged material, whether disposed of at a Section 102 or a Section 103 site,
must meet all applicable criteria to be eligible for ocean disposal. Assessment of any cumulative
effects will be part of the site monitoring plan. Data collected by the Navy, required as pan of
their monitoring program as specified in the Section 103 permit, will be used to assess
cumulative effects from subsequent disposal operations at Alternative Site 5.
4.7.4 BIB Dredged Material Disposal Site
The BIB site is located within the boundary of LTMS Study Area 2 (Figure 3.1-1). The site was
used briefly in 1988 for disposal of approximately 18,000 yd3 of dredged material from the Port
of Oakland. In general, this volume of material is very small, and residual effects at the site,
including cumulative effects related to the proposed action, are unknown. Results from recent
EPA surveys (SAIC 1992b,c) indicate that the shelf area is a high-energy zone and fine-grained
material appears readily dispersed (Noble et al. 1992; SAIC 1992c). Therefore, delectable
quantities of dredged material from the Port of Oakland may no longer exist in the vicinity of
the BIB site.
4.8 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Resource Uses
The proposed designation of any of the alternative sites as an ODMDS is not expected to produce
significant, long-term, adverse impacts to resources, including the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environments, within the LTMS study region. Impacts to benthic invertebrates
within the site are expected to persist as long as the site is used for disposal. However, cessation
of disposal should result in gradual recovery over time. Deep-water sites generally are expected
to require longer recovery times than shallow-water sites due to the slow rates of change that
typically are associated with more stable conditions (Sanders and Hessler 1969).
Use of the proposed ODMDS is not expected to interfere with uses of resources outside of the
boundaries of the alternative sites. These resources include commercial and sport fishing, marine
bird and mammal observation, and use of the region by commercial, military, and recreational
vessels (Sections 3.4 and 4.4). No significant mineral or oil and gas resources occur within any
of the alternative sites (Sections 3.4 and 4.4). Therefore, use of ODMDS does not represent a
potential conflict with the long-term use of resources.
4-88
-------
Any impacts or restricted uses of resources within the site boundaries would represent a very
small percentage of these resources within the LTMS study region. This marginal loss of some
resources is balanced by the significant benefit that would be derived from the proposed action.
In contrast, lack of a designated ocean disposal site capable of receiving large quantities of
dredged material could have a significant adverse effect on the economic productivity and
national defense activities associated with San Francisco Bay (COE 1990a,b, 1991).
4.9 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Irreversible or irretrievable resources that would be committed if an ocean disposal site is
designated will include:
• Energy resources used as fuel for dredges, pumps, and disposal vessels, and
for research vessels involved in monitoring studies;
• Economic resources associated with ocean disposal including monitoring and
surveillance;
• Unavailability of sediments disposed at the ODMDS for potential marsh
restoration or other beneficial use projects; and
• Some loss or degradation of the benthic habitat and associated benthic
communities at the site for at least the duration of site use.
The commitment of energy and economic resources will increase with increased distance of a site
from dredging areas. However, the three alternative sites are similar distances from the Golden
Gate Bridge, and no significant differences in the resources contained within the alternative sites
are evident. Therefore, the magnitude of any long-term commitment of irreversible or
irretrievable resources that can be determined from the existing information is essentially the
same for each of the three alternative sites.
4-89
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-90
-------
CHAPTERS
COORDINATION
This chapter contains information on public involvement and interagency activities related to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for designation of the Deep Water Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off San Francisco,
California (Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively); evidence of formal consultation (Section 5.3); and
requested reviewers and public distribution of the DEIS and FEIS (Sections 5.4 and 5.5,
respectively).
5.1 Notice of Intent and Public Scoping Meeting
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement related to designation
of an ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) was published in the Federal Register on
March 31, 1989 (Exhibit 1).
A public scoping meeting was held in Sausalito, California on April 11, 1989 to identify affected
public and agency concerns and to define the issues and alternatives to be examined in detail in
the EIS. At this scoping meeting, EPA explained the need for and process of site designation
and identified several geographic areas for further evaluation. These areas included the
continental shelf, shelf break, slope, deep slope, and Pioneer Canyon.
Comments made during the scoping meeting covered the following general topics;
• Proximity of the ocean disposal site to the Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary, Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, hard-bottom
areas, and Pioneer Canyon;
• Potential interferences with existing and/or future fishery resources, and
feeding, breeding, and migratory activities of marine birds and mammals;
• Potential impacts to other water column organisms if dredged material
particles remained suspended;
• Potential problems predicting the area affected by disposal operations; and
• Potential problems monitoring short- and long-term effects from disposal
operations at a deep-water site.
5-1
-------
5.2 San Francisco Bay Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredged Material
The Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) program began in January 1990 as a Federal/State
partnership between the four agencies which have regulatory authority for dredged material in
the San Francisco Bay area. As the lead agencies for the LTMS, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (EPA), the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC), share responsibility for managing the various
components of the LTMS. The LTMS is designed to provide a regional plan for the disposal of
up to 400 million yd3 of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay over the next 50 years.
Within the LTMS structure are several committees (Figure 5.2-1). The Executive Committee is
composed of the COE South Pacific Division Commander, the EPA Regional Administrator, the
SFBRWQCB Chairperson, the BCDC Chairperson, and a state coordinator. This committee
provides management and policy guidance and retains principal decision-making authority for
LTMS program issues. However, overall LTMS coordination and technical direction is delegated
to the Management Committee. This committee, consisting of the COE South Pacific Division
LTMS Program Manager, the EPA Water Management Division Director, the SFBRWQCB
Executive Officer, and the BCDC Executive Director, oversees four LTMS work groups and the
Technical Review Panel.
LTMS work groups include the Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG), the In-Bay Work Group,
the Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Group, and the Implementation Work Group. Each of these work
groups has its own structure, public involvement strategy, and specific objectives. The Ocean,
In-Bay, and Nonaquatic/Reuse Work Groups are responsible for conducting the tasks described
in the LTMS Study Plan (COE 1991). The Implementation Work Group is the newest of the
work groups. The Steering Committee of this work group has recently proposed a series of
subcommittees to deal with the issues of a siting framework, sediment quality, financing and
ownership, containment sites, a programmatic management document, and project coordination.
The Technical Review Panel is composed of five scientific experts who provide critical reviews
of technical issues that lie outside of the LTMS program's broad conceptual approach. The
members of the Technical Review Panel are shown in Table 5.2-1.
The LTMS structure also includes an advisory group, the Policy Review Committee, which is
comprised of a broad range of Federal and State agencies, ports, development, environmental,
and fishing interests (Table 5.2-2). This committee meets quarterly and provides an important
forum for public involvement in, and review of, LTMS development and implementation.
Another mechanism for public involvement in the LTMS is the San Francisco Estuary Project,
which serves to disseminate information to the general public through its outreach programs.
5-2
-------
Figure 5.2-1. Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) Management and
Implementation Structure.
AK01S1
5-3
-------
Table 5.2-1. Members of the LTMS Technical Review Panel.
Name
Specialty
Organization
Don F. Boesch
Benthic Community Analysis
University of Maryland
R. Risebrough
Chemistry
University of California—Santa Cruz
Hsieh W. Shen
Physical Processes
University of California—Berkeley
Tom Ginn
Sediment Toxicology
PTI, Inc.
David R. Stoddart
Wetland Geomorphology
University of California—Berkeley
AK0148.W51
5-4
-------
Table 5.2-2. Members of the LTMS Policy Review Committee.
Category
Member Organization
Federal Agencies
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Navy
California State and Regional
Agencies
Coastal Commission
Department of Boating and Waterways
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Water Resources
Integrated Waste Management Board
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Secretary for Environmental Protection
Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing
State Lands Commission
State Water Resources Control Board
The Resources Agency
Special Interest Groups
Bay Planning Coalition
California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference
Citizens for a Better Environment
Golden Gate Ports Association
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Association
Marin Audubon Society
Ocean Alliance
Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations
Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association
Port of Oakland
Port of Redwood City
Port of Richmond
Port of San Francisco
Save San Francisco Bay Association
Sierra Club
United Anglers of California
AK0149.W51
5-5
-------
5.3
LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group
The LTMS OSWG, led by EPA, meets periodically to allow EPA and others to present
preliminary or final study findings and to solicit comments from group members. The members
of the OSWG, commentors on OSWG products, and attendees of the OSWG meetings are shown
in Tables 5.3-1, 5.3-2, and 5.3-3, respectively. Under the LTMS program, EPA first convened
representatives of interested agencies and groups on February 20, 1990, to present an outline of
the LTMS Ocean Studies Plan (OSP). The purpose of the OSP was to define objectives and
identify studies necessary to address the site selection general and specific criteria (see
Table 1.1-1). At a meeting of the LTMS Policy Review Committee on February 27, 1990,
interested reviewers were asked to submit comments on the OSP outline.
Using comments received at the February 1990 meeting and written comments from members
of the Policy Review Committee, EPA prepared a response to comments and developed the OSP
outline into a detailed plan. This draft OSP was presented and distributed to the Ocean Studies
Work Group at its first official meeting on November 8, 1990. At this meeting, attendees were
asked to submit comments on the draft OSP by early December. EPA prepared responses to
comments and presented those responses at another OSWG meeting held December 17, 1990.
Since one of the major issues for the site designation process was the methodology used in
assessing fish communities, EPA convened a special work group meeting at National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS, Tiburon, California) on January 8, 1991 to discuss these issues.
Afterward, another OSWG meeting was held on February 20, 1991. At this meeting, the COE
presented a draft Zone of Siting Feasibility determination which included all of the study areas
identified by EPA in the draft OSP. Other topics discussed at this meeting included preliminary
footprint modeling and proposed changes to the OSP based on comments received at the previous
two meetings.
EPA released a draft final OSP on March 8, 1991. This document contained a detailed
description of each of the site selection criteria and defined specific objectives for four study
elements: Physical Oceanography, Benthic Infauna and Sediments, Epifauna and Fisheries, and
Marine Birds and Mammals. In addition, the document provided an assessment of existing
information for the study areas, a description of specific studies to be conducted, and a cost
estimate. EPA received written comments on the draft final OSP and revised it into a final OSP
which was released at a Policy Review Committee meeting on June 7, 1991.
Since some commentors felt that the final OSP had not resolved all of the outstanding issues,
EPA prepared responses to comment letters from the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary and the California Environmental Protection Agency and held an OSWG meeting on
July 29, 1991 to address these issues. Other presentations at this meeting included additional
preliminary footprint modeling and the scope of services for the OSP biological studies.
At the next OSWG meeting held on December 12, 1991, EPA presented preliminary results of
the benthic infauna and sediments, trawl, and remotely-operated vehicle studies. Preliminary
5-6
-------
Table 5.3-1. LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG) Members.
Members listed alphabetically by affiliation.
Name
Organization
Bill Boland
individual
Tom Jow
individual
Ellen Johnck
Bay Planning Coalition
Mark Delaplaine
California Coastal Commission
Jim Raives
California Coastal Commission
George Armstrong
California Department of Boating and Waterways
Pete Phillips
California Department of Fish and Game
Robert Tasto
California Department of Fish and Game
Tracy Wood
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Mary Bergen
California State Lands Commission
Barbara Miller
Center for Marine Conservation
Alan Ramo
Citizens for a Better Environment
Kathleen van Velsor
Coastal Advocates
Chris Peterson
Dutra Construction, Inc.
Marie White
Entrix
Lindsay Rehm
Environmental Forum of Marin
Jeffrey Cox
Evans-Hamilton, Inc.
Stanley Ekren
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company
Jan Roletto
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Ed Ueber
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Pietro Parravano
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Association
Stuart Siegal
Levine-Fricke
Barbara Salzman
Marin Audubon Society
Krista Hanni
Marine Mammal Center
Robert Battalio
Moffatt and Nichol
Dilip Trivedi
Moffatt and Nichol
Greg Cailliet
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
James Nybakken
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Jim By bee
National Marine Fisheries Service
AK0169.W51
5-7
-------
Table 5.3-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
Alec MacCall
National Marine Fisheries Service
Chris Mobley
National Marine Fisheries Service
Don Pearson
National Marine Fisheries Service
Herb Curl
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Cynthia Koehler
Natural Heritage Institute
H. Lee Halterman
Office of Congressman Ron Dellums
Lynelle Johnson
Office of Congressman George Miller
Gail Blaise
Office of Congresswoman Barbara Boxer
Zeke Grader
Pacific Coast Federation of Fish Association
David Ainley
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Sarah Allen
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Veronica Sanchez
Port of San Francisco
Jim McGrath
Port of Oakland
Charles Schwarz
Port of Oakland
Jody Zaitlin
Port of Oakland
Catherine Courtney
PRC Environmental Management Inc.
David Cobb
PTI Environmental Services
Wade Eakle
Regulatory Branch, SF District ACOE
Steve Goldbeck
San Francisco BCDC
Scott Rouillard
San Francisco Bay Keeper
Michael Carlin
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
Paul Jones
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Andrew Lissner
Science Applications International Corporation
John Lunz
Science Applications International Corporation
David Nesmith
Sierra Club
James Royce
Sierra Club
Kim Brown
Tetra Tech
John Beuttler
United Anglers of America
Commander Scot Tieman
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
AK0169.WS1
5-8
-------
Table 5.3-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
Rod Chisholm
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Bill McCoy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lynn O'Leary
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Richard Stradford
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tom Wakeman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
William Allen
U.S. Department of the Interior
Damn Fong
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jean Takakawa
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Herman Karl
U.S. Geological Survey
Marlene Noble
U.S. Geological Survey
Curt Collins
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Steven Ramp
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Sherman Seelinger
U.S. Navy Western Division
AK0169.W51
5-9
-------
Table 5.3-2. Agencies and Organizations that Provided Written Comments on LTMS
Ocean Studies Plan, February 1990 to June 1991.
California Coastal Commission
California Department of Fish and Game
California Environmental Protection Agency
Golden Gate Ports Association
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Association
National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa
National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Port of Oakland
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Save San Francisco Bay Association
State Lands Commission
United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station
United States Coast Guard
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
United States Geological Survey
United States Naval Postgraduate School
United States Navy
AK0170.W51
5-10
-------
Table 5.3-3. Attendance at LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group Meetings, February 1990 to May 1993.
Organization
2/20/90
11/8/90
12/17/90
1/8/91
2/26/91
7/29/91
12/12/91
2/13/92
5/4/92
8/14/92
9/29/92
3/16/93
5/12/93
Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bay Planning Coalition
X
•
X
X
X
Bill Boland
•
X
California Coastal Commission
X
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
California Department of Boating and
Waterways
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
California Department of Fish and Game
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
California Marine Affairs and Navigation
Conference (CMANC)
*
X
Center for Marine Conservation
•
X
X
Citizens for a Better Environment
X
•
Coastal Advocates
»
X
Congresswoman Boxer's Office
•
X
Corps of Engineers
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Department of the Interior
*
X
Dutra Construction
•
X
Environmental Forum of Marin
#
X
Golden Gate Ports Association
X
•
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock
•
X
X
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary
X
•
X
X
X
X
AK0146.W51
-------
Table 5.3-3. Continued.
Organization
2/20/90
11/8/90
12/17/90
1/8/91
2/26/91
7/29/91
12/12/91
2/13/92
5/4/92
8/14/92
9/29/92
3/16/93
5/12/93
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing
Association
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
Integrated Waste Management Board
*
X
Marine Mammal Center
•
X
X
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
»
X
X
National Marine Fisheries Service
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
X
X
Naval Postgraduate School
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Port of Oakland
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Port of San Francisco
•
X
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board
X
•
X
X
Sierra Club
X
*
X
State Lands Commission
»
X
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
t
X
U.S. Geological Survey
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. Navy
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
University of California at Davis
*
X
'Attendance was not recorded.
AK0146WS1
-------
results of database analyses performed by the NMFS and the Point Reyes Bird Observatory under
contract to EPA also were presented. Other topics of discussion included the need for a second
season of biological sampling and the compatibility of EPA field work with studies conducted
by the Navy in LTMS Study Area 5.
In order to address concerns about compatibility between EPA and Navy studies, EPA made the
Navy studies the focus of an OSWG meeting held on February 13, 1992. At this meeting, the
Navy described the types of studies conducted and their preliminary findings. The topic of the
May 4, 1992 OSWG meeting also related to this issue. Since the OSWG was very concerned
about comparison of data collected with different gear types, EPA presented a synopsis of data
types and recommended approaches for analyzing and comparing EPA and Navy data. Following
the recommendation of the OSWG, EPA has avoided quantitative comparisons between certain
data sets.
On August 14, 1992, EPA held another OSWG meeting to present results from each of the OSP
components and to propose alternative sites within the OSP study areas. OSWG members agreed
on the locations of alternative sites and voiced their opinions and concerns regarding the
comparison of these alternative sites to the EPA site selection criteria (40 CFR Sections 228.5
and 228.6). At an OSWG meeting held on September 29, 1992, EPA presented its tentative
selection of Alternate Site 5, within Study Area 5, as the preferred alternative for site designation.
The members of the OSWG who attended the meeting (Table 5.3-1) did not react negatively to
EPA's selection of Alternative Site 5. While some concerns were raised regarding seabirds and
marine mammals, the balance of information did not lead the OSWG members to call for
selection of another alternative site.
After the release of the Draft EIS, EPA held an OSWG meeting on March 16, 1993, to open a
discussion of site management and monitoring concepts and to obtain guidance from the group
in developing a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP). EPA discussed the philosophy
of monitoring, constraints on monitoring design, and options for financing monitoring plans based
on examples from other locations in the United States. EPA then presented special conditions
from the U.S. Navy's MPRSA Section 103 permit involving site management and monitoring.
While the OSWG questioned certain details of the conditions, there was general satisfaction with
the scope of the management procedures. However, the OSWG requested more details on the
scope and focus of EPA's plans for monitoring the site and emphasized the importance of
coordination between the Navy's and EPA's efforts. Finally, EPA presented a summary of
comments on the DEIS regarding site management and monitoring issues.
EPA used comments received on the DEIS and discussions at the March 16 meeting to develop
a draft SMMP. This draft SMMP was the subject of an OSWG meeting held on May 12, 1993.
EPA devoted the meeting to explaining the three-tiered, physical, chemical, and biological plan
and taking comments and questions from the OSWG. Reactions to the draft SMMP varied
among OSWG members with some thinking the plan was too expansive and some thinking the
plan was not comprehensive enough to protect all marine resources. There was consensus within
the OSWG that explicit treatment of costs and funding mechanisms for the plan should be
5-13
-------
incorporated into the next draft. EPA requested that the comments on the SMMP be received
by May 26, 1993.
The comment letters on the SMMP were generally supportive of the tiered approach and of the
types of studies included in the plan. However, commentors differed on technical details,
including the scope of studies necessary to identify the physical impacts (in the water column)
and to detect short-term and long-term changes in biological communities following disposal
operations. Other issues of concern included long-term funding mechanisms and integration of
the SMMP with LTMS policy (e.g., development of a coordinated permit process that considers
all disposal alternatives and options for beneficial reuse). EPA will continue to hold OSWG
meetings to develop the final SMMP, which will be completed prior to site designation.
5.4 Formal Consultation
The Endangered Species Act requires formal consultation with Federal and State agencies to
identify any threatened, endangered, or special status species that may be affected by the
proposed action. The formal consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game was initiated
on July 22, 1992 (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4). Further consultation documentation, including responses
from these agencies and additional information on potential impacts to threatened and endangered
species, is included in Exhibits 5 through 10. On July 2, 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service certified their concurrence of no adverse impacts to local endangered species
(Exhibit 11). The National Marine Fisheries Service also concurred with this determination, with
the stipulation that any new information that suggests adverse effects to marine mammals or their
habitat may necessitate further consultation (Exhibit 12). On June 30, 1993, the California
Department of Fish and Game also certified their concurrence, stressing the importance of a
comprehensive monitoring and management plan for protection of sensitive species (Exhibit 13).
The National Historic Preservation Act requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer to identify any areas within the study region of architectural, archeological, historic, or
cultural value that are currently listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. Coordination with the California State Historic Preservation Officer also was initiated
on July 22, 1992 (Exhibit 14). Further documentation of this consultation is included in Exhibits
15 and 16. On July 7, 1993, the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with EPA's
determination that no historic properties exist within the area of potential effects for site use
(Exhibit 17).
5.5 Public Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The list of agencies, organizations, and individuals to whom the DEIS was distributed is shown
in Table 5.5-1. A Notice of Availability was sent to the approximately 1,000 agencies,
companies, and organizations on the Corps of Engineers San Francisco District Environmental
Branch's mailing list. Additional copies of the EIS may be requested from EPA or the document
can be viewed at any of the libraries listed in Table 5.5-2. After the publication of the Notice
5-14
-------
of Availability in the Federal Register of the Draft EIS on December 11, 1992, EPA held a public
meeting to present the findings of the DEIS and receive public comments. Two sessions were
held on January 19 from 1 to 3 p.m. and from 6 to 8 p.m. EPA discussed the background of the
project, summarized technical studies, and described the rationale for selecting the preferred
alternative.
Comments received from reviewers and responses to these comments are included in Appendix X
of the FEIS. A list of individuals and organizations that commented on the DEIS within the
formal comment period is shown in Table 5.5-3. The distribution list for the FEIS is shown in
Table 5.5-1.
5-15
-------
Table 5.5-1. Distribution List for Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
Members listed alpbabeucalJy by affiliation.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Federal Agencies
Federal Maritime Commission
X
X
Fort Point National Historic Site
X
X
Nancy Homor
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
X
X
Edward Ueber
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
X
X
Mark Murray-Brown
NOAA, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
X
Commanding Officer
NCEL (Attn: Marsha Kingsbury)
X
Herb Curl
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Hazardous Materials, NOAA/N/OMA34
X
X
Martin Eckes
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Headquarters, N/SPA
X
James By bee
National Marine Fisheries Service
X
X
Dr. Alec MacCall
National Marine Fisheries Service
X
X
Donald Pearson
National Marine Fisheries Service
X
X
Michael Thaubaull
National Marine Fisheries Service
X
X
Chris Mobley
National Marine Fisheries Service
X
Admiral Merrill W. Ruck
Naval Base San Francisco
X
Jacqueline Wyland
Office of Federal Activities (E-3)
X
John Coon
Pacific Fishery Management Council
X
Sara Koenig
Point Reyes National Seashore
X
Wade Eakle
Regulatory Branch, SF Dist. ACOE
X
Ll Col. Len Cardoza
San Francisco District, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
Roderick Chisholm
San Francisco District, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
Calvin Fong
San Francisco District, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
Richard Stradford
San Francisco District, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
Thomas Wakeman
San Francisco District, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
South Pacific Division, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
South Pacific Division, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
William McCoy
South Pacific Division, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
X
B.G. Milton Hunter
South Pacific Division, U.S. Corps of Engineers
X
BF0036.W51 (1)
5-16
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Mary Lamb
U.S. Air Force Reg. Compliance Office
X
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safely Office
X
X
Captain Thomas Robinson
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
X
Commander Scot Tieman
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
X
X
U.S. Department of the Interior
X
X
Patricia Sanderson Port
U.S. Department of the Interior
X
X
John Lishman
U.S. EPA Headquarters, WH-556F
X
Marvin Plenert
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
X
X
Wayne White
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
X
X
Michael Field
U.S. Geological Survey
X
X
Herman Karl
U.S. Geological Survey
X
X
Marlene Noble
U.S. Geological Survey
X
X
John Kennedy
U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
X
X
Curt Collins
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
X
X
Steven Ramp
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
X
X
Captain Robert Moeller
U.S. Navy, Western Division
X
Independent Groups (includes businesses, environmental groups, and individuals)
Don Anderson
individual
X
X
Bill Boland
individual
X
X
Mark Burke
individual
X
Lou Drake
individual
X
X
Tom Jow
individual
X
X
Fred Krieger
individual
X
Gail Rosen
individual
X
Isidore Szczepaniak
individual
X
Margaret Johnson
Aquatic Habitat Institute
X
X
Audubon Society, Golden Gate Chapter
X
X
Walter Abernathy
Bay Dredging Action Coalition
X
Bay Institute of San Francisco
X
Michael Herz
Bay Keeper
X
X
Ellen Johnck
Bay Planning Coalition
X
X
BF0036.W51
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FE1S
Selina Bendix
Bendix Environmental Research Inc.
X
George Plant
Benicia Port Terminal
X
X
Philip Plant
Benicia Industries, Inc.
X
X
Charles Adam
Board of Pilot Commissioners
X
Bodega Marine Laboratory
X
X
Lloyd Dodge
California Association of Harbormasters and Port
Captains
X
X
Martin Seldon
California Fisheries Restoration Foundation
X
Ray Krone
California Maritime Affiliation and Naval Conference
(CMANC)
X
X
Robert Langner
California Maritime Affiliation and Naval Conference
(CMANC)
X
X
California Academy of Sciences
X
X
Laurel Marcus
California Coastal Conservancy
X
X
California Marine Mammal Center
X
X
Mike Corker
California Waterfowl Association
X
X
Jill Kauffman
Center for Marine Conservation
X
X
Barbara Miller
Center for Marine Conservation
X
Owen Marron
Central Labor Council of Alameda
X
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
X
X
Alan Ramo
Citizens for a Better Environment
X
X
Barbara Sahm
City Planning Department, SF City and
X
Kathleen van Velsor
Coastal Advocates
X
X
Dr. Hilary Feldman
Department of Integrative Biology
X
Bob Baroni
Dredge Rep Operating Engineers Local #3
X
William Dorresteyn
Dredge Rep Operating Engineers Local #3
X
Bill Dutra
Dutra Construction Co., Inc.
X
Dutra Construction Company
X
Chris Peterson
Dutra Construction, Inc.
X
Earth Island Institute
X
X
Richard Bailey
Engineering-Science
X
Environmental Defense Fund
X
X
BF0036 W51 (3)
5-18
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Lindsay Rehm
The Environmental Forum of Marin
X
Todd Royer
EXXON Refining Company
X
Levia Stein
EXXON Refining Company
X
Arthur Feinstein
Golden Gate Audubon Society
X
James Robertson
Golden Gate Fisherman's Association
X
X
Stanley Ekren
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company
John Karas
Great Lakes Dredging Company
X
X
Karen Topakian
Greenpeace Action
X
X
Pietro Parravano
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Association
X
X
Headlands Foundation
X
X
Dr. Victor Jones
Intra-Govemmental Studies, University of California at
Bericeley
X
X
Latitude 38 Magazine
X
X
League for Coastal Protection
X
X
League of Women Voters, Bay Area
X
Fran Packard
League of Women Voters of the Bay Area
X
Pat Silverman
League of Women Voters of Oakland
X
Stuart Siegal
Levine-Fricke
X
Manson Construction and Engineering Company
X
X
Barbara Salzman
Marin Audubon Society
X
Barbara Salzman
Marin Audubon Society/Conservation League
X
Jean Berensmeier
Marin Conservation League
X
Karen Urquhart
Marine Conservation League
X
X
Mike Cheney
Marine Development Consultant
X
X
Krista Hanni
The Marine Mammal Center
X
Marine Science Institute
X
X
Leslie Rosenfeld
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
X
Moss Landing Commercial Fisherman's Association
X
X
Director
Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
X
X
National Audubon Society, Marin Chapter
X
X
National Audubon Society, Sequoia Chapter
X
X
Cynthia Koehler
Natural Heritage Institute
X
X
BF0036.W51 (4)
5-19
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Nature Conservancy, California Field Office
X
X
Daniel Bacher
Northern California Angling Publication
X
X
Mary Kirwin Veloz
Northern California Marine Association
X
Oakland Chamber of Commerce
X
X
Doyce Miller
Ocean Advocates
X
Margaret Elliot
Ocean Alliance
X
X
Ocean Research Institute
X
X
Margaret Johnson
Ogden Beeman and Associates
X
Leonard Long
PICYA/RBOC
X
X
Zeke Grader
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association
X
X
Robert Allen
Pacific Interclub Yacht Association
X
Miles Butler
Pacific Refinery Company
X
Terry Henderson
Pacific Refinery Company
X
David Ainley
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
X
X
Sarah Allen
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
X
X
Larry Kerbs
Port Sonoma Marin
X
Captain AJ. Thomas
San Francisco Bar Pilots
X
X
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
X
X
Jane Kay
San Francisco Examiner
X
Dr. Doug Segar
San Francisco State University
X
X
James Haussener
San Leandro Marina
X
X
Barry Nelson
Save San Francisco Bay Association
X
X
John Lunz
Science Applications International Corporation
X
X
Daniel Glaze
Shell Oil Co.
X
Robert Andrews
Shell Oil Co., Martinez Complex
X
David Nesmith
Sierra Club
X
X
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
X
X
Michael Krikorian
Sonoma County Sierra Club
X
Wendy Eliot
State Coastal Conservancy
X
X
Stuyvesant Dredging Company
X
X
Mark Massara
Surfrider Foundation
X
BF0Q36.W51 (5)
5-20
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Kim Brown
Tetra Tech
X
X
Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San
Francisco State University
X
X
Roger Lockwara
Tosco Refining Co.
X
James Cleary
Tosco Refining Co.
X
Leo Cronin
Trout Unlimited
X
X
Ken Guziak
UNOCAL, San Francisco Refinery
X
X
John BeutUer
United Anglers of America
X
Jobn BeutUer
United Anglers
X
Richard Peterson
United Surf Riders
X
X
Western Pacific Dredging Company
X
X
Local Agencies
Sally Germain
ABAG Clearinghouse
X
X
Steven Szalay
Alameda County
X
X
Darwin Helmuth
Alameda County Public Works Department
X
Association of Bay Area Governments
X
X
Board of Port Commissioners, Oakland
X
X
City and County of San Francisco
X
X
Lois Pan-
City of Oakland
X
City of Redwood City
X
X
City of Richmond
X
X
William Silva
City of San Leandro
X
Bill Silva
City of San Leandro
X
Sharon Rogers
City of San Francisco
X
Contra Costa County
X
X
Samuel Herzberg
County of San Mateo, Mail Drop 55
X
Susan Holland
Golden Gate Bridge District
X
Marin County
X
X
Mark Roddin
Metropolitan Transportation Comm.
X
Napa County
X
X
Lois Pan-
Oakland Office of Economic Development and
Employment
X
BF0036.W51 (6)
5-21
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
James McGrath
Port of Oakland
X
X
Tom Gwyn
Port of Oakland
X
Charles Roberts
Port of Oakland
X
Floyd Shelton
Port of Redwood City
X
X
M. Powers
Port of Richmond
X
X
Eugene Serex
Port of Richmond
X
X
Michael Huerta
Port of San Francisco
X
X
Veronica Sanchez
Port of San Francisco
X
X
Port of Stockton
X
X
Alexander Krygsman
Port of Stockton
X
X
Larry Krebs
Port Sonoma-Marin
X
Dave Jones
San Francisco Department of Public Works
X
Gail Louis
San Francisco Estuary Project
X
San Mateo County
X
X
Donald Guiuzzy
San Mateo County Harbor District
X
Santa Clara County
X
X
Karen Wyeth
Solano County Planning Department
X
James Harberson
Sonoma County
X
X
Libraries
ABAG/MTC Library
X
X
Alameda County Library
X
X
Bancroft Library, University of California
X
X
Berkeley Public Library
X
X
Karen Soloman
CSU Documents Department
X
Daly City Public Library
X
X
Environmental Information Center, San Jose Slate
University
X
X
Half Moon Bay Library
X
X
Marin County Library, Civic Center
X
X
North Bay Cooperative Library System
X
X
Oakland Public Library
X
X
BF0036.W51 (7)
5-22
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Richmond Public Library
X
X
San Francisco Public Library
X
X
San Francisco State University Library
X
X
San Mateo County Library
X
X
Santa Clara County Free Library
X
X
Sausalito Public Library
X
X
Stanford University Library
X
X
Linda Vida-Sunnen
Water Resources Center Archives
X
U.S. Representatives
Honorable Ronald Dellums
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
Honorable Vic Fazio
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
Honorable Wally Herger
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
Honorable Tom Lantos
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
Honorable George Miller
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
Honorable Fortney Stark
U.S. House of Representatives
X
X
H. Lee Halterman
Office of Congressman Ron Dellums
X
Honorable Norman Mineta
U.S. House of Representatives
X
U.S. Senators
Honorable Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senate
X
X
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senate
X
X
State Agencies
James Rote
Assembly Office of Research
X
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
X
X
California Coastal Commission
X
James Raives
California Coastal Commission
X
Mark Delaplaine
California Coastal Commission
X
X
Peter Douglas
California Coastal Commission
X
X
Wes Ervinh
California Commerce Department
X
X
California Department of Boating and Waterways
X
BP0036.WS1 (6)
5-23
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
William Ivers
California Department of Boating and Waterways
X
George Armstrong
California Department of Boating and Waterways
X
X
Carl Covitz
California Department of Business, Transportation and
Housing
X
Robert Tasto
California Department of Fish and Game
X
X
John Turner
California Department of Fish and Game
X
Jim Hardwicke
California Department of Fish and Game
X
Boyd Gibbons
California Department of Fish and Game
X
California Department of Health Servics
X
X
Bill SooHoo
California Department of Toxic Substance Control
X
Julie Wright
California Department of Trade and Commerce
X
Bob Potter
California Department of Water Resources
X
X
Michael Kahoe
California Environmental Protection Agency
X
X
Mark de Bie
California Environmental Protection Agency
X
George Larsen
California Integrated Waste Management Board
X
X
Douglas Wheeler
California Resources Agency
X
X
California State Air Resources Board
X
X
California State Clearinghouse
X
CALTRANS
X
X
John Geoghegan
Department of Business, Transportation, and Housing
X
Walt Shannon
Division of Water Quality, SWRCB
X
Robert Tufts
Jackson, Tufts, Cole and Black
X
Rebecca Chew
LA Regional Water Quality Control Board
X
Michael Carlin
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board
X
X
Paul Jones
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board
X
Marion Otsea
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board
X
X
Steven Ritchie
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board
X
X
Jeptha Wade
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board
X
X
BF0036.W51 (9)
5-24
-------
Table 5.5-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
DEIS
FEIS
Steve Goldbeck
San Francisco BCDC
X
X
Alan Pendleton
San Francisco BCDC
X
X
Linda Martinez
Slate Lands Commission
X
X
Charles Warren
State Lands Commission
X
X
Fred La Caro
State Water Resources Control Board
X
Walt Pettit
State Water Resources Control Board
X
California Representatives
Honorable Tom Bates
California Stale Assembly
X
X
Honorable Willie Brown, Jr.
California Slate Assembly
X
X
Honorable John Burton
California State Assembly
X
X
Honorable Robert Campbell
California State Assembly
X
X
Honorable Barbara Lee
California State Assembly
X
X
Honorable Ted Lempert
California State Assembly
X
X
Honorable Jackie Speier
California State Assembly
X
X
James Alford
State of California Assembly, Speaker's Office
X
X
California Senate
Honorable Barry Keene
California State Senate
X
X
Honorable Quentin Kopp
California State Senate
X
X
Honorable Milton Marks
California State Senate
X
X
Honorable Rebecca Morgan
California State Senate
X
X
Honorable Nicholas Petris
California State Senate
X
BF0036.W51 (10)
5-25
-------
Table 5.5-2. Locations Where the FEIS Can Be Reviewed or Requested.
Copies of this DEIS may be reviewed at the following locations:
ABAG/MTC Library
101 - 8th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Oakland Public Library
125 - 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Alameda County Library
3121 Diablo Avenue
Hayward, CA 94545
Richmond Public Library
325 Civic Center Plaiza
Richmond, CA 94804
Bancroft Library
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
San Francisco Public Library
Civic Center, Larkin and McAllister
San Francisco, CA 94102
Berkeley Public Library
2090 Kittredge Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
San Francisco State University Library
1630 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
Daly City Public Library
40 Wembley Drive
Daly City, CA 94015
San Mateo County Library
25 Tower Road
San Mateo, CA 94402
Environmental Information Center,
San Jose State University
125 South 7th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Santa Clara County Free Library
1095 N. 7th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Half Moon Bay Library
620 Correas
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Sausalito Public Library
420 Litho Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
North Bay Cooperative Library System
725 Third Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Stanford University Library
Stanford, CA 94035
Marin County Library, Civic Center
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Copies of this FEIS may be requested by writing to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch (W-7)
ATTN: Allan Ota
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
AK0172.W51
5-26
-------
Table 5.5-3. Individuals and Organizations That Provided Comments During the DEIS
Formal Review Period.
Organizations are listed alphabetically.
Individual
Organization
James D. Boyd
Air Resources Board. State of California
Walter A. Abemathy
Bay Dredging Action Coalition
Ellen Johnck
Bay Planning Commission
Peter M. Douglas
California Coastal Commission
James M. Strock
California Environmental Protection Agency
Martin M. Seldon
The California Fisheries Restoration Foundation
Martha Vazquez
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Barbara Miller
Center for Marine Conservation
Owen A. Marron
Central Labor Council of Alameda County
Barbara W. Salun
City and County of San Francisco Department of City Planning
Ronald V. Dellums
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives
Samuel Herzberg
County of San Mateo
Max R. Blodgett
Department of the Army, San Francisco District, Corps of
Engineers
Robert N. Taslo
Department of Fish and Game, State of California
John H. Kennedy
Department of the Navy, Western Division
James W. Van Loben Sels
Department of Transportation, State of California
Lindsay Rehm
The Environmental Forum of Marin
Arthur Feinstein
Golden Gate Audubon Society
Edward Ueber
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Cynthia L. Koehler
Heller Ebrman White and McAuliffe
Tom Jow
independent
Fran Packard
League of Women Voters of the Bay Area
James D. Levine
Levine-Fricke
Barbara Salzman
Marin Audubon Society
Peigin Barrett
Marine Mammal Center
Lawrence D. Six
Pacific Fishery Management Council
BF0035.W51
5-27
-------
Individual
Organization
Daniel Evans
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
James McGrath
Port of Oakland
Michael P. Huerta
Port of San Francisco
Alan R. Pendleton
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
James P. Royce
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Dwight E. Sanders
Stale Lands Commission
Mark A. Massara
Surfrider Foundation
Julie Meier Wright
Trade and Commerce Agency, State of California
BF0035.W51
5-28
-------
13232
EXHIBIT 1
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 61 / Friday, March 31, 1989 / Notices
the Commission on its own motion
believes that a formal hearing is
required, further notice of such hearing
will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided
for, unless otherwise advised, it will be
unnecessary for the applicant to appear
or be represented at the hearing.
C. Any person or the Commission's
staff may, within 45 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the
Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of
the Commission's Procedural Rules (18
CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or
notice of intervention and pursuant to
§ 157.205 of the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a
protest to the request If no protest is
filed within the time allowed therefor,
the proposed activity shall be deemed to
be authorized effective the day after the
time allowed for Tiling a protest If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn
within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall
be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the Natural Gas Act
Lois D. Cashed,
Secretary.
(FR Doc. 89-7648 Filed 3-30-89:8:45 am]
(ULUNO COO£ «7ir-0t-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EH-FRL-3547-4]
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments
prepared March 13,1989 through March
17,1989 pursuant to the Environmental
Review Process (ERP). under section 309
of the Clean Air Act and section
I02(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act as amended. Requests for
copies of EPA comments can be directed
to the Office of Federal Activities at
(202) 382-5076.
An explanation of the ratings assigned
to draft environmental impact
1 sluiements (EISs) was published in FR
dated April 22,1988 (53 FR 13318).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-COE-E30034-NC. Rating
EC2. West Onslow Beach and New
River Inlet Beach (Topsail Beach),
Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave
•.Protection Plan, Implementation. Pender
and Onslow Counties. NC.
Summary: EPA has some
environmental concerns about certain
¦ secondary/induced conseqnpnces of the
proposal and would like to see these
matters clarified in the final EIS.
ERP No. D-COE-H35018-KS. Rating
EC2. Kansas River Commercial Dredging
Project, {unction City to Kansas-
Missouri State Line, Section 10 Permits,
Douglas. Geary, Jefferson, Johnson,
Leavenworth, Pottawatomie. Riley,
Shawnee, Wabawnsee and Wyandotte
Counties, KS.
Summary: EPA supports the Army
Corps of Engineers recommendation that
the restricted dredging alternative is the
preferred option to control commerical
dredging on the Kansas River. However,
EPA emphasized that the EC-2 rating is
based on (1) adherence to the restricted
dredging alternative as stated; (2)
expeditious implementation of the
Monitoring Program; and (3) a phase-in
period of restrictions within three years
or less. EPA also requested that the COE
clarify and discuss the impacts of
dredging on the aquatic ecosystem
(fishery/benthos) in the upper versus
lower reaches of the Kansas River.
ERP No. DS-FHW-E40129-TN. Rating
ECl, I—40/1—275 (formerly 1-75)
Interchange Connector Reconstruction
to Henley Street and the Western
Avenue Viaduct Replacement, Funding
and 404 Permit, Knoxville. Knox County,
TN.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns over possible
noise impacts of the project Water
quality impacts due to the potential for
increased urban runoff and mitigation
measures should be discussed. Further
documentation is necessary to support
the need for a portion of the project.
Compliance with NEPA is questioned
due to the fact that some project
construction continued prior to
completion of the EIS process.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-AFS-L65111-WA. Colville
National Forest, LAnd and Resource
Managment Plan. Implementation, Perry.
Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties, WA.
Summary: EPA's concerns of the draft
EIS was repsonded to in this document.
EPA's remaining main concern is that
the forest-wide water quality and fish
resource monitoring plan needs to be
further developed specific to the issues
on the Colville National Forest.
ERP No. F-BLM-J01070-CO.
Northwest Colorado Coal Preference
Right Lease Applications, Chapman-
Riebold (C-0125366) and Jensen-Miller
(C-4Z75), Leasing, Rio Blanco County.
CO.
Summary: EPA agreed with the
Preferred Alternative in that it could be
implemented without significant impact
to the environment
ERP No. F-BLM-1.67020-AK. Forty
mile River Watershed, Multiple Placer
Mining Management Plan, Approval.
Implementation and 404 Permit, Upper
Yukon-Canada Subregion. AK.
Summary: EPA requested that site-
specific criteria be developed to assist
in determining what additional
reclamation requirements will be
required. EPA also has concerns
regarding the limited water quality data
incorporated into the final EIS and
associated predictive uncertainties
pertaining to cumulative effects.
ERP No. F-FHW-E40896-GA. Georgia
Project F-lll-1 (16) Spur Construction,
Abercorn Street/GA-204 to GA-21/I-
516/Lynes Parkway. 404 Permit, USGC
Permit and Funding, Chatham County.
GA.
Summary: EPA expressed concern
about impacts to protected wildlife
species, water quality, and potential
increased noise levels, EPA has
requested the development of measures
to protect the aquatic environment and
agency coordination to mitigate wetland
loss.
ERP No. F-UPS-C81011 NY.
Manhattan General Mail Facility
Complex Development, Implementation,
New York City, New York County, NY.
Summary: EPA believes that
implementation of the project as-
proposed will cause a violation of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for carbon monoxide. Accordingly, EPA
has recommended that the design of the
proposed project be altered to provide
appropriate mitigation for the air quality
impacts, and that documentation of the
redesign be forwarded to EPA for
review prior to the issuance of the
record of decision.
Dated: March 28.1989.
William D. Dickersoo,
Deputy Director. Office of Federal Activities.
(FR Doc. 89-7741 Filed 3-30-89: 8:45 amj
BILLING CODE S5CO-SO-M
(ER-FRL-3549-3]
Designation of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) off San
Francisco, CA; Intention To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Region 9.
action: Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on the designation of an ODMDS off San
Francisco. California.
Purpose: The U.S. EPA. Region 9, in
accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the
Nntion;il Environmental Policy Act
5-29
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 61 / Friday, March 31, 1989 / Notices
13233
(NEPA) and in cooperation with the San
Francisco District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, will prepare a Draft
EIS (DEIS) on the designation of an
ODMDS for dredged material off San
Francisco, California. An EIS is needed
to provide the information necessary to
designate a suitable site. This Notice of
Intent is issued pursuant to Section 102
of the Marine Protection. Research and
. Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, and
40 CFR Part 228 (Criteria for the
Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean
Dumping).
For Further Information and to be
Placed on the Mailing List Contact:
Patrick Cotter, Oceans and Estuaries
Section (W-7-1), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9,215
Fremont Street, San Francisco.
California 94105, telephone number (415)
974-0257, or FTS 454-0257.
summary: Designation of the San
Francisco ODMDS is needed to provide
a suitable disposal site for dredged
material removed from San Francisco
Bay and other locations in the vicinity.
Disposal of dredged material at any
ODMDS is not permitted unless EPA
and the Corps determine that the
material is acceptable for disposal under
EPA's Ocean Dumping criteria at 40 CFR
225 and 40 CFR 227. The Corps issues
permits under Section 103 of MPRSA
subject to EPA review.
EPA and the Corps are evaluating
several geographical areas for suitable
disposal sites. These geographical areas
include continental shelf to a depth of
100 fathoms (fm). the shelf break from
100-300 fm, the continental slope 300-
500 fm. the deep slope area 500-1,000 fm.
Pioneer Canyon 300-1.000 fm, and areas
deeper than 1,000 fm.
The Corps will complete all
environmental and economic studies
related to the San Francisco site in
support of EIS preparation. EPA is
responsible for reviewing the
information used in preparation of the
DEIS and publishing the document The
Corps will assist EPA in responding to
any comments received on the DEIS and
subsequent site designation work.
Need for Action: The Corps of
Engineers. San Francisco District has
requested that EPA designate an
ODMDS offshore of San Francisco.
California. An EIS is required to provide
the necessary information to evaluate
disposal alternatives and to designate
the preferred ODMDS. If the proposed
dredged material from San Francisco
Bay and other locations in the vicinity
meets the criteria for ocean disposal at
40 CFR Parts 225 and 227 then the
material mpy be disposed at the
designated site.
Alternatives: The EIS will
characterize environmental parameters,
assess environmental impacts and
evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives to determine whether
designation of an ocean disposal site is
acceptable. The alternatives include: (1)
No Action, (2) Existing In-Bay Disposal
Sites, (3) New In-Bay Disposal Sites. (4)
Upland Disposal, (5) Historical Ocean
Dumping Sites, and (6) Ocean Disposal
at any of the geographical areas
described above.
. Scoping: Preliminary scoping meetings
were held on January 16,1989 and
March 1,1989 to develop thise NOI. Two
scoping meetings for the general public
are scheduled on April 11,1989, from .
1:00 to 4:00 p.m., and from 7.-00 to 10:00
p.m. The meetings will be held at the
Bay Motel, 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito,
California. 94985. Written comments on
this. Notice of Intent should be sent to
the contact person listed above no later
than 45 day9 after the date of
publication.
Estimated Date of Release: The DEIS
will be made available in March 1991.
Responsible Official:
Daniel W. McGovem.
Regional Administrator. Region ft
Date: March 28,1989.
Richard E. Sanderson,
Director. Office of Federal A ctivilies.
[FR Doc. 89-7742 Filed 3-30-89: 8:45 am]
BUiNO CODE SHO-SO-M
[ER-FRL 3543-1]
Intention To Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);
City of San Diego Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, California
agency: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region IX.
action: Preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the
conversion of San Diego's wastewater
treatment facilities from advanced
primary treatment to secondary
treatment and water reclamation.
Purpose: In accordance with section
511(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), EPA
has identified a need to prepare an EIS
and therefore issues this Amended
Notice of Intent.
For Further Information and to be
Placed on the Project Mailing List
Contact: Mr. Enio Sebastiani,
Construction Grants Branch. U.S. EPA.
(W-2-2). 215 Fremont St.. San Francisco.
CA 94105. Telephone: (Commercial) 415-
974-B316 or (FTS) 454-8316.
summary: The City of San Diego has
initiated a new program, the Clean
Water Program for Greater San Diego,
with a goal of attaining full compliance
with the CWA and NEPA. The program
is currently in the facilities planning
stage. The resulting plan will
recommend both secondary treatment
and water reclamation facilities of
sufficient size to serve the San Diego
metropolitan area through the middle of
the twenty-first century. Facilities .
covered by .the plan will include an
upgrade of the City's Point Loma
wastewater treatment plant, one or two
other secondary treatment plants, a
number of water reclamation plants,
sludge handling and disposal facilities,
and associated pump stations and
pipelines.
Need for Action: On September 30.
1988. EPA announced its decision to
tentatively deny the City of San Diego's
1979 and 1983 applications for a waiver
under Section 301(h) of the CWA. On
November 3.1988, the City Council
authorized the City Manager to send
EPA a letter of intent to file a revised
waiver application. On February 17,
1987, the City Council decided to
discontinue waiver efforts and to pursue
secondary treatment.
Alternatives: Six alternatives plus the
No Project alternative are presently
under consideration for providing
secondary treatment in the San Diego
area. The alternatives involve variations
in the size and extent of treatment
facilities in the North City area, at the
existing Point Loma treatment site, at
locations near Lindbergh Field, and at
6ites along the U.S./ Mexico border.
Alternative sites are also being
considered for a number of reclamation
plants throughout the San Diego
metropolitan area.
Scoping: The City of San Diego has
held initial public scoping meetings and
continues to seek public input that will
be used to analyze the alternatives. The
next scoping meeting will be held on
Wednesday, April 26.1989 at 7:30 p.m.
at the Ramada Hotel. Grand Ballroom.
Eighth Floor. 660 K" Street, San Diego.
CA.
Estimated Date of Draft EIS Release:
June 15.1990.
Responsible Official: Daniel W.
McGovem, Regional Administrator.
Dated: March 28.19R9.
Richard E. Sanderson.
Director. Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 89-7743 Filed 3-30-89: 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6S60-SO-U
5-30
-------
EXHIBIT 2
,tO sr.,.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901
22 JUL 1992
Mr. William Lehman
Endangered Species Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823
Sacramento, CA 95825
Dear Mr. Lehman:
The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (EPA) is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the designation of an ocean dredged material
disposal site off San Francisco, California. The site will be selected as pan of the Long-
Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for San Francisco Bay and will have the capacity to
accomodate an estimated 400 million cubic yards of dredged material over a 50-year period.
The proposed action will involve only the designation of the site itself; before disposal is
permitted, dredged material must be evaluated in accordance with the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and its implementing regulations and guidance.
EPA began the site designation process by evaluating four study areas on the Farallon
Shelf and Slope at distances of 20 to 55 miles offshore and at depths of 300 to 6000 feet.
The four study areas arc delineated on the enclosed map (areas 2-5) and coordinate list.
With the recent designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Study Areas 2
and the eastern third of Study Area 3 are no longer being considered as potential sites.
However, since data have been collected for all four study are^is, a characterization of each
area is being developed. In the draft EIS, which is scheduled for release in November
1992, EPA will identify candidate sites within Study Areas 3, 4 and 5 and will choose a
preferred alternative site.
In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, please advise EPA of
the presence of any listed, or candidate, threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of
the four study areas identified above. In addition, please advise EPA of any critical habitat
for these species which may be impacted by the proposed action. Similar requests have
been forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game. EPA would appreciate your response prior to October 1,1992. Please
direct any questions or requests for further information to Shelley Clarke at (415) 744-
1162.
Enclosures (2)
5-31
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-32
-------
.ito sr4,
r\
EXHIBIT 3
* ^ p
? if* tj
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901
22 JUL 1932
Mr. James Bybee
Environmental Coordinator, Northern Area
National Marine Fisheries Service
777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Dear Mr. Bybee:
The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (EPA) is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the designation of an ocean dredged material
disposal site off San Francisco, California. The site will be selected as pan of the Long-
Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for San Francisco Bay and will have the capacity to
accomodate an estimated 400 million cubic yards of dredged material over a 50-year period.
The proposed action will involve only the designation of the site itself; before disposal is
permitted, dredged material must be evaluated in accordance with the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and its implementing regulations and guidance.
EPA began the site designation process by evaluating four study areas on the Farallon
Shelf and Slope at distances of 20 to 55 miles offshore and at depths of 300 to 6000 feet.
The four study areas arc delineated on the enclosed map (areas 2-5) and coordinate list.
With the recent designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Study Areas 2
and the eastern third of Study Area 3 are no longer being considered as potential sites.
However, since data have been collected for all four study areas, a characterization of each
area is being developed. In the draft EIS, which is scheduled for release in November
1992, EPA will identify candidate sites within Study Areas 3, 4 and 5 and will choose a
preferred alternative site.
In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, please advise EPA of
the presence of any listed, or candidate, threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of
the four study areas identified above. In addition, please advise EPA of any critical habitat
for these species which may be impacted by the proposed action. Similar requests have
been forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game. EPA would appreciate your response prior to October 1,1992. Please
direct any questions or requests for further information to Shelley Clarke at (415) 744-
1162.
Marine Protection Section
Enclosures (2)
5-33
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-34
-------
EXHIBIT 4
/ \
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901
JB2 JUL i592
Mr. John Turner, Acting Chief
Environmental Services Division
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Turner:
The Environmental Protection Agency Region DC (EPA) is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EI5) for the designation of an ocean
dredged material disposal site off San Francisco, California. The site will be
selected as part of the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for San
Francisco Bay and will have the capacity to accomodate an estimated 400
million cubic yards of dredged material over a 50-year period. The proposed
action will involve only the designation of the site itself; before disposal is
permitted, dredged material must be evaluated in accordance with the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and its implementing
regulations and guidance.
EPA begem the site designation process by evaluating four study areas on
the Farallon Shelf and Slope at distances of 20 to 55 miles offshore and at
depths of 300 to 6000 feet. The four study areas are delineated on the enclosed
map (areas 2-5) and coordinate list. With the recent designation of the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Study Areas 2 and the eastern third
of Study Area 3 are no longer being considered as potential sites. However,
since data have been collected for all four study areas, a characterization of
each area is being developed. In the draft EIS, which is scheduled for release
in November 1992, EPA will identify candidate sites within Study Areas 3, 4
and 5 and will choose a preferred alternative site.
EPA is requesting an endangered species consultation pursuant to the
State Endangered Species Act. Therefore, please advise EPA of the presence of
any listed, or candidate, threatened or endangered species, or species of special
concern, in the vicinity of the four study areas identified above. In addition,
please advise EPA of any critical habitat for these species which may be
impacted by the proposed action. EPA will use this information in the
preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and will forward
this information to the California Coastal Commission as part of the site
5-35
Pnntea on Recycled Paper
-------
EXHIBIT 4 (continued)
designation coastal consistency package we will prepare. Similar Federal
consultations have been initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service. EPA would appreciate your response
prior to October 1, 1992. Please direct any questions or requests for further
information to Shelley Clarke at (415) 744-1162.
Sincerely,
Marine Protection Section
Enclosures (2)
5-36
-------
EXHIBIT 5
TAKE
PRIDE IN
United States Department of the Interior americV
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Sacramento Field Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
In Reply Refer To:
1-1-92-SP-1217
August 20, 1992
'£ ?/*?/»
Ms. Janet/y. Hashimoto
Chief, Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105-3901
Subject: Species List for the Proposed Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site Off che Coast of San Francisco, California
Dear Ms. Hashimoto:
As requested by letter from your agency, you will find enclosed a list of the
listed endangered and threatened species that may be present in the subject
project area (See Enclosure A). To the best of our knowledge, no proposed
species occur within the area. This list fulfills the requirement of the Fish
and Wildlife Service to provide a species list pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act).
Some pertinent information concerning the distribution, life history, habitat
requirements, and published references for the listed species is also
enclosed. This information may be helpful in preparing the biological
assessment for this project, if one is required. Please see Enclosure B for a
discussion of the responsibilities of Federal agencies under Section 7(c) of
the Act and the conditions under which a biological assessment must be
prepared by the lead Federal agency or its designated non-Federal
representative.
Formal consultation, pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.14, should be initiated if you
determine that a listed species may be affected by the proposed project.
Informal consultation m.iy be utilized prior to a written request for formal
consultation to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to
listed species. If a biological assessment is required, and it is not
initiated within 90 days of your receipt of this letter, you should informally
verify the accuracy of this list with our office.
Please contact the Section 7 Coordinator of this office at (916) 978-4866 if
you have any questions regarding the enclosed list or your responsibilities
under the Act.
Enclosures
5-37
-------
ENCLOSURE A
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND
CANDIDATE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
(1-1-92-SP-1217, AUGUST 20, 1992)
Listed Species
Birds
California brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (E)
Proposed Species
None
Candidate Species
None
(E)--Endangered (T)--Threatened (P)--Proposed (CH)--Critical Habitat
(1)--Category 1: Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient
biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or
threatened.
(2)--Category 2: Taxa for which existing information indicated may warrant
listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a
proposed rule is lacking.
(1R)-Recommended for Category 1 status.
(2R)-Recommended for Category 2 status.
(•)--Listing petitioned.
(*)--Possibly extinct.
5-38
-------
ENCLOSURE B
FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER
SECTIONS 7(a) and (c) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SECTION 7(a) Consultation/Conference
Requires: I) Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out
programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2) Consultation with
FWS when a Federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species
to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence.of listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The
process is initiated by the Federal agency after determining the action may
affect a listed species; and 3) Conference with FWS when a Federal action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result
in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
SECTION 7(c) Biological Assessment--Major Construction Activity1
Requires Federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological
Assessment (BA) for major construction activities. The BA analyzes the
effects of the action^ on listed and proposed species. The process begins
with a Federal agency requesting from FWS a list of proposed and listed
threatened and endangered species. The BA should be completed within 180 days
after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable).
If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the list, the accuracy
of the species list should be informally verified with our Service. No
irreversible commitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which
would foreclose reasonable and prudent alternatives to protect endangered
species. Planning, design, and administrative actions may proceed; however,
no construction may begin.
We recommend the following for inclusion in the BA: an on-site inspection of
the area affected by the proposal which may include a detailed survey of the
area to determine if the species or suitable habitat are present; a review of
literature and scientific data to determine species' distribution, habitat
needs, and other biological requirements; interviews with experts, including
those within FWS, State conservation departments, universities and others who
may have data not yet published in scientific literature; an analysis of the
effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and
populations, including consideration of indirect effects of the proposal on
the species and its habitat; an analysis of alternative actions considered.
The BA should document the results, including a discussion of study methods
used, any problems encountered, and other relevant information. The BA should
conclude whether or not a listed or proposed species will be affected. Upon
completion, the BA should be forwarded to our office.
1A construction project (or other undertaking having similar physical
impacts) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment as referred to in NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)C).
o
"Effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects on an
action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of
other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action.
5-39
-------
CALIFORNIA BROWN PELICAN
(Pelicanus occidentalis californicus)
CLASSIFICATION: Endangered - Federal Register 35:16047.
CRITICAL HABITAT: None designated.
DESCRIPTION:
The California brown pelican is a large bird weighing about 9 pounds, with a wingspan of
over 6 feet. Adults have long dark bills, about 1.5 feet long, with an elastic gular pouch for
catching and holding fish, which turns bright red during the breeding season. Coloration is
generally brownish, with white patterning on the head and neck.
DISTRIBUTION:
One of six recognized subspecies, nesting distribution is restricted to islands in the Gulf of
California, and along the outer coast from Baja California to the Southern California Bight.
In the U.S., nesting rookeries are located on Anacapa Island and Santa Barbara Island.
During the non-breeding season, the California brown pelican ranges northward along the
Pacific coast from the Gulf of California to Washington and southern British Columbia.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION:
The California brown pelican also is listed as endangered by the State of California, and
therefore, is protected by State law. The entire species was listed, except breeding
populations along the U.S. Atlantic coast, Florida, and Alabama, because of widespread
pollutant-related reproductive failures during the late 1960's and early 1970's. Although
breeding populations have rebounded since the elimination of DDT use, persistent residues
in the coastal environment continue to cause chronic reproductive problems.
REFERENCES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. The California brown pelican recovery plan. Portland,
OR. Prepared under contract with Frank Gress and Dan Anderson.
Anderson, D. and F. Gress. 1983. Status in a northern population of California brown
pelicans. Condor 85:79-88.
Anderson, D. F. Gress and K. Mais. 1982. Brown pelicans: influence of food supply on
reproduction. Oikos 39:23-31.
Anderson, D., J. Jehl, R. Risebrough, L. Woods, L. Deweese, and W. Edgecomb. 1975.
Brown pelicans: improved reproduction off the southern California coast. Science
190:806-808.
5-40
-------
X" °'c
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-42
-------
state of California—the resources agency
EXHIBIT 7
PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 NINTH STREET
P.O. BOX 944209
SACRAMENTO. CA 94244-2090
(916) 653-4875
September 25, 1992
Ms. Janet Y. Hashimoto, Chief
Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94195-3901
Dear Ms. Hashimoto:
I wish to respond to your letter requesting endangered
species consultation pursuant to the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) for the proposed ocean dredged material
disposal site off San Francisco, California. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project should
consider the potential impacts to both State- and federally-
listed species, candidate species, and species of special
concern, that may occur in the vicinity of the four study areas.
The Department has prepared a list of species that we believe may
be found in the vicinity of the project (attached).
The CESA does not require Federal agencies to formally
consult with the Department, however, at your request we will
prepare an informal CESA Biological Opinion for this project
similar to the formal opinion discussed below. In order for the
Department to prepare an informal biological opinion, EPA must
first evaluate potential impacts to listed species and develop
avoidance and or mitigation measures in a biological assessment,
and forward that assessment to the Department. See the attached
list of information needed to complete a consultation (Appendix
II to California Endangered Species Act Consultation Agency
Responsibilities).
Since the EIS and other supporting information will be
forwarded to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as part of
the site designation coastal consistency package, the CCC will be
requested as the State lead agency to initiate formal CESA
consultation with the Department. The results of the State
consultation will be a formal CESA Biological Opinion including
findings as to whether the proposed project would jeopardize the
future existence of any State-listed species, or cause adverse
modification of the habitat essential to its continued existence.
The Department will also recommend reasonable and prudent
alternative to prevent jeopardy, if necessary.
5-43
-------
Ms. Janet Y. Hashimoto
September 25, 1992
Page Two
The CESA encourages the Department to enter into cooperative
and simultaneous consultation with State agencies in order to
develop a coordinated Federal biological opinion that reflects
consistent and compatible findings between State and Federal
agencies, and to adopt, whenever possible, the Federal opinion as
the CESA written findings. To that end, the Department will
attempt to work closely with the National Marine Fisheries
Service to develop coordinated biological.opinions that reflect
consistent and compatible findings.
The Department looks forward to working closely and
cooperatively with the EPA and the other State and Federal
agencies involved in the review of the proposed ocean dredged
material disposal site. If you or your staff have further
questions please feel free to contact Mr. Pete Phillips,
Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game,
1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814, telephone
(916) 653-9714.
Attachments
cc: Mr. Pete Phillips
Department of Fish and Game
Sacramento, California
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94105-2219
National Marine Fisheries Service
777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325
Santa Rosa, California 95404
5-44
-------
August 1990
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Consultation
Agency Responsibilities
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as amended in 1987
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 - 2098) includes
provisions intended to improve the protection afforded endangered
and threatened species affected by development projects subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CESA states that it is the policy of the state that state agencies
should not approve projects as proposed which would jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if
there are reasonable and prudent alternatives#available consistent
with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent
jeopardy. To accomplish this CESA introduces the concept of state
lead agency consultation for endangered and threatened species.
Section 2090(a) provides that "Each state lead agency shall
consult with the [Fish and Game] department, in accordance with
guidelines developed by the department, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by that state lead agency is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species." This provision which has a sunset of
January 1, 1994 is intended as a pilot program.
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) , trustee agency for
endangered and threatened species under CEQA, and other state
agencies now have a more clearly defined mutual responsibility to
avoid potential conflicts and resolve actual conflicts.
CESA mandates that the Department shall issue a written
finding as to whether a proposed project would jeopardize any
endangered or threatened species whenever it consults with a state
lead agency during the CEQA review process.
Early (informal) consultation is encouraged by CESA in order to
identify and resolve potential conflicts as early as possible.
Formal consultation is recjuired of state lead agencies at the EIR
stage or functionally equivalent stage of a Certified Regulatory
Program.
Before initiating consultation with the Department, the agency
should evaluate the sufficiency of data regarding the project and
its effects on any threatened or endangered species. It is the
responsibility of the state lead agency to ensure that the
Department is provided the information necessary to adequately
evaluate whether the proposed project will jeopardize any
state-designated threatened or endangered species. The
information required is identified in Appendix II of the CESA
Consultation Guidelines (attached).
A state agency initiates formal consultation by sending a written
request to the Director. Informal consultation may be initiated
by a written request to either the Director or the Regional
Manager of the affected Region.
5-45
-------
-2-
When received by the Director, Environmental Services Division
(ESD) logs in the request and refers it to the affected Region f
action. When the request is received by the Regional Manager
(informal only), the Region will send a copy of the request to
ESD.
Upon receipt of the request, the Department will provide a written
response acknowledging the initiation of consultation and
identifying any additional information (including studies)
required.
Actual consultation typically occurs at the Regional level and
includes conversations, meetings, site visits, etc., between the
lead agency, project consultants, and project proponents. All
relevant materials received or otherwise available and potential
project impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures will be
reviewed by the Department in making its determination.
For projects in which there are federally-listed species and whirh
include an action authorized,, funded, or carried out by a federa
agency, that agency must consult with the FWS and obtain their
Biological Opinion. For species which are both state- and
federally-listed; CESA directs that< whenever possible, the
Department adopt the federal Biological Opinion as its written
findings. If a project affects both a state- and federally-list—
species and a state-(only) listed species, and the Department
concurs with the federal Biological Opinion, the Department must
still prepare a separate Biological Opinion for the state-listed
species.
Based upon its determination the Department's written finding wi
be one of the following:
1. The project as proposed is "not likely to jeopardize" any
listed species.
2. The project as proposed is "not likely to jeopardize" any
listed species provided the conditions stipulated in the
Department's State Biological Opinion are fully implemented
and adhered to.
3. When information available to the Department is insufficient
to support a finding of "not likely to jeopardize," then the
conservative finding that the project as proposed "may
jeopardize" is required.
4. The project as proposed is "likely to jeopardize" one or more
listed species.
The stated Biological Opinion and/or adopted federal Biological
Opinion (where appropriate) along with a cover memo from the
Director is sent to the consulting agency.
Consultation is concluded.
5-46
-------
APPENDIX II
Information Required to Determine Whether A Proposed Project
Could Jeopardize Endangered And Threatened
Species
3000. The Department of Fish and Game needs detailed
information in order to fully and accurately the
effects of a proposed project on endangered and
threatened species. Although there is no required
format, the following data must be clearly presented:
A full description of the project area and project
impact area, including maps.
Known and potential distribution of endangered and
threatened species in the project area and project
impact area, based on recent field surveys (See
Appendix III for survey guidelines).
Additional information on species distribution and
habitat, based upon literature, and scientific data
review, and discussions with experts.
Analysis of possible effects of the proposed project
on listed species, includinq cumulative effects.
Analysis of alternatives designed to reduce or
eliminate impacts to endanqered and threatened
species.
3010. To resolve potential conflicts as early as possible,
state agencies are strongly encouraged to provide the
above information to DFG during the Initial
Study/Preliminary Review (or comparable) stage.
3000.1.
3000.2.
3000.3.
3000.4.
3000.5.
5-47
-------
r09I»«l Uionu — —
* 5JL.IL Ck'lc
t Pn
Dept.
6,53 '17/H
**Y
-------
EXHIBIT 8
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
2 JUN 1393
Wayne S. White
Field Supervisor
Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Department of the Interior
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
RE: Endangered Species Act Coordination for Designation of an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore San Francisco
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for your response to the Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX's (EPA) letter which requested information concerning any listed,
or candidate, threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of potential
ocean dredged material disposal sites off San Francisco. EPA understands
from your letter that the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentnlis
californicus) is the only species under your jurisdiction which requires special
consideration under the Endangered Species Act. As mentioned in our
previous letter, similar coordination has been initiated with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game for
species under their jurisdiction.
EPA released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for site
designation in December 1992. This document presented summaries of more
than ten separate oceanographic studies conducted in support of the site
designation effort. Based on these studies and other existing information,
EPA chose alternative site 5, located approximately 50 nmi from the Golden
Gate and 30 nmi from the Farallon Islands, as the preferred alternative site.
This site is located in 2,500 to 3,000 meters of water and was chosen due to its
location away from productive fishery areas and in an area that has been used
historically for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and chemical and
conventional munitions.
A section of the DEIS addressed the distribution, abundance and ecology
of California brown pelicans (Section 3.3.4.1.) This discussion utilized
breeding season (May-June) research by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory
(PRBO) over a seven-year period and data collected by a team of EPA
5-49
Printed on Rccwlal Paper
-------
observers during five seasons in 1990-1991. The PRBO data confirmed the
coastal distribution of this species, with populations concentrated nearshore,
over water shallower than 180 meters. In the seven-year dataset, no
individuals were sighted west of the Farallon Islands . The seasonal surveys
also showed that abundances were greatest over the continental shelf and
upper slope waters. In the seasonal surveys, California brown pelican were
never sighted within Study Area 5 and on only one occasion were sighted in
water depths similar to the proposed ocean disposal site.
In the DEIS, impacts from the proposed site designation action to
threatened and endangered species are estimated to be Class III - insignificant
to none. This estimation is based on modelled predictions that turbidity
impacts will be confined to depths below which California brown pelican are
likely to be feeding and will be diluted to ambient levels well before reaching
national marine sanctuary boundaries or upper continental slope or shelf
areas. In addition, EPA's ocean dumping criteria allow only dredged material
that has been shown to cause no adverse effects to marine organisms to be
ocean disposed. Therefore, even if a disposal plume is contacted, the expected
impact from contaminants is minimal. Finally, EPA is currently designing a
site management and monitoring plan which will include a component for
biological monitoring of pelagic species including seabirds. This plan will be
available for review and comment either as part of the final Environmental
Impact Statement or as a separate document supporting the proposed site
designation rule.
In summary, information presented in the DEIS indicates that there will
be no effect on California brown pelican from designation and use of the
proposed ocean disposal site. This species' predominant habitat is located
well inshore of the proposed site, and the water quality impacts associated
with site use are expected to be short-lived and insignificant. Further, EPA
will monitor disposal activities to ensure protection of marine species. Due
to these findings and commitments, EPA has determined that no further
consultation concerning California brown pelican is required under the
Endangered Species Act.
EPA will continue to involve the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
future site designation and monitoring activities through the Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) Ocean Studies Work Group. This group was
convened in November 1990 and has provided input to EPA on the design
and interpretation of the technical studies and on administrative decisions
supporting the ocean site designation. The OSWG will continue to assist EPA
with the development of the site management and monitoring plan and with
periodic review of monitoring study results. EPA looks forward to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service participation in this advisory forum as the project
progresses.
5-50
-------
EPA requests that the FWS concur or non-concur by letter with the
above finding concerning the California brown pelican prior to July 1, 1993.
This will allow EPA to publish the results of the coordination process in the
FEIS. EPA appreciates your office's comments on our DEIS and your support
for designation of the preferred alternative site. EPA will be pleased to
furnish supporting technical reports for the DEIS or additional copies of the
DEIS should your office require them. Please contact me at (415) 744-2125, or
have your staff contact Janet Hashimoto at (415) 744-1156, with any questions
or comments concerning EPA's site designation process.
Sincerely,
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-52
-------
EXHIBIT 9
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
£ JUN $93
Dr. Gary Matlock
Acting Regional Director
Southwest Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
RE: Endangered Species Act Coordination for Designation of an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore San Francisco
Dear Dr. Matlock:
Thank you for your response to the Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX's (EPA) letter which requested information concerning any listed,
or candidate, threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of potential
ocean dredged material disposal sites off San Francisco. EPA understands
from your letter that the endangered blue, fin, gray, humpback, right, sei and
sperm whales, and the threatened northern (Steller) sea lion comprise the
species under your management authority which require special
consideration under the Endangered Species Act. As mentioned in our
previous letter, similar coordination has been initiated with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game for species
under their jurisdiction.
EPA released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for site
designation in December 1992. This document presented summaries of more
than ten separate oceanographic studies conducted in support of the site
designation effort. Based on these studies and other existing information,
EPA chose alternative site 5, located approximately 50 nmi from the Golden
Gate and 30 nmi from the Farallon Islands, as the preferred alternative site.
This site is located in 2,500 to 3,000 meters of water and was chosen due to its
location away from productive fishery areas and in an area that has been used
historically for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and chemical and
conventional munitions.
Two sections of the DEIS addressed the distribution and abundance of
cetaceans and pinnipeds (Sections 3.3.5.1 and 3.3.5.2.) This discussion utilized
May-June survey data from the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) over a
S
_ NT
5-53
Printed nn Recycled Paper
-------
seven-year period and data collected by a team of EPA observers during five
seasons in 1990-1991. Historical data from the early 1980's were also discussed.
Generally, the species listed in your letter fall into one of two categories
in terms of use of the preferred alternative ocean disposal site. The fin whale,
right whale, sei whale and sperm whale rarely occur in the region in which
the alternative disposal sites are located. No individuals of any of these
species were observed in either the PRBO or the EPA surveys. In addition,
while historic surveys sighted fin and sperm whales off central California
during the years 1980-1983, neither right whales nor sei whales were sighted
by these surveys. In contrast, the blue whale, gray whale, humpback whale
and northern sea lion were observed in the recent PRBO and EPA surveys as
well as the historical surveys. A description of the occurrence patterns in the
vicinity of the preferred alternative ocean disposal site of these four species is
provided below:
Blue Whale - This species was not observed in the PRBO surveys,
probably due to the fact that blue whales occur in the region primarily in
summer and early fall whereas the PRBO surveys were conducted in the May-
June timeframe. The EPA surveys sighted blue whales in August 1990 and
1991 in six locations on the continental shelf and slope off San Francisco.
Four of these locations were within the Gulf of the Farallones or the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; the other two locations were well
south of the preferred alternative disposal site. All locations were at least 14
nmi from the preferred alternative site. Historical surveys indicate that most
blue whales are found on the shelf or near the shelf break in the Gulf of the
Farallones. EPA believes that the proposed disposal site does not lie within
preferred habitat of the blue whale.
Gray Whale - The PRBO surveys sighted few gray whales, all of which
were within the boundaries of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary. All sightings were greater than 10 nmi from the preferred
alternative disposal site. No gray whales were observed during the EPA
seasonal surveys. Historical surveys suggest that while there may be year-
round resident gray whales in the Gulf of the Farallones, this species tends to
avoid turbid waters in its southern migration and to remain close to shore
during its northern migration. For all of these reasons, EPA does not believe
that the preferred alternative disposal site lies within valuable habitat for the
gray whale. (EPA also notes that the gray whale has been de-listed from the
federally endangered species list. )
Humpback Whale - This species was observed in both the PRBO and
EPA surveys. Although the number of individuals observed was roughly
equivalent in the two surveys, the PRBO May-June survey observed a more
southerly distribution for gray whales than did the EPA seasonal cruises from
August 1990 and 1991. The August surveys observed one individual within
5-54
-------
the preferred alternative disposal site. Otherwise all observations in both
surveys were at least 12 nmi from the preferred alternative disposal site.
While it may be inferred from these data that humpback whales use the
preferred alternative disposal site as habitat, it is evident that many other
areas of potential and actual habitat occur within the region and humpback
whales do not show a demonstrated preference for the environs of the
preferred alternative disposal site.
Northern Sea Lion - Most northern sea lions in the region are found
either in the vicinity of Cordell Bank or on the continental slope between the
Farallon Islands and Ano Nuevo Island. Each of the two recent surveys
sighted only two individuals: the PRBO surveys found individual northern
sea lions on Cordell Bank and off Bolinas Lagoon; the EPA surveys found
individuals at the shelf break near Pioneer Canyon and just south of the
preferred alternative disposal site. EPA believes that since the preferred
alternative disposal site is not in close proximity to any of the known haul-
out areas for the northern sea lion, and since only one individual has been
sighted in the vicinity of the site, the preferred alternative site will not
impinge on prime northern sea lion habitat.
In the DEIS, impacts from the proposed site designation action to
threatened and endangered species are estimated to be Class III - insignificant
to none. This estimation is based on modelled predictions that turbidity
impacts will be of short duration and will be diluted to ambient levels well
before reaching national marine sanctuary boundaries or upper continental
slope or shelf areas. In addition, EPA's ocean dumping criteria allow only
dredged material that has been shown to cause no adverse effects to marine
organisms to be ocean disposed. Therefore, even if a disposal plume is
contacted, the expected impact from contaminants is minimal. Finally, EPA
is currently designing a site management and monitoring plan which will
include a component for biological monitoring of pelagic species including
marine mammals. This plan will be available for review and comment
either as part of the final Environmental Impact Statement or as a separate
document supporting the proposed site designation rule.
In summary, information presented in the DEIS indicates that there will
be no effect on threatened and endangered cetaceans and pinnipeds from
designation and use of the proposed ocean disposal site. Species' distributions
do not indicate that the site lies within preferred habitat areas, and the water
quality impacts associated with site use are expected to be short-lived and
insignificant. Further, EPA will monitor disposal activities to ensure
protection of marine species. Due to these findings and commitments, EPA
has determined that no further consultation concerning the threatened and
endangered species identified in your letter is required under the Endangered
Species Act.
5-55
-------
EPA will continue to involve the National Marine Fisheries Service in
future site designation and monitoring activities through the Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) Ocean Studies Work Group. This group was
convened in November 1990 and has provided input to EPA on the design
and interpretation of the technical studies and on administrative decisions
supporting the ocean site designation. The OSWG will continue to assist EPA
with the development of the site management and monitoring plan and with
periodic review of monitoring study results. EPA looks forward to National
Marine Fisheries Service participation in this advisory forum as the project
progresses.
EPA requests that the National Marine Fisheries Service concur or non-
concur by letter with the above finding prior to July 1,1993. This will allow
EPA to publish the results of the coordination process in the FEIS. EPA
appreciates your office's comments on our DEIS and your support for
designation of the preferred alternative site. EPA will be pleased to furnish
supporting technical reports for the DEIS or additional copies of the DEIS
should your office require them. Please contact me at (415) 744-2125, or have
your staff contact Janet Hashimoto at (415) 744-1156, with any questions or
comments concerning EPA's site designation process.
Sincerely,
Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
cc: Jim Bybee, NMFS Santa Rosa
5-56
-------
EXHIBIT 10
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
2 JUH lSi3
John L. Turner
Acting Chief
Environmental Services Division
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street, P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
RE: Endangered Species Act Coordination for Designation of an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore San Francisco
Dear Mr. Turner:
Thank you for your response to the Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX's (EPA) letter which requested information concerning any State of
California listed, or candidate, threatened or endangered species or species of
special concern in the vicinity of potential ocean dredged material disposal
sites off San Francisco. EPA understands from your letter that Marbled
Murrelet, Winter-run Chinook Salmon, California Brown Pelican and
Peregrine Falcon comprise the listed species. The species of special concern
include Spring-run Chinook Salmon, Rhinoceros Auklet, Tufted Puffin,
Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel, Ashy Storm-Petrel, Common Loon, Double-crested
Cormorant, Pink Salmon and Coho Salmon. As mentioned in our previous
letter, similar coordination has been initiated with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for species under
their jurisdiction. EPA voluntarily pursues coordination on State
endangered, threatened and special concern species with the Department of
Fish and Game in order to facilitate this project's Coastal Consistency
Determination from the California Coastal Commission.
EPA released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for site
designation in December 1992. This document presented summaries of more
than ten separate oceanographic studies conducted in support of the site
designation effort. Based on these studies and other existing information,
EPA chose alternative site 5, located approximately 50 nmi from the Golden
Gate and 30 nmi from the Farallon Islands, as the preferred alternative site.
This site is located in 2,500 to 3,000 meters of water and was chosen due to its
location away from productive fishery areas and in an area that has been used
5-57
Printed on Ret vclnl Paper
-------
historically for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and chemical and
conventional munitions.
EPA's DEIS did not identify any impacts to State listed species, species of
special concern or habitat of these species due to the proposed action. Of the
fish species listed, the Winter-run Chinook Salmon, the Spring-run Chinook
Salmon and the Coho Salmon may occur in the vicinity of the preferred
alternative site. In contrast, Pink Salmon are listed by Miller and Lea, 1972 as
"uncommon" and are unlikely to occur in significant numbers at the
preferred alternative site. Even though Chinook and Coho Salmon have
been caught commercially in the CDFG catch block, located just south of the
preferred alternative site, the amount caught is a fraction of commercial
catches elsewhere and probably varies greatly from year to year. Neither
commercial fishermen nor the CDFG staff reviewing the DEIS identified any
adverse impacts to existing or potential fisheries associated with designation
of the site.
Of the avian species identified as State listed species, none have been
found to inhabit the vicinity of the preferred alternative site. According to
Ainley and Allen, 1992, the Marbled Murrelet is confined to waters within
several kilometers offshore southern San Mateo County in the vicinity of
Ano Nuevo. EPA's DEIS and supporting data confirm that the Peregrine
Falcon has only been sighted in the vicinity of the Farallon Islands, and the
California Brown Pelican population is concentrated nearshore, over water
shallower than 180 meters. In the two studies sponsored by EPA for this
project, none of these species were found in the vicinity of the preferred
alternative site (Ainley and Allen, 1992; Jones and Szczepaniak, 1992.)
The same holds true for the special concern species Tufted Puffin, Fork-
tailed Storm-Petrel, Common Loon, and Double-crested Cormorant. Tufted
Puffin have been sighted near but not within EPA's Study Area 5 and are
considered uncommon breeders in the region. The Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel
is a pelagic species that is numerous during sporadic periods but was not
sighted in significant numbers in the two EPA studies. The Common Loon
and Double-crested Cormorant are both limited to waters over the
Continental Shelf where they are considered to occur uncommonly.
The Rhinoceros Auklet and Ashy Storm-Petrel are special concern
species which do occur within the vicinity of the preferred alternative site.
Both are species which breed in the area, are year-round residents of the
region and are considered abundant or common. In addition, both species are
found at equal or higher densities within at least one of the EPA study areas
other than Study Area 5 which contains the preferred alternative site.
In summary, the information supporting EPA's site designation
environmental impact statement indicates that, of the species identified in
5-58
-------
your letter, only the Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Rhinoceros Auklet and
Ashy Storm-Petrel occur within the vicinity of the preferred alternative site.
In the DEIS, impacts from the proposed site designation action to
threatened and endangered species are estimated to be Class III - insignificant
to none. EPA believes this finding also applies to species of special concern.
This estimation is based on modelled predictions that turbidity impacts will
be confined to depths below which seabirds, such as the Rhinoceros Auklet
and Ashy Storm-Petrel, are likely to be feeding and will be diluted to ambient
levels well before reaching national marine sanctuary boundaries or upper
continental slope or shelf areas. Although the salmon species discussed
above may occur at depths that could be impacted by disposal plumes, EPA
feels these potential impacts are also insignificant due to the small percentage
of these species' populations which occur in these areas and the low amount
of commercial and recreational effort targeted on these areas.
In addition, EPA's ocean dumping criteria allow only dredged material
that has been shown to cause no adverse effects to marine organisms to be
ocean disposed. Therefore, even if a disposal plume is contacted, the expected
impact from contaminants is minimal. EPA is currently designing a site
management and monitoring plan which will include components of
biological monitoring of pelagic species and physical tracking of the disposal
plume. This plan will be available for review and comment either as part of
the final Environmental Impact Statement or as a separate document
supporting the proposed site designation rule.
EPA will continue to involve the California Department of Fish and
Game and the California Coastal Commission in future site designation and
monitoring activities through the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS)
Ocean Studies Work Group. This group was convened in November 1990
and has provided input to EPA on the design and interpretation of the
technical studies and on administrative decisions supporting the ocean site
designation. The OSWG will continue to assist EPA with the development of
the site management and monitoring plan and with periodic review of
monitoring study results. EPA looks forward to State participation in this
advisory forum as the project progresses.
For all of the above reasons, EPA finds that the proposed site designation
action represents no significant impact to any State listed species or species of
special concern. EPA requests that CDFG concur or non-concur by letter with
the above finding concerning State listed and special concern species prior to
July 1,1993. This will allow EPA to publish the results of the coordination
process in the FEIS. EPA appreciates CDFG's comments on our DEIS and your
support for designation of the preferred alternative site. EPA will be pleased
to furnish supporting technical reports for the DEIS or additional copies of the
DEIS should your office require them. Please contact me at (415) 744-2125, or
5-59
-------
have your staff contact Janet Hashimoto at (415) 744-1156, with any questions
or comments concerning EPA's site designation process.
cc: Jim Raives, California Coastal Commission
References cited:
Ainley, D.G. and S.G. Allen. 1992. Abundance and Distribution of
Seabirds and Marine Mammals in the Gulf of the Farallones: Final Report to
the Environmental Protection Agency (Region IX) LTMS Study Group,
submitted July 30,1992. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.
Jones, P.A. and I.D. Szczepaniak. 1992. Report on the Seabird and
Marine Mammal Censuses Conducted for the Long-Term Management
Strategy (LTMS) August 1990 Through November 1991. Prepared for the U.S.
EPA, Region IX, San Francisco, CA, July 1992.
Miller, D.J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of
California. Calif. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 157. 249 pp.
Sincerely,
Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
5-60
-------
EXHIBIT 11 ~
TAKE*JJ"|
United States Department of the Interior amerjca?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Sacramento Field Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
In Reply Refer To:
1-1-93-1-1074 July 2, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105-3901
Subject: Informal Endangered Species Consultation on Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore San Francisco
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
This responds to your letter, dated June 2, 1993, requesting concurrence with
the determination that designation and use of proposed ocean disposal site 5,
located 50 nmi from the Golden Gate and 30 nmi from the Farallon Islands, are
not likely to adversely effect the endangered California brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus). We concur with this determination.
Therefore, unless new information reveals effects of the proposed action that
may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered, or a new
species or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the proposed
action, no further action pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, is necessary.
If you have any questions, please contact Karen Miller of my staff at (916)
978-4866.
Sincerely,
(k.
Wayne S. White
v Field Supervisor
cc: Reg. Dir., (AES), FWS, Portland, OR
5-61
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-62
-------
f'O'CQ
EXHIBIT 12
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
, Southwest Region
1 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long Beach, California 90802*4213
TEL (310) 980-4000; FAX (310) 980-4018
JUL 01 1993 F/SW031: IVL
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105-3901
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
I concur with your determination that no further section 7
consultation is required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
because utilization of an ocean material dredge disposal site
located offshore from San Francisco will not have an adverse
impact on marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened
species under the ESA. This concludes the consultation process
for this project. However, if new information becomes available
indicating that the listed marine mammals, or their critical
habitat, may be adversely affected by the project, further
consultation will be necessary.
I look forward to continued participation in the future site
designation and monitoring activities through the Long-Term
Management Strategy Ocean Studies Work Group as the project
progresses. If you have any questions concerning these comments,
please contact Ms. Irma Lagomarsino at (310) 980-4016.
Sincerely,
S.
Matlock, Ph.Dr^x
Ccting Regional Director
5-63
#
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-64
-------
EXHIBIT 13
3
jl 7A/ 7-2 (}}*-
STATE Of CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETE WILSON. Gownur
1416 NINTH STREET
P.O. BOX 944209
SACRAMENTO. CA 94244-2090
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
(916) 653-4875
June 30, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105-3901
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed your
response to our letter regarding California Endangered Species
Act coordination for the designation of a deep-water ocean
disposal site for dredged material from San Francisco Bay. We
concur with your initial findings that there appear to be no
potential significant impacts to threatened and endangered
species or species of special concern in the vicinity of the
preferred alternative disposal site as it is identified and
described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. However,
it is of particular importance to the DFG that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) adequately monitor these sensitive
species over the operational life of the disposal site, as well
as determine the fate of the dredged material disposed there
under a wide variety of seasonal and annual oceanic conditions.
As longtime participants in the EPA's Ocean Studies Work Group,
we are committed to assisting your agency in the development of a
comprehensive and thorough monitoring and management plan for
this site and look forward to its timely implementation in 1994.
As always, DFG personnel are available to discuss our
comments and concerns in greater detail. To arrange for
discussion, contact Mr. Robert N. Tasto, Environmental
Specialist, California Department of Fish and Game, Marine
Resources Laboratory, 411 Burgess ~ '
94025, telephone (415) 688-6360.
cc: See attached list
5-65
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
June 30, 1993
Page Two
cc: Mr. Michael A. Kahoe
California Environmental Protection Agency
Sacramento, California
Mr. Robert N. Tasto
Department of Fish and Game
Menlo Park, California
5-66
-------
EXHIBIT 14
r"
4 # 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105-3901
22 JUL l£92
Mr. Steade Craigo
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Dear Mr. Craigo:
The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (EPA) is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the designation of an ocean dredged material
disposal site off San Francisco, California. The site will be selected as pan of the Long-
Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for San Francisco Bay and will have the capacity to
accomodate an estimated 400 million cubic yards of dredged material over a 50-year period.
The proposed action will involve only the designation of the site itself; before disposal is
permitted, the dredged material must be evaluated in accordance with the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and its implementing regulations and guidance.
EPA began the site designation process by evaluating four study areas on the Farallon
Shelf and Slope at distances of 20 to 55 miles offshore and at depths of 300 to 6000 feet.
The four study areas are delineated on the enclosed map (areas 2-5) and coordinate list.
With the recent designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Study Areas 2
and the eastern third of Study Area 3 are no longer being considered as potential sites.
However, since data have been collected for all four study areas, a.characterization of each
area is being developed. In the draft EIS, which is scheduled for release in November
1992, EPA will identify candidate sites within Study Areas 3, 4 and 5 and will choose a
preferred alternative site.
In accordance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
Executive Order 11593, please advise EPA of any sites of historic, architectural,
archeological or cultural value listed on, or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places in the vicinity of the four study areas identified above. EPA would
appreciate your response prior to October 1. 1992. Please direct any questions or requests
for further information to Shelley Clarke at (415) 744-1162.
Marine Protection Section
Enclosures (2)
5-67
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-68
-------
EXHIBIT 15
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gormmof
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 94296-0001
(916) 653-6624
FAX: (916) 653-9824
916) 653-6624
FAX (916) 653-9824
10 August 1992
Reply to: EPA 920724A
Janet Hashimoto
Marine Protection Section
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-3901
Subject: EIS FOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIALS SITES, LONG TERM
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Ms. Hashimoto:
Thank you for your letter notifying me that the Army Corps
of Engineers is studying possible ocean dredged materials
sites near San Francisco Bay. While I commend your concern for
historic preservation, I cannot conduct the research you
need. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
identifying historic properties which may be affected.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 requires that federal agencies consider how their
activities might effect historic resources and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's procedures for complying with
the Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) outline the steps a federal
agency must take to fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities.
It is up to you to conduct the necessary research.
The California State Lands Commission maintains a
computerized inventory of all shipwrecks, sunken vessels, and
stranded hulks in California waters. While the inventory is not
comprehensive, it is currently the best source of accurate
information on submerged historic maritime resources in state
waters. Because your undertaking has a potential to affect
submerged cultural resources, we recommend you consult the State
Lands Commission's submerged cultural resources inventory by
calling Goodyear "Kirk" Walker at (916) 322-0530.
Please send us a copy of either agency's written response.
Be sure to include a map which shows the project area as well as
the Area of Potential Effect (36 CFR 800.2). When replying to
us, always use the reference number in the upper riqht corner of
this letter.
Are there any structures on or near the project site?
Could they be fifty or more years old? If so, please include
5-69
-------
Janet Hashimoto
10 August 1992
Page Two
photographs of each such structure and its surroundings. Will
the project require or result in moving, altering, abandoning,
or demolishing any structures?
If you have any questions, please telephone Nicholas Del
Cioppo of my staff at (916) 653-9696.
HA, Acting
state Historic ^reservation Officer
5-70
-------
vt0 sr<
EXHIBIT 16
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
2 JUIi 1993
Steade R. Craigo
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
RE: Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act for Designation
of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore San Francisco in
reference to project EPA 920724A
Dear Mr. Craigo:
Thank you for your response to the Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX's (EPA) letter which requested information concerning any sites of
historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural value on, or eligible for
listing on, the National Register of Historic Places in the vicinity of four areas
being studied by EPA for potential ocean dredged material disposal site
designation. In your letter, you requested EPA coordinate with the California
State Lands Commission, pursue a site survey with the Corps of Engineers,
provide a map showing the area of impact and address potential impacts to
structures. However, EPA understands from the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) regulations that some of this information must be
provided only when historic properties have been identified (36 CFR Sections
800.4 and 800.8.)
Under NHPA, the Agency Official, in this case myself, must determine
whether the proposed action is an "undertaking" and if so, the extent of the
"undertaking's" impact. I have determined that the proposed site
designation action constitutes an "undertaking" as defined at
36 CFR § 800.2 (o). Further, the "undertaking's" area of potential effect is
expected to lie within the model-predicted 10-cm thick dredged material
footprint on the seafloor for each of the alternative sites (Exhibit A.) EPA has
delineated the alternative site boundaries to coincide with this 10-cm thick
footprint area. Although dredged material may contact the water column
outside these sites, substantial deposition, and hence potential effect upon
historical structures, is expected only within the boundaries of the alternative '
sites.
5-71
PnntcJ on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA's draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for site
designation, released in December 1992, presents summaries of more than ten
separate oceanographic studies conducted in support of the proposed action.
Based on these studies and other existing information, EPA chose alternative
site 5, located approximately 50 nmi from the Golden Gate and 30 nmi from
the Farallon Islands, as the preferred alternative site. This site is located in
2,500 to 3,000 meters of water and was chosen due to its location away from
productive fishery areas and in an area that has been used historically for
disposal of low-level radioactive waste and chemical and conventional
munitions. Therefore, EPA defines the area of potential effects from this
action to be the area contained within Alternative Site 5.
According to NHPA regulations, the next step involves identifying
historic properties by reviewing existing information, seeking information
from local governments, Indian tribes, public and private organizations and
other parties, and consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (36
CFR § 800.4 (a)).
At your request, EPA contacted the California State Lands Commission
(SLC) to determine if they had information regarding historic properties in
the vicinity of Alternative Site 5. Mr. Kirk Walker of the SLC referred us to
the Minerals Management Service (MMS) which maintains a better database
of archaeological resources for offshore waters. Sheet 27-E of Volume 5:
Small-scale Maps of the MMS's California, Oregon and Washington
Archaeological Resource Study, OCS Study MMS 90-0091 indicated a
shipwreck in the vicinity of Alternative Site 5 (Exhibit B.) EPA asked the
MMS to verify whether this shipwreck indicator corresponded to the S.S.
John F. Shafroth which was intentionally disposed in 1964 by the U.S. Navy
after being loaded with chemical munitions (Exhibit C.) The MMS responded
that their database indicated that the mark on Sheet 27-E corresponds to the
S.S. John F. Shafroth (Exhibit D.)
EPA also investigated the U.S. Geological Survey's Comprehensive
Geological and Geophysical Survey of the Gulf of the Farallones Region,
Administrative Report, November 1992 for evidence of shipwrecks in the
vicinity of Alternative Site 5. This study surveyed each of the alternative
sites using 3.5 kHz and 4.5 kHz high resolution seismic-reflection profiles and
10 kHz seafloor/bathymetry profiles. Chapter 3 of the report discusses two
large non-geologic targets found during the survey. These targets are believed
to be the U.S.S. Independence and the S.S. Puerto Rican. Both targets were
found southeast of Alternative Site 5; no targets were identified in the
vicinity of Alternative Site 5.
EPA has conducted extensive public involvement activities through the
Long-Term Management Strategy's Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG.)
The OSWG consists of representatives of federal, state and local agencies as
5-72
-------
well as representatives of environmental and business interests (Exhibit E.)
This group was first convened in November 1990 and provided significant
input to EPA on the design and interpretation of the technical studies and on
administrative decisions supporting the ocean site designation. Issues
concerning preservation of historic structures have not been raised in any of
the 13 OSWG meetings nor in any of the approximately 35 comment letters
EPA received in the DEIS.
EPA believes our coordination with the SLC, the MMS, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the agencies of the OSWG and with your office per our
July 22, 1992 letter satisfies the requirements of 36 CFR § 800.4. Since none of
these efforts have identified any historical properties, EPA submits that no
further documentation is necessary for compliance with NHPA according to
36 CFR §800.4 (d). EPA requests that the SHPO concur or non-concur by letter
with the above finding prior to July 1,1993. This will allow EPA to publish
the results of the coordination process in the FEIS. EPA will be pleased to
furnish supporting technical reports for the DEIS or additional copies of the
DEIS should your office require them; Please contact me at (415) 744-2125, or
have your staff contact Janet Hashimoto at (415) 744-1156, with any questions
or comments concerning EPA's site designation process.
Sincerely,
Harry Serayaarian, Director
Water Management Division
Enclosures (5)
5-73
-------
EXHIBIT A (from Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for San Francisco
Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation, December
1992, EPA Region IX.)
38°N
^ Cor del I Bank
V \som
Cordell Bank /
National Marine /
Sanctuary I
Gulf of The FaraUones
National Marine Sanctuary
200 m
5£»/n\l Faraiton
.. Islands
1500m'
37°30"N
Gumdr
Seam
Zone ol
Siting Feasibility
|ZSF Range]
(53 nmi)
-123 °w
Monterey Bay
National Marine
Sanctuary
5-74
-------
-J
©
fO
10
SBfr1 Rtyn
20 ml
?0 JO Km
sc*u
LEGEND
X Shipwreck Location
7 Multiple ShlDwrack Locotlons ?
O wftr» rtjmoer of wrecks In
vIClnH y
---Edge of ConltnenloiSfteif
-County line
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
Bcrila Boy EL/jsj
Life Sovinq Station
Gotden Gale Park
Lite Saving Station
Ecuf/vsida
Life Saving Station
SWcwrec* locaf'ons. Son Francfsco, California, Shest ?J-I
-------
EXHIBIT C
ocean disposal
OF BARGE-DELIVERED
LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES
FROM U.S. COASTAL CITIES
This publication (SW-19c) was written for the
Solid Waste Management Office
by DA VID D. SMITH and ROBERT P. BROWN
Applied Oceanography Division,
Dillingham Corporation, La Jolla, California
under Contract No. PH 86-68-203
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
5-76
-------
TAOI.F. )
SUMMARY (II U.S. NAVY tilASK DISPOSAL OPERATIONS. 1964- I96HM
Chase Number
in
IV
VI
Year
Vessel Name
Total Cargo
Net Explosive
Disposal Area
Hutt Preparation
Cost
[°]
Towing Cost
Loading Cost
TOTAL COST
1964
S .S . John F.
Shafroth
9, 799 tons
Unknown
1964
1965
1965
t 966
1967
S.S. Village
7,535 tons
Unknown
M.V. Coastal
Mariner
4 ,040 torvs
S.S. Santiago S.S. Isaac
Iglestas Van Zandt
8,715 tons
512.19 tons 408 t^.. .s
S.S. Robert L.
Stevenson
7,500 tons 6,600 tons
1 ,625 tons 2,327 tons
Pacific Coast Atlantic Coast Atlantic Coast Atlantic Coast Pacific Coast Pacific Coast
Lat: 37° 40* N Lat: 38° 49' N Lat:37°12'N Lat;37°11'N Lat: 39°33'N Lat: 51*^2'N
Long: 123° 25'W Long: 72° I4'W Long: 74°21' W Long: 74° 26' W Long: 125°46W Long: I7B°19'E
$7,949
*5,000
$102,021
$114,970
$3,600
$1,000
$ 158,235
$162,843
$5,991
4 990
$132,978
$139,959
$2,235
$1,075
$170,112
$181,422
$50,156
(Navy Tug)
91,859
142,015
$64,354
$39,OOo'
$91,034
J*>1
$155,388
Cost per ton of
Total Wast'e Cargo
$12
$21
$34
$20
$19
$23
/ nr I lutwtifr* V,v / tut i*l l'nhh'
TABLE ]-(Conlinued)
SUMMARY OF U.S. NAVY CHASE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS, 1964-W,8l*l
-------
EXHIBIT D
IN Kfcl'LY KKFER TO
United States Department of the Interior
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Pacific OCS Region
770 I'aseo Camarillo
7 3 Q Camarillo, CA 93010-6064
TAXI1
pride in;
AMERICA i
APR 2 6 1993
Ms. Shelly Clark
Mail Code W71
EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne
San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Ms. Clark:
The Minerals Management Service is pleased to respond to your
verbal request to research any known archaeological resource
located in the approximate area of 37°40'N and 123°25'W.
During your inquiry, you stated that you knew that a shipwreck
located at 37° 40*N and 123° 25'W is the SS. John F. Shafroth. The
Minerals Management Service archaeological database indicates that
this is in fact the John Shafroth. Please note that the Shafroth
is a Class 4 Cultural Resource, defined as "value not established".
If you have any further questions or comments, please contact Ralph
Snyder at (805) 389 - 7826.
Sincerely,
CM 1-0/lsi '
/^Richard L. Wilhelmsen
Regional Supervisor
Office of Leasing and Environment
5-78
-------
EXHIBIT E. (from Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for San Francisco Bay
Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation, December
1992, EPA Region IX.)
Table 5.3-1. LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG) Members.
Members listed alphabetically by affiliation.
Name
Organization
Bill Boland
independent
Tom Jow
independent
Ellen Johnck
Bay Planning Coalition
Mark Delaplaine
California Coastal Commission
Jim Raives
California Coastal Commission
George Armstrong
California Department of Boating and Waterways
Pete Phillips
California Department of Fish and Game
Roben Tasto
California Department of Fish and Game
Tracy Wood
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Mary Bergen
California State Lands Commission
Alan Ramo
Citizens for a Better Environment
Kathleen van Velsor
Coastal Advocates
Marie White
Entrix
Jeffrey Cox
Evans-Hamilton, Inc.
Jan Roletto
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Ed Ueber
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Pietro Panavano
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Association
Cynthia Koehler
Heller. Ehrman, White and McAulifle
Robert Battalio
Moffatt and Nichol
Greg Cailliet
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
James Nybakken
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Herb Curl
National Oceanic and Aeronautical Administration Hazardous Materials
Alec MacCall
National Marine Fisheries Service
Chris Mobley
National Marine Fisheries Service
Don Pearson
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gail Blaise
Office of Congresswoman Barbara Boxer
Lyrelle Johnson
Office of Congressman George Miller
Catherine Counney
PRC Environmental Management Inc.
David Cobb
PTI Environmental Services
AK016B.WS1
5-79
-------
Table 5.3-1. Continued.
Name
Organization
Zeke Grader
Pacific Coast Federation of Fish Association
David Ainley
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Sarab Allen
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Jim McGrath
Port of Oakland
Charles Scbwarz
Port of Oakland
Jody Zaitlin
Port of Oakland
Steve Goldbeck
San Francisco BCDC
Scott Rouillard
San Francisco Bay Keeper
Michael Carlin
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
Paul Jones
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Andrew Lissuer
Science Applications International Corporation
John Lunz
Science Applications International Corporation
David Nesmith
Sierra Club
Kim Brown
Tetra Tech
John Beuttler
United Anglers of America
Commander Scot Tieman
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Rod Chisholm
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Bill McCoy
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Lynn O'Leary
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Richard Stradford
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Tom Wakeman
U.S. Corps of Engineers
William Allen
U.S. Department of the Interior
Jean Takakawa
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Herman Karl
U.S. Geological Survey
Marlene Noble
U.S. Geological Survey
Curt Collins
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Steven Ramp
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Sherman Seelinger
U.S. Navy Western Division
AK0169 W$1
5-80
-------
EXHIBIT 17
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Gevmor
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 94296-0001
(916) 653-6624
FAX. (916) 653-9824 7 July 1993
Reply to: EPA 920724A
Harry Seradarian, Director
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency - Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-3901
Subject: OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL OFFSHORE DISPOSAL SITE
Dear Mr. Seradarian:
Thank you for requesting my review of the undertaking noted
above and for including the documentation which justifies your
determination.
I concur in your determination that there are no historic
properties in the Area of Potential Effects for this undertaking.
Accordingly, you have fulfilled federal agency responsibilities
pursuant to 36 CFR 800, the regulations implementing Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. Please note that your
agency may have additional responsibilities under 36 CFR 800
under any of the following circumstances:
1. If any person requests that the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation review your findings in accordance with 36 CFR
800.6(e);
2. If this undertaking changes in ways that could affect
historic properties [36 CFR 800.5(c)];
3. If previously undocumented properties are discovered during
the implementation of this undertaking or if a known historic
property will be affected in an unanticipated manner [36 CFR
800.11];
4. If a property that was to be avoided has been inadvertently
or otherwise affected [36 CFR 800.4(c);800.5];
5. If any condition of the undertaking, such as a delay in
implementation or implementation in phases over time, may
justify reconsideration of the current National Register
status of properties within the undertaking's Area of
potential Effects [36 CFR 800.4(c)].
Thank you for considering historic properties during project
planning. If you have any questions, please call staff
archaeologist Nicholas Del Cioppo at (916) 653-9696.
Sincerely,
Steade R. Craigb, AIA, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
5-81
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
5-82
-------
CHAPTER 6
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
This chapter provides a list of EIS preparers (Table 6-1) and contributors (Table 6-2).
6-1
-------
Table 6-1. List of EIS Preparers.
NAME
EXPERTISE
EXPERIENCE
RESPONSIBILITY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Shelley Clarke, M.S.
Fisheries
Marine Policy
Seven years conducting research and
preparation and review of technical
reports.
Technical Program Manager and EIS
review.
Allan Ota. M.S.
Biological Oceanography
Twelve years conducting research and
preparation and review of technical
reports.
Field Studies Manager and EIS review.
Contractor:
Science Applications International Cor
poratlon
James Blake, Ph.D.
Benthic Biology/Ecology
Over 20 years conducting ecological
research in benthic environments.
Preparation and review of EIS section:
Affected Environment
John Clayton, Ph.D.
Biological Oceanography
Environmental Chemistry
Over 20 years research in
environmental chemistry and marine
sciences.
Preparation of EIS section:
Affected Environment
Debra Davison, M.S.
Marine Biology
Seven years conducting research and
preparation of technical reports.
Preparation of EIS sections:
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
Coordination
EIS review
Joseph Germano, Ph.D.
Marine Sciences
Dredged Material Impacts
Over 15 years conducting environmental
studies focusing on dredged material
impacts.
EIS review
Peter Hamilton, Ph.D.
Physical Oceanography
20 years conducting research in
physical oceanography.
Preparation of EIS section:
Environmental Consequences
AK0I40W3I
-------
0
1
NAME
EXPERTISE
EXPERIENCE
RESPONSIBILITY
Mike Hart (M.S., in Progress)
Environmental Chemistry
Over four years conducting research
and preparation of technical reports.
Preparation of EIS section:
Affected Environment
Daniel J. Heilprin, M.S.
Marine Ecology
Ichthyology
Fisheries Biology
Over six years conducting ecological
studies and preparation of technical
reports.
Preparation of EIS sections:
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
List of Preparers and Contributors
EIS review
Robert Kelly, Ph.D.
Marine Sciences
Dredged Material Impacts
EIS Preparation
Over 15 years conducting environmental
studies, including EIS preparation and
impact assessment.
Preparation of EIS sections:
Introduction
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
Andrew Lissner, Ph.D.
Marine Biology
Dredged Material Impacts
EIS Preparation
Over 15 years conducting environmental
studies, including EIS preparation and
impact assessment.
Work Assignment Manager
Preparation of EIS sections:
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
EIS review
John Lunz, M.S.
Marine Sciences
Dredged Material Impacts
Over 15 years conducting dredged
material research studies and impact
assessment
Preparation of EIS section:
Affected Environment
EIS review
Scott McDowell, Ph.D.
Physical Oceanography
Pollution Transport
Twenty years conducting environmental
studies and oceanographic research,
including EIS preparation.
Preparation of EIS section:
Environmental Consequences
Joann Muramoto, Ph.D.
Marine Geochemistry
Over 10 years conducting geochemical
research.
Preparation of EIS section:
Affected Environment
AK0I4O.W5I
-------
[~ NAME
EXPERTISE
EXPERIENCE
RESPONSIBILITY
Charles PhilRps, M.A.
Biology
Chemistry
EIS Preparation
15 years conducting environmental
studies, including EIS preparation and
impact assessment.
EIS Task Manager
Preparation of EIS sections:
Introduction
Alternatives
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
EIS review
William J. Reynolds, Ph.D.
Coastal Geomorphology
Almost 30 years conducting research in
coastal geomorphology, project
management, and teaching.
Preparation of EIS section:
Affected Environment
EIS review
Donald Rhoads, Ph.D.
Benthic Processes
More than 30 years conducting benthic
studies and assessing marine
environmental impacts.
Preparation of EIS sections:
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
EIS review
Bo Shmorhay
Technical Editing
Over 10 years performing editing and
production of technical reports and
studies.
Editing and Production of EIS
Sridhar Srinivasan, MA
Economics
Political Science
Two years environmental and
institutional analyses.
Preparation of EIS sections:
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
Isabelle Williams, M.S.
Marine Biology
More than 20 years in marine sciences.
Preparation of EIS section:
Affected Environment
AJCOHO.WJl
-------
Table 6-2. List of EIS Contributors.
NAME
AFFILIATION
David Ainley
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Sarah Allen
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
James Barry
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
James Bence
National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon Laboratory
Sue Benech
Benech Biological and Associates
Gregor Cailliet
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
John Chin
U.S. Geological Survey
Curtis Collins
Naval Postgraduate School
David Drake
U.S. Geological Survey
Brian Edwards
U.S. Geological Survey
Paul Jessen
Naval Postgraduate School
Newell Garfield
Naval Postgraduate School
Paul Jones
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region DC, San Francisco
Herman Karl
U.S. Geological Survey
William Lenarz
National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon Laboratory
Guillermo Moreno
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Marlene Noble
U.S. Geological Survey
James Nybakken
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Steve Osbom
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Steven Ramp
Naval Postgraduate School
Dale Roberts
National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon Laboratory
Leslie Rosenfeld
Naval Postgraduate School
William Schwab
U.S. Geological Survey
Franklin Schwing
Naval Postgraduate School
Isidore Szcezepaniak
California Academy of Sciences
AK0I41.W51
6-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CHAPTER 7
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Abbott, M.R. and P.M. Zion. 1985. Satellite observations of phytoplankton variability during
an upwelling event. ConL Shelf Res. 4:661-680.
Ainley, D.G. and S.G. Allen. 1992. Abundance and Distribution of Seabirds and Marine
Mammals in the Gulf of the Farallones: Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency (Region IX) LTMS Study Group, submitted July 30, 1992. Point Reyes Bird
Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.
Ainley, D.G. and R.J. Boekelheide. 1990. Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: Ecology, Dynamics,
and Structure of an Upwelling-System Community. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CA. 450 pp.
Ainley, D.G., L.B. Spear, J.F. Penniman, C.S. Strong, and I. Gaffney. 1987. Foraging Ecology
of Sea Birds in the Gulf of the Farallones. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach,
CA.
Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, L. Fancher, and D. Shuford. 1987. Movement and Activity Patterns
of Harbor Seals {Phoca vitulina) from the Drakes Estero Population, 1985-86. Final
Report to Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Marine and Estuarine
Management Division, NOAA, Washington, D.C. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson
Beach, CA. 21 pp.
Allen, S.G. and H.R. Huber. 1984. Pinniped Assessment in Point Reyes, California, 1983-1984.
Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.
Allen, S.G. and H.R. Huber. 1983. Pinniped Assessment in the Point Reyes/Farallon Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, 1982-1983. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach,
CA. Contribution #270.
Allen, S.G., J.F. Penniman, and D.G. Ainley. 1987. Movement and Activity Patterns
of Harbor Seals at Drakes Estero, California, 1986-1987. Annual Report to the Marine
and Estuarine Division, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
Allen, MJ. and G.B. Smith. 1988. Atlas and Zoogeography of Common Fishes in the Bering
Sea and Northeastern Pacific. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Tech. Rep. NMFS 66. 151 pp.
7-1
-------
Aller, R.C. 1982. The effects of macrobenthos on chemical properties of marine sediment and
overlying water. Pages 53-102, In: P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz, editors. Animal-
Sediment Relations; The Biogenic Alteration of Sediments, Topics in Geobiology 2.
Plenum Press, New York.
Alton, M.S. 1972. Characteristics of the demersal fish fauna inhabiting the outer continental
shelf and slope off the northern Oregon coast. Pages 583-634, In: A.T. Pruter and D.L.
Alverson, editors. The Columbia River Estuary and Adjacent Ocean Waters:
Bioenvironmental Studies. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Alton, M.S. 1966. Bathymetric distribution of sea-stars (Asteroidea) off the northern Oregon
coast. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 23:1673-1714.
Ambler, J.W., J.E. Cloern, and A. Hutchinson. 1985. Seasonal cycles of zooplankton from San
Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129(1): 177-198.
Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and K.L. Mais. 1982. Brown pelicans: influence of food supply on
reproduction. Oikos 39:2331.
Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, K.L. Mais, and P.R. Kelly. 1980. Brown pelicans as anchovy stock
indicators and their relationships to commercial Fishing. CalCOFI Rep. 21:54-61.
Anderson, M.E. 1978. Notes on the cephalopods of Monterey Bay, California, USA, with new
records for the area. Veliger 21(2):255-262.
Anon. 1980. Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Ocean Dumping of
Radioactive Waste Off the Pacific Coast
Astrahantseff, S. and M.S. Alton. 1965. Bathymetric distribution of brittlestars (Ophiuroidea)
collected off the northern Oregon coast. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 22(6): 1407-1422.
Auld, A.H. and J.R. Schubel. 1978. Effects of suspended sediment on fish eggs and larvae, a
laboratory assessment Est Coast Mar. Sci. 6:153-164.
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 1991. Air Pollution in the Bay Area
by Station and Contaminant: 1991. Air Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco,
California.
BAAQMD. 1990. Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Contaminant: 1990. Air
Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco, California.
BAAQMD. 1989. Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Contaminant: 1989. Air
Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco, California.
7-2
-------
CHAPTER 7
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Abbott, M.R. and P.M. Zion. 1985. Satellite observations of phytoplankton variability during
an upwelling event. ConL Shelf Res. 4:661-680.
Ainley, D.G. and S.G. Allen. 1992. Abundance and Distribution of Seabirds and Marine
Mammals in the Gulf of the Farallones: Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency (Region IX) LTMS Study Group, submitted July 30, 1992. Point Reyes Bird
Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.
Ainley, D.G. and R.J. Boekelheide. 1990. Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: Ecology, Dynamics,
and Structure of an Upwelling-System Community. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CA. 450 pp.
Ainley, D.G., L.B. Spear, J.F. Penniman, C.S. Strong, and I. Gaffney. 1987. Foraging Ecology
of Sea Birds in the Gulf of the Farallones. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach,
CA.
Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, L. Fancher, and D. Shuford. 1987. Movement and Activity Patterns
of Harbor Seals {Phoca vitulina) from the Drakes Estero Population, 1985-86. Final
Report to Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Marine and Estuarine
Management Division, NOAA, Washington, D.C. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson
Beach, CA. 21 pp.
Allen, S.G. and H.R. Huber. 1984. Pinniped Assessment in Point Reyes, California, 1983-1984.
Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.
Allen, S.G. and H.R. Huber. 1983. Pinniped Assessment in the Point Reyes/Farallon Islands
National Marine Sanctuary, 1982-1983. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach,
CA. Contribution #270.
Allen, S.G., J.F. Penniman, and D.G. Ainley. 1987. Movement and Activity Patterns
of Harbor Seals at Drakes Estero, California, 1986-1987. Annual Report to the Marine
and Estuarine Division, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
Allen, MJ. and G.B. Smith. 1988. Atlas and Zoogeography of Common Fishes in the Bering
Sea and Northeastern Pacific. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Tech. Rep. NMFS 66. 151 pp.
7-1
-------
Aller, R.C. 1982. The effects of macrobenthos on chemical properties of marine sediment and
overlying water. Pages 53-102, In: P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz, editors. Animal-
Sediment Relations; The Biogenic Alteration of Sediments, Topics in Geobiology 2.
Plenum Press, New York.
Alton, M.S. 1972. Characteristics of the demersal fish fauna inhabiting the outer continental
shelf and slope off the northern Oregon coast. Pages 583-634, In: A.T. Pruter and D.L.
Alverson, editors. The Columbia River Estuary and Adjacent Ocean Waters:
Bioenvironmental Studies. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Alton, M.S. 1966. Bathymetric distribution of sea-stars (Asteroidea) off the northern Oregon
coast. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 23:1673-1714.
Ambler, J.W., J.E. Cloern, and A. Hutchinson. 1985. Seasonal cycles of zooplankton from San
Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129(1): 177-198.
Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and K.L. Mais. 1982. Brown pelicans: influence of food supply on
reproduction. Oikos 39:2331.
Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, K.L. Mais, and P.R. Kelly. 1980. Brown pelicans as anchovy stock
indicators and their relationships to commercial Fishing. CalCOFI Rep. 21:54-61.
Anderson, M.E. 1978. Notes on the cephalopods of Monterey Bay, California, USA, with new
records for the area. Veliger 21(2):255-262.
Anon. 1980. Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Ocean Dumping of
Radioactive Waste Off the Pacific Coast.
Astrahantseff, S. and M.S. Alton. 1965. Bathymetric distribution of brittlestars (Ophiuroidea)
collected off the northern Oregon coast. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 22(6): 1407-1422.
Auld, A.H. and J.R. Schubel. 1978. Effects of suspended sediment on fish eggs and larvae, a
laboratory assessment. Est Coast. Mar. Sci. 6:153-164.
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 1991. Air Pollution in the Bay Area
by Station and Contaminant: 1991. Air Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco,
California.
BAAQMD. 1990. Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Contaminant: 1990. Air
Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco, California.
BAAQMD. 1989. Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Contaminant: 1989. Air
Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco, California.
7-2
-------
BAAQMD. 1988. Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Contaminant: 1988. Air
Quality Summary Conditions, San Francisco, California.
Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, A. Perry, W.S. Lawton, J.M. Straley, A.M. Wolman, G.D. Kaufman,
H.E. Winn, J.D. Hall, J.M. Reinke, and J. Ostman. 1986. Migratory movement and
population structure of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the central and
eastern North Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 31:105-19.
Balistrieri, L.S., P.G. Brewer, and J.W. Murray. 1981. Scavenging residence times of trace
metals and surface chemistry of sinking particles in the deep ocean. Deep-Sea Res.
28A: 101-121.
Balistrieri, L.S. and J.W. Murray. 1986. The surface chemistry of sediments from the Panama
Basin: the influence of Mn oxides on metal adsorption. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
50:2235-2243.
Balistrieri, L.S. and J.W. Murray. 1984. Marine scavenging: trace metal adsorption by
interfacial sediment from MANOP Site H. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48:921-929.
Balistrieri, L.S. and J.W. Murray. 1983. Metal-solid interactions in the marine environment:
estimating apparent equilibrium constants. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 47:1091-1098.
Barber, R.T. and F.P. Chavez. 1983. Biological consequences of El Nino. Science 222:1203-
1210.
Barber, R.T. and R.L. Smith. 1981. Coastal upwelling ecosystems. Pages 31-68, In: A.R.
Longhurst, editor. Analysis of Marine Ecosystems. Academic Press, London.
Basso, M. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1992. Telephone conversation with
C. Phillips (SAJC), July 1992.
Battelle. 1989. Fisheries Information for the Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Off the Continental Shelf Adjacent to San Francisco. Final report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region DC, San Francisco, CA.
Beardsley, R.C. and S.J. Lentz. 1987. The Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiment collection: An
Introduction. J. Geophys. Res. 92(C2): 1455-1463.
Bence, J.R., D. Roberts, and W. H. Lenarz. 1992. An Evaluation of the Spatial Distribution of
Fishes and Invertebrates Off Central California in Relation to EPA Study Areas with
Emphasis on Midwater Ichthyofauna. Report to U.S. EPA Region IX. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Tiburon Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Tiburon, CA.
234 pp.
7-3
-------
Biddinger, G.R. and S.P. Gloss. 1984. The Importance of Trophic Transfer in the
Bioaccumulation of Chemical Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems. Residue Rev.
91:104-130.
Blake, J.A., B. Hecker, J.F. Grassle, B. Brown, M. Wade, P.D. Boehm, E. Baptiste, B. Hilbig,
N. Maciolek, R. Petrecca, R.E. Ruff, V. Starczak, and L. Watling. 1987. Study of
Biological Processes on the U.S. South Atlantic Slope and Rise. Phase 2. Final Report
Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Washington, D.C. under Contract No. 14-12-0001-30064. 415 pp. with Appendices A-M.
Blake, J.A., B. Hecker, J.F. Grassle, N. Maciolek-Blake, B. Brown, M. Curran, B. Dade, S.
Freitas, and R.E. Ruff. 1985. Study of Biological Processes on the U.S. South Atlantic
Slope and Rise. Phase 1. Benthic Characterization Study. Final Report. Prepared for
U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C. under
Contract No. 14-12-0001-30064. 142 pp. with Appendices 1-4.
Boehm, P.D. 1987. Transport and transformation processes regarding hydrocarbon and metal
pollutants in offshore sedimentary environments. Pages 233-286, In: D.F. Boesch and
N.N. Rabalais, editors. Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas
Development Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.
Bokuniewicz, H.J., J.A. Gebert, R.B. Gordon, J.L. Higgins, P. Kaminsky, C.C. Pilbeam, M.W.
Reed, and C.B. Tuttle. 1978. Field study of the mechanics of the placement of dredged
material at open-water disposal sites. Tech. Rep. D-78-F, Vol. I. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Effects Lab, Vicksburg, MS.
94 pp. with Appendices.
Bolin, R.L. and D.P. Abbott. 1963. Studies on the marine climate and phytoplankton of the
central coastal area of California, 1954-1960. CalCOFI Rep. 9:23-45.
Bonnell, M.L., M.O. Pierson, and G.D. Farrens. 1983. Pinnipeds and Sea Otters of Central and
Northern California 1980-83: Status, Abundance, and Distribution. Center for Marine
Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. Report to Minerals Management
Service Under Contract # 14-12-0001-29090.
Booth, J.S., W.J. Winters, L.J. Poppe, J. Neiheisel, and R.S. Dyer. 1989. Geotechnical,
geological, and selected radionuclide retention characteristics of the radioactive waste
disposal site near the Farallon Islands. Mar. Geotech. 8:111-132.
Bothner, M.H., R.A. Jahnke, M.L. Peterson, and R. Carpenter. 1980. Rate of mercury loss from
contaminated estuarine sediments. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 44:273-285.
Botsford, L.W., D.A. Armstrong, and J.M. Shenker. 1989. Oceanographic influences on the
dynamics of commercially fished populations. Pages 511-565, In: M.R. Landry and B.M.
7-4
-------
Hickey, editors. Coastal Oceanography of Washington and Oregon. Elsevier Press,
Amsterdam.
Breaker, L.C. and C.N.K. Mooers. 1986. Oceanic variability off the central California coast.
Prog. Oceanogr. 17:61-135.
Brewer, P.G. and W.M. Hao. 1979. Ocean elemental scavenging. Pages 261-274, In: E.A.
Jenne, editor. Chemical Modeling in Aqueous Systems: Speciation, Sorption, Solubility
and Kinetics. ACS Symposium Series 93, American Chemical Society.
Briggs, K.T., D.G. Ainley, D.R. Carlson, D.B. Lewis, W.B. Tyler, L.B. Spear, and L.A Ferris.
1987a. California Seabird Ecology Study, Volume I: Feeding Ecology of California
Nesting Seabirds. Final Report to the U.S. Minerals Management Service by the Institute
of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. 153 pp.
Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, and D.R. Carlson. 1987b. Bird Communities at Sea off
California: 1975 to 1983. Studies in Avian Biology No. 11. Cooper Ornithological
Society, Los Angeles, CA. 74 pp.
Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, P.R. Kelly, and D.A. Croll. 1983. Brown pelicans in
central and northern California. J. Field Omithol. 54(4):353-373.
Brink, K.H., R. C. Beardsley, P.P. Niiler, M.R. Abbott, A. Huyer, S.R. Ramp, T.P. Stanton, and
D. Stuart. 1991. Statistical properties of near surface flow in the California coastal
transition zone. J. Geophys. Res. 96 (C8): 14693-14706.
Broenkow, W.W. and N. Greene. 1981. Oceanographic results during VERTEX particle
interceptor trap experiment, 17 August to 8 September 1980. Moss Landing Marine
Laboratories Tech. Publ. 81-1. 109 pp.
Bruch, T. U.S. Corps of Engineers. Telephone conversation with D. Davison (SAIC), February
24, 1992.
Bniland, K.W. 1980. Oceanographic distributions of cadmium, zinc, nickel, and copper in the
north Pacific. Earth and Planet Sci. Let. 47:176-198.
Bruland, K.W., K. Bertine, M. Koide, and E.D. Goldberg. 1974. History of metal pollution in
Southern California coastal zone. Environ. Sci. Technol. 8(5):425-432.
Bruland, K.W., J.R. Donat, and D.A. Hutchins. 1991. Interactive influences of bioactive trace
metals on biological production in oceanic waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36(8): 1555-1577.
Bryan, G.W. 1984. Pollution due to heavy metals and their compounds. Pages 1289-1431, In:
J.O. Kinne, editor. Marine Ecology, Vol. 5, Part 3. John Wiley & Son, Inc, New York.
7-5
-------
Butler, J.L., C.A. Kimbrell, W.C. Flerx, and R. MethoL 1989. The 1987-88 Demersal Fish
Survey off Central California. NOAA NMFS Tech. Mem. 133. 44 pp.
Cacchione, D.A., W.D. Grant, D.E. Drake, and S.M. Glenn. 1987. Storm-dominated bottom
boundary layer dynamics on the northern California continental shelf, measurements and
predictions. J. Geophys. Res. 92:1817-1827.
Cailliet, G.M., K.A. Karpov, and D.A. Ambrose. 1979. Pelagic Assemblages as Determined
From Purse Seine and Large Midwater Trawl Catches in Monterey Bay and Their
Affinities with Market Squid, Loligo opalescens. CALCOFI Rep. Vol. 20.
Cailliet, G.M., E.K. Osada, and M. Moser. 1988. Ecological studies of sablefish in Monterey
Bay. Calif. Fish and Game 74(3): 132-158.
Cailliet, G.M., W. Wakefield, G. Moreno, A. Andrews, and K. Rhodes. 1992. The Deep-Sea
Fish Fauna from the Proposed Navy Ocean Disposal Site, Using Trap, Otter and Beam
Trawl, and Camera Sled Samples. Final Report Submitted to PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. Under Navy CLEAN Contract No. N62474-88-D-5086.
Calambokidis, J., J.C. Cubbage, G.H. Steiger, K.C. Balcomb, and P. Bloedel. 1990a. Population
estimates of humpback whales in the Gulf of the Farallones, California. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn. Spec. Iss. 12:325-333.
Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, J.C. Cubbage, K.C. Balcomb, C. Ewald, S. Kruse, R. Wells, and
R. Sears. 1990b. Sightings and movements of blue whales off central California 1986-88
from photo-identification of individuals. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. Spec. Iss. 12:343-348.
CALCOFI (California Cooperative Fisheries Investigations) Database. 1991. Data extracted from
database at National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La
Jolla, CA.
CALCOFI. 1990. Review of Some California Fisheries for 1989. CALCOFI Rep. 31:9-21.
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell. 1983. Whales and dolphins. Pages 767-812, In: Alfred A.
Knopf, editor. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Fishes, Whales, and
Dolphins. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, NY.
California Coastal Commission. 1987. California Coastal resource Guide. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Capuzzo, J.M. 1983. The role of zooplankton in the accumulation and deposition of DuPont
Edgemoor waste (an acid-iron waste) at a deepwater dumpsite in the northwest Atlantic.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat Sci. 40:242-247.
7-6
-------
Carey, A.G. Jr. 1990. Distributional ecology of selected megaepifauna on abyssal plains
adjacent to Gorda Ridge, Northeast Pacific Ocean. Pages 241-251, In: G.R. McMurray,
editor. Gorda Ridge: A Seafioor Spreading Center in the United States Exclusive
Economic Zone. Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York.
Carey, A.G., Jr. 1972. Ecological observations on the benthic invertebrates from the central
Oregon continental shelf. Pages 422-443, In: A.T. Prater and D.L. Alverson, editors.
The Columbia River Estuary and Adjacent Ocean Waters: Bioenvironmental Studies.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Carlson, P.R. and D.S. McCulloch. 1974. Aerial observations of suspended-sediment plumes
in San Francisco Bay and the adjacent Pacific Ocean. J. Res. U.S. Geol. Survey 2:519-
526.
Carney, R.S. and A.G. Carey, Jr. 1976. Distribution pattern of holothurians on the northeastern
Pacific (Oregon, U.S.A.) continental shelf, slope, and abyssal plain. Thallassia
Jugoslavica 12(l):67-74.
CDFG (California Department Fish and Game) Recreational Fisheries Database. 1992. Data
on recreational catches from 1980-1991. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA,
provided to Science Applications International Corporation.
Chan, A.T. and G.C. Anderson. 1981. Environmental Investigation of the Effects of Deep-Sea
Mining on Marine Phytoplankton and Primary Productivity in the Tropical North Pacific
Ocean. Mar. Min 3(1-2): 121-149.
Chelton, D.B. 1984. Seasonal variability of alongshore geostrophic velocity of central
California. J. of Geophys. Res. 89(C3):3473-3486.
Chelton, D.B., R.L. Bernstein, A. Bratkovich, and P.M. Kosro. 1987. The central California
coastal circulation study. EOS 68(1): 1-3.
Chelton, D.B., A.W. Bratkovich, R.L. Bernstein, and P.M. Kosro. 1988. Poleward flow off
central California during the spring and summer of 1981 and 1984. J. Geophys. Res. Vol.
93(C9): 10604-10620.
Cherry, R.D., J.J.W. Higgo, and S.W. Fowler. 1978. Zooplankton fecal pellets and element
residence times in the ocean. Nature 274:246-248.
Chess, J.R., S.E. Smith, and P.C. Fischer. 1988. Trophic relationships of the shortbelly
rockfish, Sebastes jordani, off central California. CALCOFI Rep. 29:129-136.
7-7
-------
Childress, J.J. 1975. The respiratory rates of midwater crustaceans as a function of depth of
occurrence and relation to the oxygen minimum layer off southern California. Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. 50A:787-799.
Chin, J.L. (USGS). Personal communication to A. Ota (EPA). July 14, 1993.
Chin, J.L., H.A. Karl, and N.M. Maher. 1992. Characterization of EPA Study Areas 3, 4, and
5 on the Farallon Slope Using High Resolution Seismic Reflection Profiles. Chapter 4,
In: H.A. Karl, editor. Comprehensive Geological and Geophysical Survey of the Gulf
of Farallones Region. Administrative Report of the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park,
CA.
Churchill, J.H. 1987. Assessing hazards due to contaminant discharge in coastal waters.
Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 24:225-240.
Clarke, J.T., S.E. Moore, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1989. Observations on gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) utilization patterns in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, July-October 1982-1987.
Can. J. Zool. 67:2646-2654.
COE- see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Collier, R.W. and J.M. Edmond. 1984. The trace element geochemistry of marine biogenic
particulate matter. Progr. Oceanogr. 13:113-199.
Colombo, P. and M.W. Kendig. 1990. Analysis and Evaluation of a Radioactive Waste Package
Retrieved from the Farallon Islands 900-Meter Disposal Site. Report 520/1-90-014. EPA
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.
Colwell, R.R. and G.S. Saylor. 1978. Microbial degradation of industrial chemicals. Pages 111-
134, In: R. Mitchell, editor. Water Pollution Microbiology, Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Connell, J.H. and M.J. Keough. 1985. Disturbance and patch dynamics of subtidal marine
animals on hard substrata. Pages 125-151, In: S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, editors.
The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Cotter, P. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Copies of EPA file documents received
1991.
Crisp, D.J. 1974. Factors influencing the settlement of marine invertebrate larvae. Pages 177-
265, In: P.T. Grant and A.M. Mackie, editors. Chemoreception in Marine Organisms.
London Academic Press, London, England.
7-8
-------
Cross, J.N. 1987. Demersal fishes of the upper continental slope off southern California.
CALCOFI Rep. 28:155-167.
Csanady, G.T. and J.H. Churchill. 1987. Environmental engineering analysis of potential
dump sites. In: T.P O'Connor, W.V. Burt, and I.W. Duedall, editors. Physioprocesses
and Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
CSWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 1976. Areas of Special Biological
Significance. Report on State Board Resolution No. 74-28: Designating Areas of Special
Biological Significance. 55 pp.
Cuomo, M.C. 1985. Sulphide as a larval settlement due for Capitella sp. I. Biogeochem.
1:169-181.
Davis, J.A. and R. Gloor. 1981. Adsorption of dissolved organics in lake water by aluminum
oxide: effect of molecular weight. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15(10):1223.
Dayal, R.I., W. Duedall, M. Fuhrmann, and M.G. Heaton. 1979. Sediment and Water Column
Properties at the Farallon Islands Radioactive Waste Dumpsites. EPA Rep. 68-01-3907.
de Lappe, B.W., W.R. Sistek, E.F. Letterman, M. Firestone-Gillis, and R.W. Risebrough. 1980.
Pre-discharge studies, San Francisco South-West Ocean Outfall Project: the distribution
of higher-molecular weight hydrocarbons in the coastal environment. Report of the
Bodega Marine Laboratory and the Bodega Bay Institute of Pollution Ecology to the
CH2MHill Co., San Francisco, CA. 100 pp with Four Data Supplements.
Delgado, J. and S. Haller. 1989. Shipwrecks at the Golden Gate: A History of Vessel Losses
from Duxbury Reef to Mussel Rock. Lexikos Publishing. 168 pp. with Illustrations.
Denman, K.L. and M.R. AbbotL 1988. Time evolution of surface chlorophyll patterns from
cross-spectrum analysis of satellite color images. J. Geophys. Res., Series C (Oceans)
93(6):6789-6798.
DeSante, D.F. and D.G. Ainley. 1980. The Avifauna of the South Farallon Islands, California.
Studies in Avian Biology No. 4. Cooper Ornithological Society, Lawrence, Kansas.
Desbruyeres, D., J.Y. Bervas, and A. Khirpounoff. 1980. Un cas de colonisation rapide d'un
sediment profond. Oceanologica Acta. 3(3):285-291.
Diaz, R.J., J.A. Blake, and D.P. Lohse. 1993. Benthic Study of the Continental Slope Off Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region Under Contract No. 14-35-0001-30672 by
Virginia Institute of Technology and Science Applications International Corporation.
7-9
-------
Dohl, T.P., R.C. Guess, M.L. Dunman, and R.C. Helm. 1983. Cetaceans of Central and
Northern California, 1980-83: Status, Abundance, and Distribution. MMS Contract #14-
12-0001-29090. University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
Drake, D.A. and D.A. Cacchione. 1987. Suspended particulate matter along the coastal ocean
dynamics experiment central line during upwelling and relaxation events. J. Geophys.
Res. 92:1699-1701.
Dyer, R.S. 1976. Environmental surveys of two deep sea radioactive waste disposal sites using
submersibles. In: Management of Radioactive Wastes from the Nuclear Cycle, Vol. II,
IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
Ebert, E.E. and P.R. Cordier. 1966. A Survey of Marine Resources Offshore of Seal Rocks,
San Francisco, September 20-23, 1966. Calif. Fish and Game Bull. 66:26.
Edwards, B.D., H.J. Lee, and R.E. Kayen. 1992. Geotechnical Assessment of Continental Slope
Sediments. Chapter 7. In: H.A. Karl, editor. Comprehensive Geological and
Geophysical Survey of the Gulf of the Farallones Region. Administrative Report by the
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
Elderfield, H. and A. Hepworth. 1975. Diagenesis, metals and pollution in estuaries. Mar. Poll.
Bull. New Ser. 6:85-87.
Embley, R.W., S.L. Eittreim, C.H. McHugh, W.R. Normack, G.H. Rau, B. Hecker, A.E.
DeBevoise, H.G. Greene, W.B.F. Ryan, C. Harrold, and C. Baxter. 1990. Geological
setting of chemosynthetic communities in the Monterey Fan system. Deep-Sea Res.
37:1651-1667.
Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance
of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume II: species life history
summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessment
Division, Rockville, MD. 329 pp.
EPA. 1992a. Fact Sheet on Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste Materials. Prepared for the
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation
Programs, Washington, D.C., November 20, 1980. (Revised March 10, 1992.) 9 pp.
EPA. 1992b. User's Guide For the Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion Models.
Volume 2: Description of Model Algorithms. Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, N.C.
7-10
-------
EPA. 1991. Final Long-Term Management Strategy, San Francisco Bay, Ocean Studies Plan.
Prepared by EPA Region IX, San Francisco, California, with the assistance of Science
Applications International Corporation, San Diego, CA. 98 pp. with Appendices.
EPA. 1988. Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) For The Los Angeles/Long Beach
(LA-2) Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. Prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA.
EPA. 1986a. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation Handbook for Dredged Material.
Unnumbered Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, for
U.S. EPA, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, 3-1 to 3-14, Washington, D.C.
108 pp.
EPA. 1986b. Quality Criteria for Water. Report No. PB87-226759. Prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC.
EPA. 1985. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emmission Factors. Volume 2, 4th Edition.
Mobile Sources. Report prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Test and
Evaluation Branch. Ann Arbor, MI.
EPA. 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisco Channel Bar Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation, August 1982.
EPA. 1980. Atlas of Ocean Waste Disposal Sites. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Ocean Disposal Program by Interstate Electronics Corporation Under
Contract No. 68-01-4610. September 1980.
EPA. 1975. Operations Report A Survey of The Farallon Islands 500-Fathom Radioactive
Waste Disposal Site. Technical Note ORP-75-1. U.S. EPA Office of Radiation Programs
and Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1971. Ocean Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes From U.S. Coastal
Cities. Prepared by Dillingham Corporation, La Jolla, California, under Contract No. PH
86-68-203 for the Solid Waste Management Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal, Testing Manual. Report EPA-503/8-91/001. Prepared by EPA Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, D.C.
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. General Approach to Designation Studies for
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources
Support Center. 28 pp.
7-11
-------
Erel, Y. and J.J. Morgan. 1991. The effect of surface reactions on the relative abundances of
trace metals in deep-ocean water. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 55:1807-1813.
Eschmeyer, W.N. and E.S. Herald. 1983. A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North
America. The Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 336 pp.
Farrington, J.W., E.D. Goldberg, R.W. Risebrough, J.H. Martin, and V.T. Bowen. 1983. U.S.
"Mussel Watch" 1976-1978: an overview of the trace metal, DDE, PCB, hydrocarbon,
and artificial radionuclide data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17:490-496.
Fiscus, C.H. 1982. Predation by marine mammals on squids of the eastern north Pacific Ocean
and the Bering Sea. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44:(2): 1-10.
Fiscus, C.H., D.W. Rice, and A.A. Wolman. 1989. Cephalopods from the Stomachs of Sperm
Whales Taken Off California. NOAA Tech. Rep. PB90-173931/gar.
Fisher, N.S., C.V. Nolan, and S.W. Fowler. 1991. Scavenging and retention of metals by
zooplankton fecal pellets and marine snow. Deep-Sea Res. 38:1261-1275.
Fleischer, L.A. 1978. The distribution, abundance, and population characteristics of the
Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi (Merriam, 1897). Univ. Washington.
Masters Thesis. 93 pp.
Fletcher, J.L. 1971. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals. EPA-NTID 300.5, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 74 pp.
Forstner, U. and W. Salomons. 1983. Trace element speciation in surface waters; interaction
with particulate matter. In: G.G. Leppard, editor. Trace Element Speciation in Surface
Waters and its Ecological Implications. Plenum Publishing, New York, NY.
Forstner, U. and G.T.W. Wittman. 1983. Metal Pollution in the Aquatic Environment Second
revised edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York. 486 pp.
Fowler, S.W. 1977. Trace elements in zooplankton particulate products. Nature 269:51-52.
Fredin, R.A., R.L. Major, R.G. Bakkala and G.K. Tanonaka. 1977. Pacific Salmon and the
High Seas Salmon fisheries of Japan. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center Processed
Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Seattle, WA. 324 pp.
Freeland, H.J., W. Jr. Crawford, and R.E. Thomson. 1984. Currents along the Pacific coast of
Canada. Atmos. Ocean. 22(2): 151-172.
7-12
-------
Freitag, H.P. and D. Halpem, 1981. Hydrographic observations off northern California during
May 1977. J. Geophys. Res. 86:4248-4252.
Frey, H.W. 1971. California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization. Sate of
California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 148 pp.
Gage, J.D. and P.A. Tyler. 1991. Deep-Sea Biology: A Natural History of Organisms at the
Deep-Sea Floor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. 504 pp.
Garrison, D.L. 1976. Contribution of Net Plankton and Nannoplnkton to the Standing Stocks
and Primary Productivity in Monterey Bay, California, USA During Upwelling Season.
NOAA NMFS Bull. 74(1): 183-194.
Gentry, R.L. and G. Kooyman. 1986. Fur Seals: Maternal Stategies on Land and at Sea.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine
mammals and turtles. Pages 587-617, In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabelais, editors. Long-
Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development Elsevier Applied
Science, New York, NY.
Germano, J.D. and D.C. Rhoads. 1984. REMOTS sediment profiling at the Field Verification
Program (FVP) disposal site. Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. Vol. 1, New
York. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, pp. 536-544.
Gibson, Ll Cmdr. U.S. Coast Guard VTS. Telephone conversation with Sridhar Srinivasan
(SAIC), January 1992.
Goddard, T.C., M.L. Stevenson, and G. Gillingham. 1985. San Francisco Bay Dredged Material
Disposal Site Survey. Tech. Rpt KLI-R-84-15. U.S. Anny COE, San Francisco District,
San Francisco, CA.
Goldberg, E.D. and J.H. Martin. 1983. Metals in seawater as recorded by mussels. Pages 811-
822, In: C.S. Wong, E. Boyle, K.W. Bruland, J.D. Burton, and E.D. Goldberg, editors.
Trace Metals in Sea Water. NATO Conference Series. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Gordon, R.B. 1974. Dispersion of dredge spoil dumped in nearshore waters. Est. Coast.
Mar. Sci. 2:349-358.
Gordon, R.M. 1980. Trace element concentrations in seawater and suspended particulate matter
from San Francisco Bay and adjacent coastal waters. Masters Thesis. San Jose State
University, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.
7-13
-------
Gosho, M.E., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick. 1984. The Sperm Whale, Physeter macrocephalus.
Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):54-64.
Gotshall, D.W. and R.S. Dyer. 1987. Deepwater Demersal Fishes Observed from the
Submersible AVALON (DSRV-2) Off the Farallon Islands, 24 June 1985. Calif. Fish and
Game Mar. Res. Tech. Rep. 55:1-16.
Grant, W.D. and D.S. Madsen. 1979. Combined wave and current interaction with rough
bottom. J. Geophys. Res. 84:1797-1808.
Grant, W.D., A.J. Williams III, and S.M. Glenn. 1984. Bottom stress estimates and their
prediction on the northern California continental shelf during CODE-1: The importance
of wave-current interaction. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 14:506-527.
Grassle, J.F. and N.J. Maciolek. 1992. Deep-sea species richness: regional and local diversity
estimates from quanatative bottom samples. Amer. Nat. 139:313-341.
Grassle, J.F. and L. Morse-Porteous. 1987. Macrofaunal colonization of disturbed deep-sea
environments and the structure of deep-sea benthic communities. Deep-Sea Res. 34:1911-
1950.
Grassle, J.F. and W.L. Smith. 1976. A similarity measure sensative to the contribution of rare
species and its use in investigation of variation in marine benthic communities. Oceologia
25:13-22.
Graybeal, A.L. and G. Ross Heath. 1984. Reraobilization of transition metals in surficial pelagic
sediments from the eastern Pacific. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48:965-975.
Griggs, G.B., A.G. Carey, Jr., and L.D. Kulm. 1969. Deep-sea sedimentation and sediment-
fauna interaction in Cascadia Channel and on Cascadia Abyssal Plain. Deep-Sea Res.
16:157.
Griggs, G.B. and J.R. Hein. 1980. Sources, dispersal, and clay composition of fine-grained
sediments off central and northern California. J. Geol. 88:541-566.
Haedrich, R.L., G.T. Rowe, and P.T. Polloni. 1980. The megabenthic fauna in the deep sea
south of New England, U.S.A. Mar. Biol. 57(3): 165-179.
Halliwell, G.R. and J.S. Allen. 1987. The large-scale coastal wind field along the west coast
of North America, 1981-1982. J. Geophys. Res. 92(C2): 1861-1884.
Hanan, D.A., J. Scholl, and S. Diamond. 1986. Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardsi. Census
in California, May 28-31 and June 25-30, 1985. In: California Department of Fish and
7-14
-------
Game Coastal Marine Mammal Study Annual Report for the Period July 1, 1984 -June
30, 1985. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Center Admin. Rep. LJ-
86-25C.
Hanna, G.D. 1952. Geology of the continental slope off central California. Proc. Cali. Acad.
Sci. 27:325-358.
Hartman, O. 1963. Submarine canyons of Southern California, Part II. Biology. Allan Hancock
Pac. Exped. 27(2): 1-424.
Hatfield, S.E. 1983. Distribution of zooplankton in association with Dungeness crab, Cancer
magister, larvae in California. Calif. Fish and Game Bull. 172:97-123.
Hay ward, T.L. and A.W. Mantyla. 1990. Physical, chemical and biological structure of a coastal
eddy near Cape Mendocino. J. Mar. Res. 48:825-850.
Hecker, B. 1990. Photographic evidence for the rapid flux of particles to the sea floor and their
transport down the continental slope. Deep-Sea Res. 37(12):1773-1782.
Hecker, B. 1982. Possible benthic fauna and slope instability relationships. Pages 335-347, In:
S. Saxof and J.K. Nieuwenhuis, editors. Marine Slides and other Mass Movements.
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Hem, J.D. 1977. Reactions of metal ions at surfaces of hydrous iron oxide. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 41:527-538.
Herz, M.J. and D. Kopec. 1985. Analysis of the PUERTO RICAN Tanker Incident:
Recommendations for Future Oil Spill Response Capability. Technical Report No. 5.
Paul F. Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, S.F. State University, San
Francisco, CA. 121 pp.
Herzing, D.L. and B.R. Mate. 1984. Gray whale migrations along the Oregon coast, 1978-1981.
Pages 289-307, In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz and S. Leatherwood, editors. The Gray
Whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.
Hickey, B. 1979. The California Current system: hypotheses and facts. Prog. Oceanogr. 8:191-
279.
Hirota, J. 1981. Potential effects of deep-sea minerals mining on macrozooplankton in the north
equatorial Pacific. Mar. Mining 3(1-2): 19-57.
Hollister, C.D., A.R.M. Nowell, and P.A. Jumars. 1984. The dynamic abyss. Sci. Amer.
1984:42-53.
7-15
-------
Holzworth, G.C. 1959. Atmospheric contaminants at remote California coastal sites. J. Meteor.
16:68-79.
Honeyman, B.D., L.S. Balistrieri, and J.W. Murray. 1988. Oceanic trace metal scavenging: the
importance of particle concentration. Deep-Sea Res. 35:227-246.
Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, R.J. Boekelheide, R.P. Henderson, T.J. Lewis. In Prep. Changes in
Seasonal Variation and Yearly Abundance of Pinnipeds on the Farallon Islands, California
1971-1986. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.
Huber, H.R., L. Fry, A. Rovetta, S. Johnston, and J. Nusbaum. 1986. Studies of Marine
Mammals at the Farallon Islands, 1983-1985. NMFS-SWFC Admin. Rep. LJ-86-17C.
Hunter, K.A. 1983. The adsorptive properties of sinking particles in the deep ocean. Deep-Sea
Res. 30(6A):669-675.
Huyer, A., P.M. Kosro, J. Fleischbein, S.R. Ramp, T. Stanton, L. Washburn, F.P. Chavez, T.J.
Cowles, S.D. Pierce, and R.L. Smith. 1991. Currents and water masses of the coastal
transition zone off northern California, June to August 1988. J. Geophys. Res.
96(C8): 14809-14831.
Huyer, A. and R.L. Smith. 1985. The signature of El Nino off Oregon, 1982-1983. J. Geophys.
Res. 90:7133-7142.
Huyer, A., R.L. Smith, and B.M. Hickey. 1984. Observations of a warm-core eddy off Oregon,
January-March 1978. Deep-Sea Res. 31(2):97-117.
Huyer, A., R.L. Smith, and E.J.C. Sobey. 1978. Seasonal differences in low-frequency current
fluctuations over the Oregon continental shelf. J. Geophys. Res. 83(C10):5077-5089.
Hyland, J., E. Baptiste, J. Campbell, J. Kennedy, R. Kropp, and S. Williams. 1991.
Macroinfaunal communities of the Santa Maria Basin on the California outer continental
shelf and slope. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 78:147-161.
Icanberry, J.W. and J.W. Warrick. 1978. Seasonal Distribution of Plankton in the Nearshore
Marine Environment of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power PlanL Vol. II. Pacific Gas &
Electric. Dept. Eng. Res. Environ. Investigations at Diablo Canyon 1957-1977. 32 pp.
IEC (Interstate Electronics Corporation). 1982. Appendices to San Francisco, California, Deep-
Water Dumpsite Designation: Report of Field Survey, Loran-C Coordinates and Range
and Bearing for All Casts.
IEC. 1974. Radioactive Waste Disposal Activities in the Vicinity of the Farallon Islands.
Prepared for EPA, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.
7-16
-------
IEC. 1973. Ocean Waste Disposal in Selected Geographic Areas. Prepared for the U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
IWC (International Whaling Commission). 1990. Report of the Sub-Committee on Gray Whales,
Annex I. Report of The Scientific Committee, Annex I (Gray Whales). International
Whaling Commission 41:158-161.
Jacobson, L.D. 1991. Thomyheads Stock Assessment for 1991. Appendix C In: Status of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1991 and Recommended Acceptable Biological
Catches for 1992. Stock Assessment and Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management
Council, Portland, OR. 67 pp.
James Dobbin Associates, Inc. 1986. Resource Damage assessment of the T/V PUERTO
RICAN Oil Spill Incident. Prepared for USDC/NOAA/NOS/OOCRM/Sanctuary Programs
Division.
Jameson, R.J. 1989. Movements, home range, and territories of male sea otters off central
California. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 5(2): 159-172.
Johnson, J.H. and A.A. Wolman. 1984. The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar.
Fish. Rev. 46(4):30-37.
Johnston, D.W. and D.J. Wildish. 1981. Avoidance of dredge spoil by herring (Clupea
harengus harengus). Bull. Environ. Contamin. Tox. 26:307-314.
Jones, M.L. and S.L. Swartz. 1990. Abundance and distribution of gray whales in the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary during the southbound migration in January 1986 and
1987. Paper SC/A90/G17, 15 pp. International Whaling Commission Gray Whale
Workshop.
Jones, P.A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. Memorandum to J. Hashimoto
(EPA Region IX), October 8, 1992.
Jones, P.A. and I.D. Szczepaniak. 1992. Report on the Seabird and Marine Mammal Censuses
Conducted for the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) August 1990 Through
November 1991. Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Region IX, San Francisco, CA, July 1992.
Jones, R.E. 1981. Food habits of smaller marine mammals from northern California. Proc.
Calif. Acad. Sci. 42(16):409-433.
Joseph, A.B. 1957. United States Sea Disposal Operations: A Summary to December 1956.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., WASH-734.
7-17
-------
Jow, T. 1992. Analysis of 1985-1987 California Department of Fish and Game Trawler Databse
for Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Near San Francisco. Final
Report submitted to EPA Region IX, San Francisco, CA. 57 pp.
Jumars, P.A. 1977. Potential Environmental Impact of Deep-Sea Manganese Nodule Mining:
Community Analysis and Prediction. Unnumbered NOAA Report, Marine Ecosystem
Analysis Program Office, Dept. of Oceanography, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 15
pp.
Jumars, P.A. and R.R. Hessler. 1976. Hadal community structure: Implications from the
Aleutian Trench. J. Mar. Res. 34(4):547.
Karl, H.A. 1992. Comprehensive Geological and Geophysical Survey of the Gulf of the
Farallones Region Central California. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. 188 pp. with Appendices.
Karlin, R. 1980. Sediment sources and clay mineral distributions off the Oregon coast. J. Sed.
Petrol. 50(2):543-559.
Kato, S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Tiburon,
California. Personal communication with C. Nordby (SAIC), 1991.
Kay, S.H. 1984. Potential for biomagnification of contaminants within marine and freshwater
food webs. Technical Report D-84-7 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Keith, E.O., R.S. Condit, and B.J. Le Boeuf. 1984. California sea lions breeding at Ano Nuevo
Island, CA. J. Mamm. 65(4):695.
Kenyon, K. 1987. Sea Otter. Pages 704-710, In: J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhammer
(editors). Wild Mammals of North America. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
MD.
Kemdorf, H. and M. Schnitzer. 1980. Sorption of metals on humic acid. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta 44:1701.
Kinoshita, K.L., M.A. Noble, and S.R. Ramp. 1992. The Farallones Moored Array Data Report
Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Region IX, San Francisco, CA by USGS, Menlo Park, CA
and the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. 10 pp. with Appendices.
KLI (Kinnetic Laboratories, Tetra Tech, and Environmental Science Associates, Inc.). 1991.
Ocean Disposal Site Evaluation Report Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
San Francisco District
7-18
-------
Koh, R.C.Y. and Y.C. Chang. 1973. Mathematical Model for Barged Ocean Disposal of Wastes.
Report EPA-660/2-73-029 prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pacific
Office of Research and Development, Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory.
Corvallis, OR.
Komar, P.D., A.P. Morse, L.F. Small, and S.W. Fowler. 1981. An analysis of sinking rates of
natural copepod and euphausiid pellets. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26( 1): 172-180.
Kosro, P.M. 1987. Structure of the coastal current field off northern California during the
coastal ocean dynamics experiment J. Geophys. Res. 92(C2): 1637-1654.
Kramer, D. and P.E. Smith. 1972. Seasonal and Geographic Characteristics of Fishery
Resources: California Current Region. Vol VIII, Zooplankton. Comm. Fish. Rev. 34(5-
6):33-40.
Kranz, P. 1974. The anastrophic burial of bivalves and its paleontological significance. J.
Geol. 82:237-265.
Krom, M.D. and E.R. Sholkovitz. 1978. On the association of iron and manganese with organic
matter in anoxic marine pore waters. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42:607-611.
Landner, L. 1987. Speciation of Metals in Water, Sediment and Soil Systems. Lecture Notes
in Earth Sciences, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 190 pp.
Lea, R. California Department Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. Personal communication with
C. Nordby (SAIC), April 1991.
Leatherwood, S. and R.R. Reeves. 1982. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins.
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. 302 pp.
Leatherwood, S., R. Reeves, W.F. Perrin, and W.E. Evans. 1982. Whales, Dolphins, and
Porpoises of the Eastern North Pacific and Adjacent Arctic Waters: A Guide to Their
Identification. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.
Le Boeuf, B.J. and M.L. Bonnell. 1980. Pinnipeds of the California Islands: Abundance and
distribution. Pages 475-493, In: D.M. Power, editor. The California Islands:
Proceedings of a Multi-disciplinary Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History, Santa Barbara, CA.
Le Boeuf, B.J., M.L. Bonnell, M.O. Pierson, D.H. Dettman, and G.D. Farrens. 1978. Numbers,
Distribution, and Movements in the Southern California Bight, Section I. Pinnipedia. In:
Marine Mammal and Seabird Survey of the Southern California Bight Area. Volume III
Principal Investigators Reports. Pinnipedia, Cetacea, and Parasitology. Bureau of Land
Managment Rep. No. BLM/YN/SR-78/02-Vol 1, 3-1.
7-19
-------
Leckie, J.O., M.M. Benjamin, K. Hayes, G. Kaufman, and S. Altmann. 1980. Adsorpiion/co-
precipitation of trace elements from water with iron oxyhydroxides. Final Report.
Research Project 910-1/CS-1513. Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA.
Ledwell, J.R. and A.J. Watson. 1991. The Santa Monica Basin Tracer Experiment: A study of
Diapycnal and Isopycnal Mixing. J. Geophys. Res. 96:8695-8718.
Lee, G.F. 1975. Role of hydrous metal oxides in the transport of heavy metals in the
environment In: P.A. Krenkel, editor. Heavy Metals in the Aquatic Environment
Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Lee, Jewelynn. California Department of Fish and Game. Telephone conversation with D.
Heilprin (SAIC), May 24, 1993.
Lenarz, R. National Marine Fisheries Service. Telephone conversation with C. Nordby
(SAIC), 1990.
Lenarz, W.H. 1980. Shortbelly rockfish, Sebastes jordani: A large unfished resource in waters
off California. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(3-4):34-40.
Lissner, A., G. Taghon, D. Diener, S. Schroeter, and J. Dixon. 1991. Colonization of hard-
substrate communities: potential impacts from oil and gas development. Ecolog. Appl.
1:258-267.
Love, R.M. 1991. Probably More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific
Coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, CA. 215 pp.
LTMS Non-Aquatic /Reuse Work Group. 1992. Unpublished table provided to S. Clarke (EPA,
Region IX), November 1992.
Lubchenko, J.L. 1978. Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of
herbivore food preference and algal competitive ability. Amer. Nat. 112(983):23-39.
Lukjanowicz, E. U.S. Navy, San Bruno. Telephone conversation with Sridhar Srinivasan
(SAIC), January 1992 and July 1992.
Lynn, R.J. and J.J. Simpson. 1990. The flow of the undercurrent over the continental borderland
off Southern California. J. Geophys. Res. 95(C8): 12955-13008.
Maciolek, N.J., J.F. Grassle, B. Hecker, B. Brown, J.A. Blake, B. Dade, W.G. Steinhauer, E.
Baptiste, R.E. Ruff, and R. Petrecca. 1987a. Study of Biological Processes on the U.S.
7-20
-------
Mid -Atlantic Slope and Rise. Final Report under Contract No. 14-12-0001-30064
prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Washington, D.C. 314 pp. with Appendices A-M.
Maciolek, N.J., J.F. Grassle, B. Hecker, B. Brown, J.A. Blake, P.D. Boehm, R. Petrecca, S.
Duffy, E. Baptiste, and R.E. Ruff. 1987b. Study of Biological Processes on the U.S.
North Atlantic Slope and Rise. Final Report under Contract No. 14-12-0001-30064
prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Washington, D.C. 364 pp. with Appendices A-L.
Madalon, L. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. Telephone conversation
with C. Phillips (SAIC), June 15, 1992.
Malone, T.C. 1971. The relative importance of nannoplankton and net plankton as primary
producers in the California Current system. Fish. Bull. 69:799-820.
Marine Mammal Commission. 1993. Annual Report to Congress 1992. Report by the Marine
Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.
Matsui, T., S. Kato, and S.E. Smith. 1990. Biology and potential use of Pacific grenadier,
Coryphaenoides acrolepis, off California. Mar. Fish. Rev. 52(3): 1-17.
Maurer, D.L., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, and W.A. Leathern. 1981. Vertical Migration and
Mortality of Benthos in Dredged Material, Part I: Mollusca. Mar. Environ. Res. 4:299-
319.
MBC. 1989. An Historical Perspective of the Commercial and Sport Fisheries Offshore
California Through 1985. Report to Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region.
43 pp.
MBC. 1987. Ecology of Important Fisheries Species Offshore California. Report to Minerals
Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 252 pp.
McGowan, J.A. and C.B. Miller. 1980. Larval fish and zooplankton community structure.
CalCOFI Rep. 21:29-36.
Mclnnis, R.R. and W.W. Broenkow. 1978. Correlations between squid catches and
oceanographic conditions in Monterey Bay, CA. Calif. Fish and Game Bull. 169:161-170.
Melzian, B.D., C. Zoffman, and R.B. Spies. 1987. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in lower
continental slope fish collected near the Farallon Islands, California. Mar. Poll. Bull
18:388-393.
7-21
-------
Metcalf, R.L. 1977. Biological fate and transformation of pollutants in water. In: Fate of
Pollutants in the Air and Water Environments, Part 2: Chemical and Biological Fate of
Pollutants in the Environment. I. H. Buffet (ed.), pp. 195-221.
Miller, D.J. and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California. Calif. Fish
and Game Bull. 157. 249 pp.
Mizroch, S.A., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick. 1984. The blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus.
Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4): 15-19.
MMS (Minerals Management Service). 1987. Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Leasing Program Mid-1987 to Mid-1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Volume I. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C.
MMS/CDFG (California Department Fish and Game). 1992. Commercial Fisheries Database
from 1970-1986. Provided by Econanalysis to Science Applications International
Corporation.
Moore, S.E., D.K. Ljungblad and D.R. Van Schoik. 1986. Annual patterns of gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus) distribution, abundance and behavior in the northern Bering and
eastern Chukchi Seas, 1980-83. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. Spec. Iss. 8:231-242.
Moore, T. California Department Fish and Game. Data received by R. Kelly (SAIC), January
1992.
Morejohn, G.V. 1979. The natural history of Dall's porpoise in the North Pacific Ocean.
Pages 45-83, In: H.E. and B.L. Oua, editors. Behavior of Marine Animals, Volume 3.
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech Jr. 1988. Fishes, an Introduction to Ichthyology. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 559 pp.
Mullins, H.T., J.B. Thompson, K. McDougall, and T.L. Vercoutere. 1985. Oxygen minimum
zone edge effects: evidence from central California coastal upwelling system. Geology
13:491-494.
Murray, R.W., M.R. Buchholtzten Brink, D.C. Gerlach, G.P. Russ III, and D.L. Jones. 1991.
Rare earth, major and trace elements in chert from Franciscan Complex and Monterey
Group, California: assessing REE resources to fine-grained marine sediments. Geochem.
Cosmochim. Acta 55:1875-1895.
Myers, D. U.S. Corps of Engineers. Personal meeting with S. Clarke (EPA), April 14, 1992.
7-22
-------
National Marine Sanctuary Program. 1987. Gulf of the Farallones. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA. Washington, D.C.
National Park Service. 1986. Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental
Assessment, Revised. Revised from the 1976 Natural Resources and Management Plan
and Environmental Assessment Point Reyes National Seashore. 87 pp.
Navy, see U.S. Navy
Neff, J.M., M.H. Bothner, N.J. Maciolek, and J.F. Grassle. 1989. Impacts of exploratory drilling
oil and gas on the benthic environment of Georges Bank. Mar. Environ. Res. 27:77-114.
Nerini, M. 1984. A review of gray whale feeding ecology. Pages 423-450, In: M.L. Jones,
S.L. Swartz and S. Leatherwood, editors. The Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus.
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.
Neshyba, S.J., Ch.N.K. Mooers, R.L. Smith, and R.T. Barber. 1989. Poleward flows along
eastern ocean boundaries. Springer-Verlag Coastal and Estuarine Studies Vol. 34., 374
pp.
Nichols, J.A., G.T. Rowe, C.H.H. Clifford, R.A. Young. 1978. In situ experiments on the burial
of marine invertebrates. J. Sed. Petrol. 48(2):419-425.
Nishiwaki, M. and A. Sasao. 1977. Human activities disturbing natural migration routes of
whales. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 29:113-120.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1983. Guide to Underutilized Species of California.
NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Tiburon Laboratories Admin. Rep. T-83-01.
20 pp.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1992. Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan. Prepared by
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,
NOAA, Washington, D.C.
NOAA. 1991. Second Summary of Data on Chemical Contaminants in Sediments from the
National Status and Trends Program. Progress Report. National Status and Trends
Program for Marine Environmental Quality. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA
59.
NOAA. 1990. Preliminary Natural Resource Survey: Farallon Islands Radioactive Waste
Dumps. NOAA, Washington, D.C.
7-23
-------
NOAA. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Proposed
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Report to the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine and Estuarine Management
Division. Volume I.
NOAA. 1988. A Summary of Selected Data on Chemical Contaminants in Sediments Collected
During 1984,1985, 1986, and 1987. A Progress Report NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 44. 15 pp. with Appendices.
NOAA. 1984. Bathymetric Chart, Point Sur to San Francisco. Chart No. 18680, 23rd Ed. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service, Washington, D.C.
NOAA. 1980. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Point Reyes-Farallon
Isands Marine Sanctuary. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D.C.
Noble, M.A. and G. Gelfenbaum. 1990. A Pilot Study of Currents and Suspended Sediment in
the Gulf of the Farallones. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 90-476.
Noble, M.A. and K. Kinoshita. 1992. Currents over the slope off San Francisco, CA. Report
by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Open File 92-555. U.S.
Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
Noble, M.A., S.R. Ramp, and K. Kinoshita. 1992. Current Patterns Over the Shelf and Slope
Adjacent to the Gulf of the Farallones. Executive Summary. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA.
Nolte and Associates. 1987. Dredged Material Disposal Alternative Study, Task 2, South San
Francisco Bay Sites. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District,
San Francisco, CA.
Noshkin, V.E., K.M. Wong, T.A. Jokela, R.J. Eagle, and J.L. Brunk. 1978. Radionuclides in
the Marine Environment Near the Farallon Islands. Admin. Rept. No. W-7405-Eng-48,
U.S. Energy Res. arid Dev.
Nybakken, J., L. Beasley, A. Summers, S. Craig, and L. Weetman. 1992. Invertebrate
Megafauna Collected from the Proposed U.S. Navy Ocean Disposal Site as Determined
from Beam and Otter Trawls and Camera Sled Samples. Final Report Submitted to PRC
Environmental Management, Inc., Honolulu, HI, Under Navy CLEAN Contract No.
N62474-88-D-1991.
Nybakken, J., W. Broenkow, M. Silberstein, P. Slattery, A.R. Flegal, G. Knauer, R. Risebrough,
and B. Antrim. 1984. Baseline Survey and Site Selection for Ocean Disposal, Gulf of
7-24
-------
the Farallones. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District. 241 pp.
Ogden Beeman. 1991. see U.S. COE 1991.
Oliphant, M.S., P.A. Gregory, B.J. Ingle, and R. Madrid. 1990. California Marine Fish Landings
for 1977-1986. Calif. Fish and Game BuU. 173.
Oliver, J.S., P.N. Slattery, M.A. Silberstein, and E.F. O'Connor. 1984. Gray whale feeding on
dense ampeliscid amphipod communities near Bamfield, British Columbia. Can. J. Zool.
62:41-49.
Owen, R.W., Jr. 1974. Distribution of Primary Production, Plant Pigments, and Secchi Depth
in the California Current Region, 1969. CalCOFI Atlas No. 20.
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.
Paine, R.T. and R.L. Vadas. 1969. The effects of grazing by sea urchins Strongylocentrotus spp.
on benthic algal populations. Limnol. Ocean. 14:710-719.
Parr, T., K. Kutchins, M. Stevenson, and F.C. Newton. 1987. Baseline physical analysis of
potential ocean disposal sites offshore San Francisco, Sites B1,B1A, and B2. Report to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA.
Parr, T., K. Kutchins, M. Stevenson, F. Charles Newton, A. Thum, J. Shrake, and G. Lewbel.
1988. Baseline Physical and Biological Analysis of Potential Ocean Disposal Sites
Offshore San Francisco. Final Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District, San Francisco, CA.
Parravano, P. (Halfmoon Bay Fisherman's Association). Conversation with C. Nordby (SAIC).
1990.
PDC (PneumoDynamics Corporation). 1961. Survey of Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission. AT(04-3)-331.
Pearcy, W.G., D.L. Stein, and R.S. Carney. 1982. The deep-sea benthic fish fauna of the
northeastern Pacific Ocean on Cascadia and Tufts Abyssal Plains and adjoining
continental slopes. Biol. Oceanogr. l(4):375-428.
Pearson, T.H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic
enrichment and pollution of the marine environment Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 53:371-379.
7-25
-------
Pequegnat, W.E., D.D. Smith, R.M. Darnell, B.J. Presley, and R.O. Reid. 1978. An Assessment
of the Potential Impact of Dredged Material Disposal in the Open Ocean. Report D-78-2
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Under Contract No. DACW39-76-C-0123.
Pereyra, W.T. 1972. Bathymetric and seasonal abundance and general ecology of the tanner
crab, Chionoecetes tanneri Rathbun (Brachyura:Majidae), of the northern Oregon coasL
Pages 538-582, In: AT. Pruter and D.L. Alverson, editors. The Columbia River Estuary
and Adjacent Ocean Waters: Bioenvironmental Studies. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Pereyra, W.T. and M.S. Alton. 1972. Distribution and relative abundance of invertebrates off
the northern Oregon coast. Pages 444-474, In: A.T. Pruter and D.L. Alverson editors.
The Columbia River Estuary and Adjacent Ocean Waters: Bioenvironmental Studies.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Peterson, D.H., D.R. Cayan, J.F. Festa, F.H. Nichols, R.A. Walters, J.V. Slack, S.E. Hager, and
L.E. Schemel. 1989. Climate variability in an estuary: effects of river flow on San
Francisco Bay. Amer. Geophys. Union, Geophys. Monogr. 55:419-442.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1993. Review of 1992 Ocean Salmon Fisheries.
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.
Pierotti, R.J., D.G. Ainley, T.J. Lewis, and M.C. Coulter. 1977. Birth of a California sea lion
on Southwest Farallon Island. Calif. Fish and Game Bull. 63:64-65.
Poole, M.M. 1984. Migration corridors of gray whales along the central California coast, 1980-
1982. Pages 389-407, In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz and S. Leatherwood, editors. The
Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA.
PRBO (Point Reyes Bird Observatory). 1992. see Ainley and Allen 1992.
PRBO. 1985. The Impacts of the T/V PUERTO RICAN Oil Spill on Marine Bird and Mammal
Populations in the Gulf of the Farallones, 6-19 November, 1984: A Special Scientific
Report by PRBO with Assistance from International Bird Rescue, Berkeley, CA. Point
Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 75 pp.
PTI. 1989. Central San Francisco Bay Projects, Dredged Material Disposal Site Investigation.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco,
California Under Contract No. DACW07-88-C-0026.
Pyle, P. and R.P. Henderson. 1991. The Birds of Southeast Farallon Island: Occurrence and
Seasonal Distribution of Migratory Species. West. Birds 22(2):41-84.
7-26
-------
Ramp, S.R., N. Garfield, C.A. Collins, L.K. Rosenfeld, and F.B. Schwing. 1992. Circulation
Studies Over the Continental Shelf and Slope Near the Farallon Islands, CA. Executive
summary. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San
Francisco, CA.
Ramp, S.R., P.F. lessen, K.H. Brink, P.P. Niiler, F.L. Daggett, and J.S. Best. 1991. The
physical stucture of cold filaments near Point Arena, California, during June 1987. J.
Geophys. Res. 96:14859-14884.
Recksick, C.W. and H.W. Frey. 1978. Biological, oceanographic, and acoustic aspects of the
market squid, Loligo opalescens (Berry). Calif. Fish and Game Bull. 169:7-10.
Rex, M.A. 1983. Geographic patterns of species diversity in the deep-sea benthos. Pages 453-
472, In: G.T. Rowe, editor. The Sea: Deep-Sea Biology. Wiley and Sons, New York,
NY.
Rex, M.A. 1981. Community structure in the deep-sea benthos. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12:331-
353.
Rhoads, D.C. 1991. Analysis of the Contribution of Dredged Material to Sediment and
Contaminant Fluxes in Long Island Sound. SAIC Report 89/7571&C82 to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA.
Rhoads, D.C., R.C. Aller, and M.B. Goldhaber. 1977. The influence of colonizing benthos on
physical properties and chemical diagenesis of the estuarine seafloor. Pages 113-138, In:
B.C. Coull, editor. Ecology of Marine Benthos. The Belle Baruch Library in Marine
Science #6, Univ. S. Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Rhoads, D.C. and L.F. Boyer. 1982. The Effect of Marine Benthos on Physical Properties of
Sediments: A Successional Perspective. Chapter 1, In: P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz,
editors. Organism Sediment Relations: Biogenic Alteration of Sediments. Plenum Press,
New York, NY.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1990. The use of REMOTS Imaging Technology for Disposal
Site Selection and Monitoring. Pages 50-64, In: K.R. Demars and R.C. Chaney (editors.
Geotechnical Engineering of Ocean Waste Disposal. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthos community
structure. Hydrobiologia 142:291-308.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of benthic processes using sediment
profile imaging: an efficient method of Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor
(REMOTS system). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8:115-128.
7-27
-------
Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine
seafloor. Am. Sci. 66(5):577-586.
Rhoads, D.C., S.G. Mulsow, R. Gutschick, C.T. Baldwin, and J.F. Stolz. 1991. The dysaerobic
zone revisited: a magnetic facies? Pages 187-199, In: R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson,
editors. Modem and Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia. J. Geolog. Soc. (London)
Special Publ. 58.
Rice, D.L. and D.C. Rhoads. 1989. Early diagenesis of organic matter and the nutritional value
of sediment. Pages 59-97, In: G. Lopez, G. Taghon, and J. Levinton, editors. Ecology
of Marine Deposit Feeders. Series in Coastal and Estuarine Studies 31. Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Richardson, WJ. 1991. Documented Disturbance Reactions. Pages 209-261, In: Effects of
Noise on Marine Mammals. MMS Rep. 90-0093 prepared for the U.S. Department of
Interior Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region, by LGL Ecological
Research Associates, Inc.
Robilliard, G.A. 1985. Environmental Effects of the PUERTO RJCAN Oil Spill: Phase II.
Final Report Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
Roper, C.F.E., M.J. Sweeney, and C.E. Nauen. 1984. Cephalopods of the World, an annotated
and illustrated catalog of species of interest to fisheries. FAO species catalog Vol. 3.
FAO/UNDP, Rome, Italy. 277 pp.
Rosenthal, H.S. 1971. Effects of "red mud" on embryos and larvae of the herring, Clupea
harengus. Helgo. wiss. Meeresunters. 22:366-376.
SAIC. 1992a. Biological and Sedimentological Investigations of the Sea Floor at the Proposed
U.S. Navy Ocean Disposal Site, July 1991 Survey (R/V WECOMA), Benthic Biology and
Sediment Characterization. Final Report Submitted to PRC Environmental Management,
Inc. by Science Applications International Corporation, Under Navy CLEAN Contract No.
N62474-88-D-5086.
SAIC. 1992b. Trawl and Remotely Operated Vehicle Ocean Studies Report for Detailed
Physical and Biological Oceanographic Studies for an Ocean Site Designation Effort
Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Prepared for U.S.
EPA under Contract No. 68-C8-0062, June 1992.
SAIC. 1992c. Benthic Ecology and Sediment Characterization Ocean Studies Report for
Detailed Physical and Biological Oceanographic Studies for an Ocean Site Designation
Effort Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Prepared for
U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-C8-0062, July 1992.
7-28
-------
SAIC. 1992d. Biological and Sedimentological Investigations of the Sea Floor at the Proposed
U.S. Navy Ocean Disposal Site, July 1991 Survey (R/V WECOMA), Megafauna]
Assemblages. Final Report Submitted to PRC Environmental Management, Inc. by
Hecker Environmental Consulting for Science Applications International Corporation,
Under Navy CLEAN Contract No. N62474-88-D-5086.
SAIC. 1992e. Modeling Potential Deposition and Water Column Turbidity For Proposed Long-
Term Disposal of Dredged Material at Sites off San Francisco, California. Draft Final
Report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA. 122 pp.
SAIC. 1991. Biological and Sedimentological Investigations of the Sea Floor at the Proposed
U.S. Navy 103 Ocean Disposal Site. Final Report submitted to PRC Environmental
Management, Inc., by Science Applications International Corporation.
SAIC. 1990a. Survey of the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (LA-5) off Los Angeles,
California. Draft Report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Under
EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0061, Work Assignment 0-02.
SAIC. 1990b. Survey of the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (LA-2) off Los Angeles,
California. Draft Report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Under
EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0061, Work Assignment 1-15.
SAIC. 1989a. Fishery utilization of open-water disposal sites. Contribution 78. Prepared by
Science Applications International Corporation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New England Division. Waltham, MA. 142 pp.
SAIC. 1989b. Benthic Reconnaissance of Central and Northern California OCS Areas. Final
Report submitted to the Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific
OCS Region under Contract No. 14-12-0001-30388.
SAIC. 1987. Alcatraz Disposal Site Survey. Phase 1, San Rafael Clamshell/Scow Operation.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA.
SAIC. 1986. Assessment of Long-term Changes in Biological Communities in the Santa Maria
Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Phase I, OCS Study, MMS-86-0012.
Salomons, W., N.M. de Rooij, H. Kerdijk, and J. Bril. 1987. Sediments as a source for
contaminants? Hydrobiologia 149:13-30.
Sanders, H.L. and R.R. Hessler. 1969. Ecology of the deep-sea benthos. Science 163:1419-
1424.
7-29
-------
Schell, W.R. and S. Sugai. 1980. Radionuclides at the U.S. radioactive waste disposal site near
the Farallon Islands. Health Physics 39:475-496.
Scheltema, R. 1974. Biological interactions determining larval settlement of marine
invertebrates. Thalassia Jugoslavia 10(l/2):263-296.
Schoenherr, J.R. 1991. Blue whales feeding on high concentrations of euphausiids around
Monterey Submarine Canyon. Can. J. Zool. 69:583-594.
Schramm, M.J. Public Information Manager, Oceanic Society Expeditions. Telephone
conversation with Sridhar Srinivasan (SAIC), January 31, 1992.
Schwing, F.B., D.M. Husby, N. Garfield, and D.E. Tracy. 1991. Mesoscale oceanic response
to wind events off central California in spring 1989: CTD surveys and AVHRR imagery.
CALCOFI Rep. 32:47-62.
Scott, J., D.C. Rhoads, J. Rosen, S. Pratt, and J. Gentile. 1987. Impact of open-water disposal
of Black Rock Harbor dredged material on benthic recolonization at the FVP site.
Technical Report D-87-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA. Washington,
D.C. 65 pp.
Sebens, K.P. 1986. Spatial relationships among encrusting marine organisms in the New
England subtidal zone. Ecolog. Monogr. 56(l):73-96.
Send, U., R.C. Beardsley, and C.D. Winant. 1987. Relaxation from upwelling in the coastal
ocean dynamics experiment. J. Geophys. Res. 92 (C2): 1683-1698.
Shuford, W.D., G.W. Page, J.G. Evens, and L.E. Stenzel. 1989. Seasonal abundance of
waterbirds at Point Reyes: a coastal California perspective. West. Birds 20(4): 137-265.
Sielbeck, S.L. 1991. Bottom trapped waves at tidal frequencies off Point Sur, California.
Masters Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. 62 pp.
Siniff, D.B. and K. Ralls. 1988. Population Status of California Sea Otters. MMS Pacific OCS
Final Report 88-0021. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific
OCS, Los Angeles, CA.
Skinkle, R. 1989. The Importance of Shipping to the Bay Area Economy. The Status of
Dredging of San Francisco Bay: A Regional Problem? Proceedings of the Maritime
Industry Seminar, Department of Continuing Maritime Education, March 9,1989, pp. 38-
42. California Maritime Academy, Vallejo, CA.
7-30
-------
Smiih, R.L. 1983. Circulation patterns in upwelling regimes. Pages 13-35, In: E. Suess and
J. Thiede, editors. Coastal Upwelling, Its Sediment Record, Part A: Responses of the
Sedimentary Regime to Present Coastal Upwelling. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Smith, E.J. Jr. and T.H. Johnson. 1989. The Marine Life Refuges and Reserves of California.
Marine Resources Information Bulletin No. 1, Plate 4.
Sowls, A.L., A.R. DeGange, J.W. Nelson, and G.S. Lester. 1980. Catalog of California Sea Bird
Colonies. FWS/OBS-80/37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services
Program.
Squire, J.L., Jr. and S.E. Smith. 1977. Anglers Guide to the United States Pacific Coast
Marine Fish, Fishing Grounds and Facilities. NOAA NMFS. 139 pp.
Stein, D.L. 1985. Towing large nets by single warp at abyssal depths: Methods and biological
results. Deep-Sea Res. 32:182-200.
Steinhauer, M.E. and E. Imamura. 1990. California OCS Phase II Monitoring Program: Year
Three Annual Report Vol. I. Minerals Management Service OCS Rep. 90-0055. U.S.
Department of Interior, Minerals Managemnet Service, Pacific OCS Region, Los Angeles,
California.
Stem, S.J. 1990. Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) of the Monterey Bay area.
Master's Thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 289 pp.
Stevenson, M. and T. Parr. 1987. First Season Testing Program Baseline Physical and
Biological Analysis of Potential Ocean Disposal Sites. Report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA.
Stoddard, A.. R. Wells, and K. Devonald. 1985. Development and application of a deepwater
ocean waste disposal model for dredged material: Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico. MTS
J. 19:26-39.
Stumm, W„ H. Hohl, and F. Dalang. 1976. Interaction of metal ions with hydrous oxide
surfaces. Croat. Chem. Acta 48: 491-504.
Suchanek, T.H. and M.C. Lagunas-Solar. 1991. Final Report, Bioaccumulation of Long-Lived
Radionuclides by Marine Organisms from the Farallon Islands Nuclear Waste Dump Site.
Prepared for California Dept. of Health Services, Environmental Management Branch,
Vector Surveillance and Control Branch. 118 pp. with Appendices.
Swartz, S.L. 1986. Gray whale migratory, social and breeding behavior. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn., Spec. Iss. 8:207-229.
7-31
-------
Szczepaniak, I.D. and M.A. Webber. 1985. Status of the Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
in the Eastern North Pacific, with an Emphasis on California. Cal. Acad. Sciences, report
to Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 49 pp.
Tasto, R.N., D.D. Mogelberg, S.E. Hatfield, and R. Muller. 1981. A checklist of zooplankters
from the Gulf of the Farallones and off northern California. Calif. Fish and Game Mar.
Res. Tech. Rep. 47. 57 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1992. Short-term Dispersion Analysis: U.S. Navy Ocean Disposal Site Farallon
Islands, California. Final Report prepared for PRC Environmental Management, Inc. and
U.S. Navy Western Division. 79 pp. with Appendices.
Tetra Tech. 1987. Sedimentation and Dispersion Analysis, San Francisco Dredged Material
Ocean Disposal Site Evaluation. U.S. Army COE.
Thompson, J.B., H.T. Mullins, C.R. Newton, and T.L. Vercoutere. 1985. Alternative biofacies
model for dysaerobic communities. Lethaia 18(2): 167-179.
Tiernan, S., Commander. U.S. Coast Guard. Meeting with J. Hashimoto (EPA Region IX),
September 1992.
Tipping, E. 1981. The adsorption of aquatic humic substances by iron hydroxides. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 45:191-199.
Tisch, T.D., S.R. Ramp, and C.A. Collins. 1992. Observations of the geostrophic current and
water mass characteristics off Point Sur, California from May 1988 through November
1989. J. Geophys. Res. 97(C8): 12535-12555.
Towill, Inc. 1986. Bathymetric Survey of Five Sites off the Coast of California. Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA.
Trawle, M.J. and B.J. Johnson. 1986. Alcatraz Disposal Site Investigation Report I. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Tsutsumi, H. 1992. Promotion of growth of Capitella sp. I in natural sediments by hydrogen
sulphide. Abstract in the Proceedings of the 20th Annual Marine Benthic Ecology
Meeting, Newport, RI. 56 pp.
Turekian, K.K. and K.H. Wedepohl. 1961. Distribution of the elements in some major units
of the Earth's crust. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 72:175-192.
Turner, J. California Department of Fish and Game. Letter to Mike Kahoe (EPA, California)
dated March 16, 1991.
7-32
-------
Tyson, R.V. and T.H. Pearson. 1991. Modem and ancient continental shelf anoxia: an
overview. Pages 1-24, In: R.V. Tyson and T.H. Pearson, editors. Modern and Ancient
continental Shelf Anoxia. Geological Soc. Spec. Pub. 58. London.
U.S. Army. 1988. Meeting Notes, Summary of Some Chemical Munitions Sea Dumps by the
United States. Prepared by William R. Brankowitz on September 29, 1988.
U.S. Army. 1987. Chemical Demilitarization Program. Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program
Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation. Report No. SAPEO-CDE-1S-87001.
U.S. Army COE. 1993. Proposed Change in Corps Policy on alcatraz dredged Material Disposal
Site Management. Public Notice 93-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory
Branch, San Francisco, CA.
U.S. Army COE. 1992a. Alternative Disposal Options San Francisco Bay Region. Final Report.
Prepared by Ogden Beeman & Associates, Inc. and Moffet & Nichols, Engineers Under
the Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredging and Disposal Phase II, Task 1, Work
Element A. 44 pp. with Appendices.
U.S. Army COE. 1992b. Sediment Budget Study for San Francisco Bay. Final Report to the
LTMS for Dredged Material Disposal in Sail Francisco Bay Region. Prepared by Ogden
Beeman & Associates, Inc. and R.B. Krone & Associates, Inc. 25 pp.
U.S. Army COE. 1992c. Zone of Siting Feasibility Analysis. Final. Prepared for San Francisco
District Corps of Engineers by Ogden Beeman & Associates, Inc. and Manalytics Under
Contract No. DACW07-89-D0029.
U.S. Army COE. 1990a. Evaluation of Existing Management Options. Final Report. Prepared
by COE, San Francisco District Under the Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredging
and Disposal Phase I. 114 pp. with Appendices.
U.S. Army COE. 1990b. Benefits Related to Navigation Channel Maintenance. Final Report
to the LTMS for Dredged Material Disposal in San Francisco Bay Region. Prepared by
Ogden Beeman & Associates, Inc. and Manalytics, Inc. 63 pp. with Appendices.
U.S. Army COE. 1990c. Investigation of Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives in the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta for Sediments Dredged from San Francisco Bay. Final
Report prepared by Ogden beeman and Associates, Inc.
U.S. Army COE. 1989. Dredged Material Disposal Management Program; Long-term
Management Strategy Plan of Action. Working Draft. U.S. Army COE, San Francisco
District, San Francisco, CA.
7-33
-------
U.S. Army COE. 1988. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Final
Summary Environmental Impact Report on the Oakland Inner and Outer Harbors Deep
Draft Navigation Improvement Project, Alameda County, CA. Volume I.
U.S. Army COE. 1987. Zone of Siting Feasibility Analysis for the San Francisco/Gulf of the
Farallones Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site.
U.S. Army COE. 1975. Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material (Appendix L). Dredge Disposal
Study, San Francisco Bay and Estuary.
U.S. Navy. 1993. Final Supplement 1 Environmental Impact Statement For Disposal of Dredged
Material From Naval Air Station Alameda and Naval Supply Center Oakland, California,
at the Navy Ocean Disposal Site. Department of the Navy, Western Division Naval
Facilities Engineering Command. San Bruno, CA.
U.S. Navy. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement For Proposed New Disposal of
Dredging: U.S. Navy Military Construction Projects P-202 Naval Air Station Alameda,
P-082 Naval Supply Center Oakland; San Francisco, CA.
U.S. Navy. 1968. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Vol. 3. Office of the Chief
of Naval Operations, Naval History Division, Washington, D.C.
Vercoutere, T.W., H.T. Mullins, K. McDougall, and J.B. Thompson. 1987. Sedimentation across
the central California oxygen minimum zone: an alternative coastal upwelling sequence.
J. Sed. Petrol. 57:709-722.
Wainwright, T.C., D.A. Armstrong, P.A. Dinnel, J.M. Orensanz, and K.A. McGraw. 1992.
Predicting effects of dredging on a crab population: An equivalent adult loss approach.
Fish. Bull. 90:171-182.
Wakefield, W.W. 1990. Patterns in the Distribution of Demersal Fishes on the Upper
Continental Slope off Central California with Studies on the Role of Ontogenetic Vertical
Migration in Particle Flux. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego. 281 pp.
Wakeman, T. U.S. Corps of Engineers. Telephone conversation with D. Davison (SAIC),
February 14, 1992.
Walker, K. California Lands Commission. Telephone conversation with Sridhar Srinivasan
(SAIC), July 1992.
Welch, R.H. 1967. A study of the stratification of phytoplankton at selected locations in
Monterey Bay, California. Masters Thesis. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
70 pp.
7-34
-------
White, F. Pacific Region MMS. Telephone conversation with Sridhar Srinivasan (SAIC),
January 22, 1992.
Wild, P.W. and R.N. Tasto. 1983. Life history, environment, and mariculture studies of the
dungeness crab, Cancer magister, with emphasis on the central California fishery
resource. Calif. Fish and Game Bull. 172. 352pp.
Williams, R.G., R.W. Reeves, F.A. Godshall, S.W. Fehler, P.J. Pytlowany, G.R. Halliwell, K.C.
Vierra, C.N.K. Mooers, M.D. Earle, and K. Bush. 1980. Chapter 3 Meteorology, In:
A Climatology and Oceanographic Analysis of the California Pacific Outer Continental
Shelf Region. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.
Winant, C.D., R.C. Beardsley, and R.E. Davis. 1987. Moored wind, temperature, and current
observations made during Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiments 1 and 2 over the northern
California continental shelf and upper slope. J. Geophys. Res. 92:1569-1604.
Yamamoto, K. 1987. Geochemical characteristics and depositional environments of cherts and
associated rocks in the Franciscan and Shimanto Terranes. Sed. Geol. 52:65-108.
York, A.E. 1987. Northern Fur Seal Callorhinus ursinus eastern Pacific population (Pribilof
Islands, Alaska, and San Miguel Island, California). Pages 9-91, In: J.P. Croxall and
R.L. Gentry, editors. Status, Biology and Ecology of Fur Seals. NOAA NMFS Tech.
Rep. 51.
7-35
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
7-36
-------
APPENDIX
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The DEIS was published on December 11, 1992. A 45-day public review and comment period
extended from the publication date through January 25, 1993. Thirty-five comment letters from
various individuals, organizations, and agencies were received during the public review and
comment period. The thirty-five comment letters, numbered Exhibits 1 through 35, are included
in this appendix, organized alphabetically by sender's name. Key individual paragraphs within
each exhibit are marked by circled call-outs. Responses to each of the letters are also contained
in this appendix, and follow the letters. Responses are tagged with their associated call-outs.
A-l
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-2
-------
Exhibit
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
o
PETE WILSON. Governor
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
2020 L STREET
P.O. BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO, CA 95812
JAN 1 i 1993
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael A. Kahoe
Assistant Secretary
FROM: 4ame$^.r1ioyd
E-Jcecuzive Officer
Air Resources Board
DATE: January jl, 1993
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON EIS FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY DEEP WATER DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
We have received the December 15, 1992 notice of the release of the Draft
EIS for the San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation. We have no comment on this document.
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-4
-------
GENERAL CHAIR
James Herman
President Emeritus, ILWU
Port of San Francisco
Ferry Building. Suite 3100
San Francisco. CA 94111
415-274-0499
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CHAIR
W.B. Seaton, Ret. Chairman
American President Co.
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
Philip F. Anschutz
Southern Pacitic
Transportation Company
Donald D. Doyle
San Francisco
Chamber of Commerce
William I. Edlund
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
Michael D. Hannan
Chevron USA
John F. Henning
California AFL-CIO
Frank C. Hernnger
Transamerica Corporation
Conrad W. Hewitt
Ernst & Young
M. Arthur Gensler Jr.
Gensler & Associates
Thomas B Kelly
Arthur Andersen
Sam Kimura
New United Motor Mfg Co.
Donald G. Fisher
The Gap, Inc.
George Hayashi
American President Lines
Dr. Julius R. Krevans
Shirley W. Nelson
Summit Bank
Donald E Motfm
Consolidated Freightways
C. Bradley Mulholland
Matson Navigation Company
Richard M Rosenberg
Bank ol Amenca
RADM (Ret.) Robert Toney
Oakland Chamber o/
Commerce
James A. Vohs
Kaiser Permanenfe
STEERING COMMITTEE
James Herman
Chair
Leo Brier
Paul L. Cobb
Dennis Cuneo
Michael Huerta
Ellen Johnck
Secretary
Owen Marron
C.R Redlich. Sr.
W.B. Seaton
President
M.K. Veloz
COORDINATOR
Walter A. Abemathy
Exhibit
©
JBay
Dredging
Action
Coalition
725 Washington St. Suite 211 . Oakland. CA 94607
Tel (510) 272 9662 . FAX (510) 272 0808
January 25, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street, (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Seraydarian:
We are pleased to comment on the draft tIS for San Francisco Bay
Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation.
Our coalition is a unique combination of organized labor, major Bay
Area business leaders, shipping lines, ports and community based
organizations that have joined forces to seek realistic solutions to the dredging
crisis that has threatened the survival of the maritime industry in this region.
We appreciate EPA's thoughtful analysis of a deep-ocean alternative
for dredged sediment disposal. Our coalition has endorsed a program of
multiple disposal alternatives including deep-ocean, in-bay and upland. EPA's
role in making the ocean alternative viable is appreciated, particularly given
that the study was completed on time and on budget.
One area of concern that we believe needs to be addressed formally as
part of the EIS process is the issue of monitoring at the selected site and as
dredged material is transported through the Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary. The requirements for monitoring need to be considered as
part of the EIS. It is important that the industry and environmental
community jointly participate in the monitoring decision making process to
ensure the adoption of realistic and cost effective procedures.
Our interest is in having a realistic ocean disposal alternative with all
costs understood and agreed to intially so that extra expense burdens are not
©
AN20.L
Amencan Waterways Operators
Amercan Presdent Compares
Areo Products Company
Arthur Andersen & Company
Bank ol Amenta
Bay Ptannn} Coal Hon
Benoa industnes
Bndryard Cove Manna
Cattorrua Toicfcftg Association
CaWorra LBMf Feoration AFL-CIO
Calrterru Manne Pats & Martot
CERT
Chevron USA
Cfcpper Ytcnj Kamof
The Ooroi Company
COLAfi
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS (partial list)
Coraohdaw Fte^nways, tnc
Contra Costa Coral
. Crowtey Manvne Corp
DEEP
Ercnal Tamwtab
The Gap, inc.
GATX Temmais Corp
ILWU international
tnterOanomnatenai
Mnstenai Aftance
K-lf* Amenca. mc
Kaser Permanent
Levri Rcnmond Term rial Corp
MaerskPaahcltd
Uame Temrnats Corp
Master Contmcsno Stevedore Assaeau*
A-5
Matson Nav^ation Company
Mosui 0.S K. Lrws
MMo^lres, tnc
Neptune Onenj U*s ltd
New Uneed Motor Co
No.Cafcf Manne Assoc
NYKLm
Oakland Chamber ol Commerce
00& (USA), tnc
Onu tntematonal
Parte Gas & Qectnc
Parte tmer-Cbb Vacttt Assn
Paedc Mertfian) Strong
Paktar* Corporator
Paradoe Cay Homemmen
Paramount Eiport Company
The Paste Group
Peftftsuia Mama
Pono! Oakland
Port at Sacramento
Port ot San Francisco
Post Newspapers
San Francaco Custom Brokers &
Freqjh! Forwarders
San Francaco Chamber ol Commerce
San Francisco Bar Pilots
Santa Fe Ratfroad
ScfvHtier Steel
Sea-Land Serve*
Southwest Mame. inc
SP Transportation Co
Star Shppng. mc
State Board ol Ptot Commsseners
Stovedomg Semes ot Amenca
Strawperry Recreaton Distnd
Tdewair Sand i Gravel
True Oi Company
Tosco Retreng Company
Trans Parte Comamer Strvce
Transamenca Corporation
TrtnsBay Container TemMnai
Urued Auto Worters
V*«g industrial Corporaten
West Oakland Commerce Association
Yusen Terminals, tnc
-------
determined on an ad hoc project by project basis.
We would appreciate being advised as you complete the EIS process.
Sincerely,
Walter A. Abernathy
Coordinator
A-6
-------
Exhibit
O
WORLD TRADE CENTER. SUITE 303 SAN FRANClSCG CALIFORNIA 94111 (415)397-2293 FAX (415)985-05?-
January 25,1993
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JOHN BRISCOE, CHAIRMAN
WASHBURN. BRISCOE 4 MCCARTHY
iERTC. BANGSBERG
consultant
DAVID M BERNARDI
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
lONALDE BUTLER
coalition of labor » business
MICHAEL CHENEY
consultant
AMESE CHRISTIAN
MARATHON U.S REALTIES. Inc.
EMMETTS CLIFFORD
CONSULTANT
.WEKREN
GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK, Inc
J. GORDON HANSEN
MARINA PLAZA
N HENDERSON
CONSULTING ENGINEER
MICHAEL P. HUERTA
- PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
AVID W. JEFFERSON
BURDELL PROPERTIES
'EFFREY JOHNSON
ELLMAN. BURKE. HOFFMAN I JOHNSON
ICK LAMBERT
PORT OF OAKLAND
LEVINE
LEVINE FRICKE. inc.
>HN R McGINN
SOUTHWEST MARINE, mc
~TEVEN R. MEYERS
MEYERS. NAVE. RIBACK i SILVER
1ARLES L ORMAN
CHEVRON U.S A PRODUCTS COMPANY
" 9 PLANT
BENICIA INDUSTRIES
XAEL POWERS
PORT OF RICHMOND
"-ULP SHEPHERD
:argill SALT
YMOND THINGGAARD
rHINGGAARD LAND CONSULTING
'NALDG WARREN
REDWOOD SHORES PROPERTIES
F*ECUTIVE DIRECTOR
iLLEN JOHNCK
dINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
AY PETRINI
//it 7/i} fn ¦/&
Mr. Harfy) Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: BFC Support for Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on Deep Material Disposal Site
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
The Bay Planning Coalition is writing to expresses its strong
support for the effort to designate a deep water ocean disposal
site for material dredged from San Francisco Bay. Founded in
1983, the Coalition is a non-profit, public interest organization
representing more than 200 ports, marinas, businesses, local
government entities and property owners in the San Francisco
Bay region and shoreline environs.
As a convener of and active participant in the Long Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredged material disposal, we
are committed to the goal of providing an array of disposal
options for material dredged from S.F. Bay over the next 50
years. The designation of this ocean site will represent a
significant milestone in the LTMS effort.
We concur in the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) which has designated as the preferred
alternative disposal site the former Naval chemical munitions
site. This proposed ocean site will provide a viable disposal
option for an estimated 6 million cubic yards per year of dredged
material. Further, the site is located in deep water approximately
50 miles from shore, away from productive fishery areas.
A-7
-------
January 25,1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Page Two
As representatives of the maritime community, the navigability of San
Francisco Bay's channels and the crisis over the future of available dredged
sediment disposal sites gravely concerns us. Even though we are very
supportive of a deep water ocean site, we are concerned about the additional
cost, not only of transporting the material 55 miles west but also the costs of
site monitoring.
We recommend that a serious dialogue be initiated among EPA, the
maritime industry and environmental interests during the process of
finalizing the EIS, in order to develop a workable, cost-effective monitoring
program. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Ellen Johnck"
Executive Director
A-8
-------
Cfl COASTAL COMM 5400
Exhibit
ibit
Jan 22.93 15:05 No.024 P.02
VlATf Of CAllfOKNIA—1MI UlSOlMiCCi AGCNC*
rm which. Oofnoi
CALIFORNIA COA5TAL COMMISSION
45 rsrMONi sunr ?ooo
4an fXANCliCO. CA 94105 271?
voicr AND TOD (413) 904 5700
D&nuary 21, 1993
Harry Seraydarlan, Director
Water Management Division
EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Coastal Zone Management Act requirements for proposed ocean disposal
site - San Francisco Bay Deep Hater Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation
Dear Mr. Seraydarlan:
The Coastal Commission staff has recently received a Draft Environmental («-a
Impact Statement (ElS) for the above-referenced project. In that Draft CIS,
EPA states that 1t will submit a consistency determination, pursuant to the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 u.S.C. 1456), to the Coastal
Commission. Although the disposal site 1s located approximately 42 miles from
the mainland coast and 22 miles from the Farallon Islands, the Commission
staff agrees that a consistency determination is needed because of the
potential that disposal at the site will affect coastal resources.
The potential effects you should focus on In your consistency analysis
Include:
1 • Effeon Endangered Species.
The disposal of contaminated material at the ocean disposal site has the
potential to affect federally listed endangered and threatened species. If
material to be disposed of at the site is contaminated, these contaminates may
be absorbed into the food chain and accumulate 1n the tissues of some species,
Including the listed endangered and threatened species. "There are several
federally listed endangered and threatened species In the v1c1n1ty of the
disposal site, Including the California gray whale and the northern fur seal.
The gray whale is also a regular visitor to nearshore areas Including the
coastal zone, and therefore, is a coastal zone resource. In addition, the
northern fur seal is known to use the area around the Farallon Islands and 1s
known to come onshore during Its breeding season. Therefore, the northern fur
seal 1s also a coastal zone resource. Since the disposal activities at this
site could affect both the gray whale and the northern fur seal, the project
could affect natural resources of the coastal zone.
A-9
-------
COASTAL COMM 5400
Jan 22,93 16:06 No .024 P.03
Letter to Mr. Seraydarlan
January 21, 1993
Page 2
2. Transportation Through the Coastal Zone.
The proposed disposal activities could affect the coastal zone during
transportation of the material from the dredge site to the disposal site.
Transportation concerns are two-fold: (1) the risks of accidental spills
(and since some of the dredged material may be contaminated, the Impact from
accidental spills could be significant); and (2) the potential dumping of
material before the barge reaches the disposal site. Both spill age and "short
dumping" have commonly occurred at other disposal sites (such as LA-5 and
LA-2) 1n the past. If these events occur In or near the coastal 2one, they
will affect the coastal zone.
The Draft EIS states on page 4-87 that a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
will be Included 1n the FEIS, as an Appendix, but is not available for review
at this time. We would appreciate being Involved 1n the evolution of this
plan before 1t 1s finalized, and we hope the plan and Final EIS will address
the following questions:
Page 3-17 of the DEIS states that the site could be used "except when wave
heights exceed 3 meters and wave periods are 9 seconds or less (approximately
101 of the time, typically from February through May ...)". How will this be
enforced? W111 there be a total ban when waves reach this state? How and
when will the determination be made as to unsuitabllHy of sea conditions?
What will happen 1f a dredge vessel is in transit when waves reach this sea
state? Kill dredge vessels be filled to less than capacity If sea conditions
approach this state? What Independent monitoring will assure that these
measures will be complied with? Why were these sea conditions selected as the
constraints?
It Is our understanding In reviewing dredging In southern California that 6
ft. waves trigger constraints on dredging operations. If this 1s the case, 1s
there an explanation for the discrepancy 1n treatment between dredging in
northern and southern California?
What records has EPA (or the Corps) collected from monitoring of past dredging
activities Involving ocean disposal 1n California (or if that Information Is
not available, then other parts of the country), Indicating the frequency and
amount of spillage or accidents that occur during different sea conditions?
Pages 4-89 and 4-90 of the DEIS discuss possible management options for, among
other things, assuring that dredge vessels dispose of the material 1n the
desired location. No particular options are committed to in the Draft EIS, so
it Is difficult at this time to comment Intelligently. We believe 1t 1s
critical that assurances be built into the site management and monitoring plan
that will, Independent of operator/applicant assurances and certifications,
A-10
-------
COASTAL COMM 5400
Jan 22.93 16=05 No.024 P.04
Letter to Mr. Seraydarlan
Oanuary 21, 1993
Page 3
guarantee that short dumping and excessive spillage do not occur outside the
designated site. The Importance of this Issue U underscored by the statement
1n the Draft EIS that the Coast Guard cannot track vessels outside 45 km from
shore, (based on p. 3-19 of the DEIS, which states: The Coast Guard's marine
radar ... has an operational range of approximately 45 km (27 ml) from Point
BonHa (i.e., the approximate distance to the Farallon Islands).)"
If you have any questions about the Commission's concerns or the federal
consistency process, please contact James Raives of the Commission staff at
(415) 904-5280.
Executive Director
cc: North Coast Area orrice
BCDC
MPD/mcr
1964p
A-ll
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-12
-------
Exhibit (sj
California Environmental Protection Agency
Air Resources Board o Department of Pesncuie Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Integrated Waste Management Board
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment • State Water Resources Control Board • Regional Waxer Qualuy Control Boards
Pete Wilson James M. Strock
Governor Secretary for Environmental Proiectuin
January 25, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, California 94105
tCJUlrf 7fl* ¦
As Secretary for Environmental Protection and Governor Pete
Wilson's designated State Coordinator for San Francisco Bay
dredging issues, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for San
Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation issued in December 1992 by the USEPA. This letter
- serves as a compilation of comments directly related to the
adequacy of the DEIS, which I received from State of California
agencies involved in the dredging and dredged material disposal
processes. Attached please find copies of the individual agency
comment letters.
In general, the State is pleased with USEPA's efforts
throughout this lengthy site designation process and appreciates
the timely production of the DEIS. Tens of thousands of jobs,
and a major portion of the San Francisco Bay Area's economy, are
dependent on a thriving port-related industry. USEPA's efforts
to produce this and other environmental documents related to this
project on-schedule are critical to the timely designation of an
dredged material disposal site.
Furthermore, the State supports the DEIS preferred
alternative — Alternative Site No. 5 — for the proposed
designation of a deep water dredged material disposal site. It
appears to be the best selection in terms of providing an
environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site and in providing
adequate capacity for material dredged from San Francisco Bay.
555 Capiiol Mall. Suite 235 • Sacramento. California 95814 • (916)445-3846 • Fax- (916) 445-6401
o Printed on recycled paper A-13
-------
January 25, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Page Two
The following are the key points raised about the DEIS in
comments received from State agencies, and which the State of
California requests the USEPA address in the Final EIS. We also
urge you and your staff to refer to the attached comments from
the involved State agencies for comments on some of the more
technical issues and for more detailed discussion on the issues
outlined below. The additional points raised in the attached
comments would help improve the usefulness of the DEIS. However,
the key points related to the adequacy of the DEIS are as
follows:
o Include a statement assuring that the proposed
consistency determination to be submitted by the USEPA
to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the
Coastal Zone Management Act will address the potential
effects ocean disposal of contaminated material will
have on federally endangered and threatened species in
the region, specifically the California gray whale and
the northern fur seal. Our understanding is that
contaminated material will be disposed at other than
the proposed ocean site. This clarification in the
DEIS would address the Coastal Commission's concern.
o Include a statement assuring that the consistency
analysis will address possible repercussions of
transporting the material from the dredge site to the
disposal site. Specifically, these concerns are: (1)
the risks of accidental spills; and (2) the potential
dumping of material before the barge reaches the
disposal site.
o Address the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission's regulation of the siting and
use of in-Bay sites for the disposal of dredged
material. While the proposed Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site is outside the Commission's jurisdiction,
Section 2.1.3.1 of the DEIS addresses San Francisco Bay
disposal alternatives and regulation of these projects,
and should mention the role of the Commission in
permitting these alternative sites.
A-14
-------
January 25, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Page Three
o Improve the discussion of site management and
monitoring with respect to specific actions that may be
taken by — or opportunities available to — USEPA and
the Corps of Engineers. While we understand the
monitoring plan will be developed as part of the final
site designation and that public review will be
provided through the normal regulatory process for that
designation, the types of monitoring options should be
included in the Final EIS to serve as the basis for
those reviews.
On this final point, we urge USEPA to include the State of
California in the development of the proposed Site Management and
Monitoring Plan. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game
has raised the opportunity that is available through the use of
the Navy's proposed 103 site. The results of the monitoring
program for this activity will not be available in time for the
Final EIS, and therefore will not be critical to the adequacy of
that document, but it could provide a useful basis for
determining the final details of the monitoring program for
USEPA's proposed permanent ocean disposal site.
Thank you for providing agencies of the State of California
this opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS for San Francisco
Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. If my
office can be of any assistance in clarifying the State's
position, or if you wish to arrange a meeting with the involved
State agencies to discuss these comments, please do not hesitate
to contact Assistant Secretary Michael Kahoe at (916) 322-5844.
^Sincerely, „
James M. Strock
Secretary for Environmental Protection
Attachments
A-15
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-16
-------
THE CALIFORNIA FISHERIES RESTORATION FOUNDATION
12-26-92
1146 Pulora Court
Sunnyvale, CA 94087-2312
USERA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (W—7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
ATTN: H. Seraydarian, Director, Water Management Division
SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay Dredge Spoils Dumping
DEIS Deep Water Disposal Site
Dear Sir:
The Cali-fornia Fisheries Restoration Foundation is
concerned with all classes of waters and all species o-f
¦fish.
The -fisheries of the San Francisco Bay and tributaries
waters have declined to the point o-f criticality. Spoils in
the Bay contribute to toxicity and turbidity. They can no
longer be tolerated.
We are opposed to dumping of spoils material anywhere in
the waters of San Francisco Bay.
The USEF'A has located a 50 mile offshore site for 6 million
cu yds of material/year. We urge that this site be used.
Very truly yours,
Martin M. Seldon
Presi dent
A-17
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-18
-------
Exhibit
o
State of California California Environmental
Protection Agency
Memorandum
To : Mike KBhoe Date: January 14, 1993
CAL EPA
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 235
Sacramento, CA 95814
From
Us;
Martha Vazquez, g^p^ity0p.rector
Permitting & Compliance Division
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San
Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation (DMDSD).
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff have
reviewed the document for the project cited above and offer the
following comments:
Project Description ("Abstract")
The EIS evaluates the proposed designation of a deep-water ocean
dredged material disposal site as part of the Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) for the San Francisco Bay. The LTMS
is a Federal and State partnership responsible for addressing
options for dredged material disposal, including ocean sites,
sites within the Bay, nonaquatic sites, and beneficial uses of
dredged material. Once designated, the proposed ocean site will
provide a disposal option for an estimated 6 million cubic yards
(cy) per year of dredged material over a 50-year period. Before
ocean disposal may take place, proposed projects must demonstrate
a need for ocean disposal and material must be acceptable
according to United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers criteria and
regulations.
The preferred alternative site is located on the continental rise
off San Francisco approximately 50 nautical miles from shore and
in 2,500;to 3,000 meters of water. Selection of the preferred
alternative site, as compared to two alternative ocean sites and
the No-Action alternative, is based on evaluation of the 5
general and 11 specific criteria of the Ocean Dumping Regulations
listed at Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Sections 228.5
and 228.6, respectively.
A-19
-------
DMDSD EIS
Jan. 14, 1993
Page No. 2
Because other options will be evaluated by ongoing LTMS Work
Group efforts, concerning disposal within the Bay,
nonaquatic/reuse sites, and implementation, the EIS evaluates
only the ocean disposal and No-Action alternatives. Evaluation
of non-ocean disposal options are scheduled for completion in
1994. If disposal within the Bay or at a nonaquatic/reuse site
is feasible, a decision whether an ocean dredged material
disposal site is the best disposal option will be made during the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and permit review
process according to the existing regulations and other
guidelines developed by the LTMS.
CIWMB Comments
The EIS does not consider the alternative "nonaquatic/reuse
sites" for evaluation as described in the EIS on page 2-2 and
2-18. If a nonaquatic upland disposal site is considered, the
CIWMB will be a Responsible Agency and compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be necessary.
The CIWMB is the California agency responsible for the regulation
of solid waste management as they pertain to the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), Title 14. Issues related to the CEQA
preparation and review process are affected by the following:
A.) Identification of facilities/locations targeted
for handling and/or disposal of solid wastes and
materials associated with the proposed DMDSD
project. Page 2-25 of the EIS identifies the
Redwood Sanitary Landfill (RSL), Solid Waste
Facilities Permit (SWFP) #21-AA-0001, as a
potential site for using dredge materials as a
cover material. This cover material would be
considered as an alternative cover. An
application for the use of alternative cover
material needs to be submitted to CIWMB for
approval. If the application is approved, then a
one year demonstration period for studying the
alternative cover material is done. RSL is
proposing an expansion of the disposal site
capacity and circulation of an environmental
document is pending. Comments relevant to this
document are not intended to imply concurrence on
a proposed expansion at the RSL. Many sites
throughout the Bay Area could benefit from
additional source material for cover and should
also be considered by the Nonaquatic/ Reuse Work
• Group.
A-20
-------
DMDSD EIS
Jan. 14, 1993
Page No. 3
B.) Identification of the anticipated constituents of
the solid waste (physical and chemical make-up)
and the average and maximum daily tonnages of
solid wastes and materials to be received upon
implementation of the project, including any
additional increases in the material to be
diverted for beneficial use. Mitigation should be
incorporated or included in the event that the
materials to be disposed of are determined to be
hazardous.
C.) Identification of the potential impacts of these
quantities on the permitted daily tonnages at the
targeted landfills, remaining landfill capacities
and the calculated site-life associated thereof.
CCR, Title 14, Section 18211, requires that any
permittee proposing to make a significant change
in the operation of the facility shall, at least
120 days prior to the proposed modification, apply
for a revision of the Solid Waste Facilities
Permit (SWFP). A change shall be deemed
significant for purposes of this section if and
only if it does not conform to terms or conditions
of the SWFP as it relates to the project under
CEQA. The CIWMB will need Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permitting the use
of dredged sediment for disposal and use as an
cover material at sanitary landfills. The WDRs
would be necessary before any dredged material
could be disposed of at disposal facility/
location.
Risk of Upset / Human Health and Safety
Page 2-23 of the EIS states that "...key factors affecting the
feasibility [of nonaquatic disposal and reuse alternatives]
typically include site access and capacity, compatibility of the
dredged material with construction or engineering requirements,
contaminant levels in dredged material, presence of critical
habitat or endangered species, habitat replacement value, and
regulatory requirements of local, state, and federal governments
(COE 1992a).'1 Dredged materials have the potential to harbor
organic hydrocarbon and/or inorganic heavy metal contamination.
An approved testing program should be considered if the
nonaquatic upland disposal option is considered.
A-21
-------
DMDSD EIS
Jan. 14, 1993
Page No. 4
The CIWMB requests that dredge spoils material be tested by
a certified laboratory for organic and inorganic
constituents in compliance with CCR, Title 22, Article 11.
A determination whether the material is hazardous,
designated or non-hazardous in accordance with the standards
set forth by the California Department of Substances Control
should be attained before the material is allowed to be
stored, processed, used or disposed of at a sanitary
landfill.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. The CIWMB staff ask that you keep the Board apprised of
solid waste generation, disposal, and source reduction/recycling
issues associated with the proposed project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments or would like additional
assistance from CIWMB staff, please contact John Loane of the
Facility Review Branch at (916) 255-2439.
cc: Don Wallace, CIWMB Chief Deputy Director
A-22
-------
Exhibit
&
Center for Marine Conservation
Formerly Center for Environmental Education Est 1972
January 22, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Dec. 1992)
for San Francisco Bay Deep Hater Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation.
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), a national non-profit
citizen's organization dedicated to conserving marine species and
their habitats, welcomes this opportunity to offer the following
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for San
Francisco Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation.
We are pleased that the EPA has eliminated on-shelf alternatives
for ocean disposal. We look the EPA to rigorously review its
preferred off-shelf deep water site that is to be included as one
option in a range of disposal alternatives.
NON-OCEAN DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Before disposal begins at the proposed deep water dredged material (®-a
disposal site, it is very important that the full range of disposal
alternatives, including nonaquatic sites and beneficial uses, be
evaluated. We are concerned that, as stated at the EPA's public
meeting on January 19, 1993, utilization of the site will begin in
January 1994. According to the DEIS, 'evaluations of non-ocean
disposal options are scheduled for completion by the LTMS for
sometime in 1994. As noted in the DEIS, "Ocean disposal is
permitable only if there are no practical alternatives." (p. 4-67)
Clearly, all alternatives must be available before making such a
determination.
A-23
312 Sutter Street. Suite 606 San Francisco. CA 94108 (415)391-6204 Telefax (415) 956-7441
Printed rti
-------
Page 2
We believe that having a wide range of alternatives is necessary in
order to wisely choose the most practical and least environmentally
damaging site. Because the deep water site is situated in close
proximity to three national marine sanctuaries which contain
nationally significant resources, careful consideration must be
given to all alternatives before permitting disposal at this site.
INTER-AGENCY CONSULTATION
According to the Sanctuary Program reauthorization legislation
passed last fall, "Federal agency action internal or external to a
national marine sanctuary, including private activities authorized
by licenses, leases, or permits, that are likely to destroy, cause
the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource are subject to
consultation with the Secretary (of Commerce)." Accordingly, the
Center looks to the EPA to consult closely with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regarding permitting for
disposal at the deep water dredged material disposal site.
MONITORING PLAN
We are also concerned about the DEIS's failure to outline an
adequate monitoring plan. Although the DEIS acknowledges the
importance of monitoring, it does not set out a concise, agreed-
upon plan. Careful monitoring must be a priority and must be
addressed in the Final EIS, not at the permit level. Because
monitoring is vital to ensuring the protection of resources,
dredged material disposal should be allowed only if a monitoring
system has been established and funded.
We recommend that the monitoring plan include the monitoring of:
environmental impacts, especially impacts to sanctuary resources,
of dredged material disposal; proper disposal of dredged materials
and proper transit to the disposal site; and any cumulative or
synergistic effects.
As data is collected from monitoring efforts, the EPA must take
this new information into account and should revise regulations if
necessary to minimize impacts to the environment and, in
particular, to the nearby national marine sanctuaries. The Final
EIS should include provisions that call for such action. Revisions
may include, for example: regulating disposal activities based on
seasons and currents, altering the pattern of disposal, reducing
the amount of material disposed.
A-24
-------
Page 3
Environmental Impacts
As the DEIS states, "Effects from dredged material disposal at
deep-water sites are not well known." (p. 4-7) Furthermore,
because no specific data were available, the EPA based its
predictions about the effects of dredged material disposal on
models. Because so little is currently known/ it is extremely
important that the effects of disposal be carefully monitored to
evaluate the accuracy of the predictions and to determine whether
or not dredged material disposal has created any significant
ecological impacts.
Furthermore, because of the proximity of the site to three national
marine sanctuaries, extra care must be taken to ensure that dredged
material disposal does not adversely affect sanctuary resources.
National Marine Sanctuaries are selected for their outstanding
marine resource values and these values should not be placed at
risk by activities associated with unmonitored dredged material
disposal. Indeed, the DEIS points out that, "...any site selected
as an ODMDS may require a more intensive monitoring effort because
of its proximity to the Sanctuary resources." (p. 1-12) We
strongly believe that intensive monitoring of disposal effects on
sanctuary resources must be an integral component of the monitoring
plan.
In consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Sanctuaries and Reserves division, the EPA should
identify and establish monitoring sites within the sanctuaries, on
the perimeters of the sanctuaries, and outside the sanctuaries in
order to maximize the ability to detect any environmental effects
on sanctuary resources caused by dredged material disposal. The
plume resulting from the dredged material disposal must be
adequately tracked, especially as that plume approaches sanctuary
boundaries.
Furthermore, monitoring must be comprehensive and should include
the monitoring of biological resources all the way up the food
chain in addition to traditional sediment and water column
monitoring.
Finally, if modeling is to be used on a continuing basis, the EPA
should endeavor to use the best models available as the art of
modeling improves over time.
Proper Transit and Disposal
EPA's Draft EIS contemplates transit through the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. It is imperative that the
operators are monitored by an independent source to ensure proper
transit and disposal of the material. Independent monitors may
A-25
-------
Page 4
include, for example, independent, trained observers on board every
trip and/or special equipment that is feasible and able to track
the barge's route and the location of disposal.
The FEIS should specify transit routes which avoid the vicinity of
the Farallon Islands, should specify strict loading guidelines, and
should prohibit transit during particularly rough weather or wave
conditions.
We would like to emphasize that sanctuary regulations prohibit the
dumping of dredged material within sanctuary boundaries.
Therefore, all precautions should be taken to avoid overflow or
premature dumping within the sanctuary. We believe that
independent monitoring of the operators will be the most effective
way to accomplish this goal.
Cumulative effects
Finally, the plan should incorporate monitoring of any cumulative
or synergistic effects that may occur due to the disposal of
dredged materials onto previously disposed waste materials, as well
as of any cumulative effects of disposal in conjunction with the
Navy's 103 project.
CONTAMINANT LEVELS
We also have some concerns about the contaminant levels of the
materials to be disposed of at this site. If the data collected
from monitoring efforts indicates that contaminants, may be harming
marine resources, more stringent contaminant standards should be
adopted.
In no case should the contaminant standards be weakened. It is our
understanding that the contaminant levels are now measured by
Greenbook standards. Should the Greenbook standards be weakened in
the future, it is important that the contaminant levels for the
dredged material not be weakened as well. Contaminant levels
should be explicitly stated in the Final EIS with provision made'
for application of stricter standards. No waivers should be
allowed.
A-26
-------
Page 5
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
The EPA's Final EIS for the deep water dredged material disposal
site designation should outline in detail a contingency plan that
will be adopted should monitoring data indicate that the dredged
material disposal at this site is adversely affecting the marine
environment. In order to reduce the impact of the disposal, a
contingency plan might include, for example:
• Adopting more stringent contaminant standards
• Reducing the amount of material to be disposed
• Imposing seasonal restrictions
• Closing the site
We appreciate this opportunity to comment and your attention to our
concerns. Please keep us apprised of the status of this project.
Rachel Saunders, Center for Marine Conservation
Director, Pacific Habitat Conservation Program
Burr Heneman, Center for Marine Conservation
Director, Pacific Region
Jack Sobel, Center for Marine Conservation
Director, Habitat Conservation Program
Barbara Miller, Assistant
Pacific Habitat Conservation Program
cc:
A-27
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-28
-------
—0
Central Cabor Council
of Alameda County
AFL-CIO
- . J" 1 61
7992 CAPWELL DRIVE OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94621 Telephone (510) 632-4242
RICHARD K. GROULX,
Executive Secretary-Treasurer
Emeritus
January 19, 1993
Harry Seraydarian Jr\
Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street, (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
JUDITH M. GOFF,
President
OWEN A. MARRON,
Executive Secretary-Treasurer
MICHAEL K. HENNEBERRY,
Assistant Secretary
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
On behalf of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL-CIO, our 130
affiliated unions and their 70,000 union members in Alameda County I write
to support the EPA's designation of an ocean disposal site for dredge material.
The Council believes that it is essential to ending the "mudlock" that has
gripped the maritime community's ability to get dredging done that the EPA
go forward with this designation.
We applaud you for your successful work to bring this designation to the public.
We share the view of many that the ocean site should be just one of a number
of approved sites for deposition of dredge material, but that it is an important
and essential element of such a group.
©
Let me reiterate our absolute concern that the ocean site be approved as
quickly as possible in order for important dredging projects to be undertaken.
Without it, we will be faced with stagnation of the maritime industry and a
decline in the hundred thousand jobs it supports.
Sincerely,
Owen A. Marron
Executive Secretary Treasurer
We also support the views of environmental and fishing concerns that monitoring
should be addressed intheEIS. To this point, we hope you will include
reference to the need for monitoring of the effects of disposal, monitoring to
ensure that dumping occurs where it is supposed to, and monitoring of the
effects of transit through the marine sanctuary.
0AM:pd
opeiu 29
afl-cio
cc: Ron Dellums, Congressman
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-30
-------
Exhibit
City and County of San Francisco Q) A*° Minister street
_ ' , . San Francisco, C A 94102
Department of City Planning
January 22, 1993
X" ff'
Mr. Harry Serajydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY DOCUMENT- DEIS ON SF BAY DEEP WATER
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Our office, particularly in our capacity as the agency responsible for environmental
review for the Port of San Francisco, welcomes the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for
the Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site. In general, the EPA is to be commended for
the comprehensive coverage and readability of this very technical document. The least
accessible sections (that is to the informed lay reader) are those that deal with the operation
of the model used to determine effects of disposal on water quality (SAIC 1992e), and what
the implications of that are for the project and principles of environmental protection that are
the purpose of this effort.
The content of the DEIS has the stated goal of providing documentation for the
identification of an acceptable ocean dredged material disposal site which would not cause
"unreasonable degradation". This document examines very closely five study areas outside of
the entrance to the Bay, and as far as 50 miles off-shore. There is one preferred and two
alternative sites, the preferred site being that which is furthest from shore. Assuming that the
preferred site would be designated, what, if any, status (in terms of future use) would the
alternatives have?
The analysis includes a discussion of the necessity for and a proposal to carry out
monitoring and surveillance of the chosen site. It is not clear to this reader how compliance
would be assured, or what penalties would follow if there is a lack of compliance with the rules
and location for dredged materials disposal, see baoes S-11 and 3-19 and sections 3.1.4.1
and 3.1.4.2
A major issue for the Port of San Francisco also involves the implementation of the
monitoring and surveillance program. Neither the costs, nor who would pay them, are spelled
out in this document. It is of great interest and concern that this be clearly spelled out before
the final EIS is published. The Port is willing to assist in seeking a funding authority for the
monitoring and surveillance program, but it is essential that it be defined and put out for public
review and discussion. Their expanded remarks on this point will be sent to you under
separate cover. We believe it will be necessary to recirculate at least a discussion of
alternative monitoring and surveillance programs and the potential economic impacts of those
programs.
A-31
ADMINISTRATION CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANS ANO PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION /ZONING
(415) 558-G*M (415) 558-6414 (415)558-6264 (415)558-6377
FAX-558-6426
FAX: 566-6409
-------
San Francisco Department of City Planning
Office of Environmental Review
Response to the EPA'S DEIS
SF Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
January 19, 1993
This document only examines the ocean alternatives for dredged materials disposal. Is it
the case that the recommendations of this DEIS, in combination with the results of the the
Long Term Management Study (LTMS) that is still underway, would take care of forseeable
needs for locations to dispose of dredged materials from San Francisco Bay? This document
indicates that one site would not be adequate for even the near term. Are we to assume that
with the additional utilization of in-bay, non-aquatic, and re-use sites that would be
recommended by the LTMS, predictable future needs would be taken care of? If it is true that
it is unlikely that a single site can accomodate planned volumes and varying characteristics of
dredged materials, what would that mean in practical operational terms? Would the alternative
disposal sites be next in line, or would the whole question have to be re-examined when the
chosen site is no longer viable? page 1-7
It is stated that the "factors controlling dispersion of slurried dredge materials in the bay
is poorly understood". Is this also true of the dispersion of such materials in the ocean? If it is
true, what are the implications of this for ocean disposal? How can impacts be fully
evaluated? Would there be slurried dredge materials likely proposed for ocean dumping?
page 2-21
The Bay Farm Borrow Area is referred to as a receptor site for spoils located in the Bay.
Since this is not analyzed or evaluated in this document, is the use of that site "approved"
and/or covered in some other environmental document? page 2-22
There is a comparison of the Alternatives to EPA's 11 specific criteria for site selection found
at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 228.6(a). The preferred site differs from the others
by being "more difficult to monitor", the only site with previously dumped radioactive wastes,
and the "dredge barge traffic could interfere with recreational boat traffic." Do the facts that it
is a much deeper site and much further out than the others compensate for the above
negative characteristics? This issue appears to warrant further discussion in the EIS. pages
2-33 through 2-41
Using Criteria #5, "feasibility of surveillance and monitoring" it appears that the deepest,
least understood area that already contains hazardous wastes has been chosen as the
"preferred site". Please explain how this site could be overseen and monitored. The following
could be construed by some as a "red flag" page 2 - 36:
Monitoring feasible but possibly the most difficult because of greater water depths,
generally larger footprint, limited knowledge of deep-water communities, and
potential hazards from historical disposal of radioactive waste containers and
chemical and conventional munitions.
2
A-32
-------
San Francisco Department of City Planning
Office of Environmental Review
Response to the EPA'S DEIS
SF Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
January 19, 1993
This statement does not explain how monitoring is feasible; the basis for the conclusion is not
supplied.
There is a discussion regarding the presence of sediment radionuclides which are being
evaluated for necessary remediation? pages 3-93 and 3-94 What does THIS mean? Again,
this seems like a red flag. When would this analysis be completed? It also seems that much
of the research in this particular area is quite old, does that matter?
It is stated that the presence of the whales would be disturbed if Area 5 is chosen. Are
we to assume that the disturbance would not be significant? page 3-192
These statements (page 4-7) are of concern:
Other sources of information concerning environmental impacts of dredged material
disposal are based almost exclusively on research and monitoring of nearshore,
shallow-water sites. Effects from dredged material disposal at deep-water sites are not
well known. Of the more than 150 dredged material disposal sites in U.S. coastal
waters, most are in water depths of less than 20 meters (EPA 1989). Some limited
information on environmental consequences of dredged material disposal in deep water
areas is available. For example, information exists for the Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto
Rico,... and sites located off of southern California...
And in the next paragraph it states that:
The following discussions of potential impacts are therefore based primarily on results of
shallow water disposal site studies .... However, the deep continental slope and rise
environment, within which the preferred and alternative sites are located, represents a
unique combination of geological, hydrographic, and biological features that must be
considered when evaluating the consequences of ocean disposal of dredged material in
these environments. Therefore, as appropriate, limits of present knowledge are
identified along with the uncertainties of extrapolating this information to the deep water
environments of the LTMS study region.
One wonders what the research on deeper disposal sites showed. Again, conclusions are
presented without providing data and assumptions so the reader is left to accept the
conclusion or perform research in the EPA's library. This seems like limited compliance with
the public input and disclosure intents of NEPA.
Would you please clarify what the context of the "limits of present knowledge" is and
what it means as it relates to the model. The technical model discussion on pages 4-7
3
A-33
-------
San Francisco Department of City Planning
Office of Environmental Review
Response to the EPA'S DEIS
SF Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
January 19, 1993
through 4-63 is nearly incomprehensible to the lay reader. It is particularly difficult to make
sense of the charts on pages 4-24 through 4-27. If we, "the public" need to understand them,
please explain them further.
Why is it that the location of the radioactive wastes cannot be determined?
page 4-93.
Chapter Five is a most welcome explanation of the very complicated story regarding co-
ordination of agencies and regulations. It is also most appreciated that you have included the
names of the individuals and their respective agencies and responsibilities who have worked,
and, we presume, will continue to work on this project. Thank you.
This office looks forward to your responses to our comments. There is much very useful
information contained in this document for those of us concerned with the issues of dredging,
appropriate disposal of dredged materials, and adequate environmental protection of our Bay
and the ocean. If you have questions regarding our comments, please call Barbara Sahm or
Sharon Rogers at 558-6382.
Very truly yours,
OUOL CO-
Barbara W. Sahm
Environmental Review Officer
San Francisco Department of City Planning
Office of Environmental Review
4
A-34
-------
RONALD V. DELLUMS
0th District. California
chairperson.
COMMITTEE ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
chairperson
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE
ON INTELLIGENCE
Exhibit Q
dnngrcfifi of tfie Hnitcb
House of SrprEBcntatiuEH
January 15, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street, (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
X
ANY REPLY TO THIS LETTER
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
OFFICE CHECKED:
CARLOTTIA SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
ROBERT BRAUER
SPECIAL COUNSEL
2136 Rayburn Building
Washington. DC 20615
(2021 22S-2661
DONALD R. HOPKINS
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
H LEE halterman
DISTRICT COUNSEL
201 13TM STREET. SUITE 10S
OAKLAND. CA 94612
(510) 763-0370
1720 Oregon Street
Berkeley. CA 94703
(510) 548-7767
3732 MT Diablo Blvd Suite 160
Lafayette CA 94S49
15101 283-812S
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
I write to commend the Environmental Protection Agency for
its careful and productive search for an environmentally sound
ocean disposal site for dredge material disposal. I believe that
the identification of such a site, and its addition to a broad
menu of other sites, to include upland and some carefully
considered in bay options, is critical to the achievement of both
environmental and economic objectives associated with necessary
maritime dredging operations.
I concur with the priority that EPA has given to designating
a site that is at the continental rise, in deep water. It is of
obvious importance, both commercially and environmentally, that
the site selected have negligible or zero impact on fisheries and
on habitat that support species essential to the maintenance of
our fisheries. I believe that your designation has achieved this
goal, while providing an important addition to the necessary
management of dredge disposal.
I would only add that the final EIS issued by the EPA should
include provisions to ensure the monitoring of the effects of the
disposal at the site; to monitor dredge material disposal to
ensure that it occurs at the site; and, to monitor the effects of
transportation of dredge material through the Gulf of The
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. I firmly believe that
transit and dumping can be conformed to be consistent with our
sanctuary goals, and that the EIS must establish this as a policy
incident to issuing permits for disposal at the designate site.
Finally, I am pleased that the EPA has managed to craft a
solution to this difficult problem that seems to have acquired
the cautious support of most who are concerned with protecting
the ocean and its inhabitants as well as those in the shipping,
port and business community who have faced the dire economic
consequences of a seemingly endless process to identify a
suitable dredge disposal site. The significant economic and jobs
A-35
this paper is maoe from recycled fibers
-------
MR. HARRY SERAYDARIAN
January 15, 1993
Page two of two
dislocation that has occurred so far, and the dire economic
consequences of a failure to resolve this issue, are apparent to
us all. This significant development will help us to complete
the work of the Long Term Management Strategy and other efforts
to ensure that the ocean site represents only one of a number of
permitable options available to ports and marinas in our estuary.
I applaud you on your work and look forward to the adoption
of the final EIS and the work that it will allow to follow.
Sincerely,
Ranald V. Dellums
Member of Congress
RVDrhlh
A-36
-------
Exhibit Q
Congress of tf)t ®mteb Stated
%ou$e of Representative*
OTaa&inffton, 3BC 20515
January 25,1993
'J> (M[ll 0h?
Mr. Harry Se$ydarian
Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street, (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
We write to commend the Environmental Protection Agency for its careful and
productive search for an environmentally-sound ocean disposal site for dredge
material. We believe that the identification of such a site, and its addition to a
broad menu of alternative sites, is critical to the achievement of both
environmental and economic objectives associated with necessary maritime
dredging operations in the Bay Area.
We concur with the priority EPA has established in recommending the
designation of a deep ocean disposal site. It is important, both commercially and
environmentally, that the site selected have negligible or no impact on fisheries.
We believe that the designation would advance this important goal, while
continuing the essential management of dredge material from Bay Area ports
and marinas.
It is our expectation that the final EIS issued by the EPA will include provisions
to monitor the effects of disposal at the site; to monitor dredge material disposal
to ensure that it occurs at the site; and, to monitor the effects of transportation of
dredge material through the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
We firmly believe that transit and dumping can be consistent with sanctuary
goals, and that the EIS must establish this as a policy for issuing permits for
disposal at the designated site.
We are pleased that the EPA has been diligent in its efforts to seek
environmentally-sound ocean disposal alternatives for dredge material. This
significant development will help us complete the work of the Long Term
Management Strategy and other efforts to ensure that the ocean site is included
in the array of sites available to Bay Area dredgers.
A-37
-------
Developing an array of possible alternatives is paramount to maintaining the
environmental health of the Bay and economic vitality of the Bay Area. We
applaud your work in this effort and look forward to the adoption of a final
Environmental Impact Statement that will allow important dredging projects to
continue.
Sincerely,
Ronald V. Dellums
Member of Congress
ueorge Miller
of Congress
Pete Stark
Member of Congress
Eshoo
Member of Congress
cCAJte&eyp-
T \mn \AJr\r\}ccx\r ^
Lynn Woolsey
Member of Congress
Nancy Pelosi
Member of Congress
Don Edwards
Member of Congress
Tom Lantos
Member of Congress
Member of Congress
A-38
-------
cxniDii
Environmental Services Agency
Planning and Building Division
% //*/"
u
//*S
{^Planning Division • 4 15/363-4161 • fax 363-4849
Q Building Inspection Section-4i5/363-460i -fax 363-4849
County of San Mateo
Mail Drop 5500 • 590 Hamilton Street, 2nd Floor • Redwood City • California 94063
Board of Supervisors
Anna G. Eshoo
Mary Griffin
Tom Huening
Tom Nolan
William J. Schumacher
Director of
Environmental Services
Paul M. Koenig
Planning Administrator
Terry L Burnes
January 25, 1993
Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
Staff has reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for San Francisco
Bay Deep Water Dredged Materials Disposal Site Designation. The long-term
management strategy is to provide an array of disposal options for dredged
materials from San Francisco Bay over the next 50 years. Once a disposal site
is designated, the proposed ocean dredged material disposal site will provide
a disposal option for an estimated 6 million cubic yards per year of dredged
material.
We recognize the need to find a long-term solution for dredged materials, as
well as a need to mitigate the existing radioactive and munitions waste sites
offshore; however, there are concerns regarding the potential of disturbance
to these hazardous waste materials by virtue of the disposal of the proposed
dredged materials discussed in the EIS.
The EIS has planned for the safe disposal of the dredged materials with data u3-*
that only addresses normal environmental conditions, such as average tidal
movements and average current flows; however, the EIS does not consider
extreme environmental conditions which may cause turbulence in deeper waters
which could affect the stability of the dredged materials. While the dredged
materials may help to bury and contain low level radioactive and munitions
waste there is the potential that downwelling of ocean water, pushed by the
disposal of a large load of colloidal dredged materials, may stir up the
hazardous materials on the ground, thus releasing and dispersing some of these
hazardous wastes. Once some of these wastes are mixed with mobile water,
these wastes may find themselves flowing southward along the coastal current,
and pushed east onto San Mateo County's coast by wave action and tidal
movements.
*-39
-------
Harry Seraydarian
January 25, 1993
Page 2
Before any ocean disposal may take place, dredging projects must demonstrate
a need for ocean disposal, and materials must be acceptable according to the
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' criteria
and regulations.
The County is interested in reviewing any further documents regarding the
disposal of dredged spoils offshore.
Planner I
SH:cdn - SFHD0156.ACN
cc: Paul M. Koenig, Director of Environmental Services
Terry Burnes, Planning Administrator
Mike Murphy, Deputy County Counsel
Sincerely,
A-40
-------
Exhibit
©
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
211 MAIN STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA 9410S - 190S
Regulatory Branch
"Jh ifad P* I/&
Mr. Harry Seraydari^a/n, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, California 94105
JAN 2* 1993
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX (EPA), Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation. Staff from the San Francisco
District's Regulatory Branch, with assistance from the
Environmental and Programs and Project Management branches, have
reviewed the Draft EIS and provided extensive comments. Those
comments are attached for your consideration in preparing the
Final EIS for designation of an ocean dredged material disposal
site for the San Francisco Bay area.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please
contact Wake Eakle (415) 744-3325 ext. 222 of my Regulatory
Branch.
Sincerely,
Max R.
Acting Chief, Construction Operations
Division
Enclosure
A-41
-------
Review Comments on Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for San Francisco Bay Deep Water
Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
1. The following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Draft EIS (DEIS) for San Francisco Bay Deep Water
Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation were prepared in
accordance with 40 CFR 1503.2 and 1503.3, and 33 CFR 230.19(e).
These comments are as specific as possible, and generally
restricted to areas of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdiction by law and special expertise, particularly Corps
regulatory responsibilities.
2. 40 CFR 1502.23 provides that when cost considerations are
relevant and important to a decision, the EIS should at least
indicate those considerations. The Corps believes that costs of
ocean disposal are relevant and important since all of the
alternatives could significantly increase the annual and
long-term costs of maintaining and improving navigation in the
San Francisco Bay area. The Final EIS should provide the cost
considerations (including monitoring costs) between
alternatives, as well as the cost differentials between each
alternative and other on-going and potential non-ocean disposal
options. In addition, the Corps believes the Final EIS should
contain an economic analysis of commercial and recreational
fisheries values between the alternative disposal sites. This
type of information has been routinely requested of the Corps
for Section 103 site designations.
3. The comments that follow are keyed to sections and pages (in
parentheses) in the DEIS.
S.4.2 (S-13). The U.S. Navy's application for a Department
of the Army (DA) permit to dredge up to 1.6 million cubic yards
(cy) of sediment at NAS Alameda and NSC Oakland, and dispose of
the dredged material at a site west of the Farallon Islands in
the Pacific Ocean, is be being processed pursuant to the
provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). The Navy is preparing a
Supplemental EIS (SEIS) in pursuing the designation of an ocean
disposal site by the Corps in accordance with Section 103 of the
MPRSA. As a cooperating agency, the Corps retains a
responsibility for ensuring the SEIS adequately addresses the
criteria and technical requirements for ocean disposal. If the
project complies with these requirements, the Final SEIS may be
adopted by the Corps for the purpose of exercising its
regulatory authority. The Corps has not yet determined whether
to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for the Navy's
proposed activity. EPA's DEIS should accurately reflect the
status of this action.
S.4.2 (S-14). The agency, and regulatory authority, that
would require barges to avoid the Farallones vicinity to
A-42
-------
-2-
minimize potential impacts should be specified in the Final EIS
(FEIS).
S.5 (S-15). See comment S.4.2 (S-13).
1.1 (1-2). Dredged material disposal into ocean waters is
regulated by the Corps using the criteria of applicable sections
of 40 CFR 227 and 228 (40 CFR 227.13). In accordance with 40
CFR 225, applications and authorizations for dredged material
permits under Section 103 of the MPRSA for the transportation of
dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean waters
is evaluated by the Corps in accordance with the criteria in 40
CFR 227 and processed in accordance with 33 CFR 320 through 330.
Only the Corps is authorized to issue or deny permits for
dredged material disposal, in accordance with 33 CFR 320 through
330, and Section 103 of the MPRSA. EPA does not have a
permitting authority for dredged material disposal under the
MPRSA, and the criteria at 40 CFR 227 are used by the Corps to
evaluate permit applications. This section should clearly
reflect Corps regulatory authorities.
Table 1.2-1 (1-8). The projected volumes seem to be grossly
over-estimated. The Navy has applied to dredge 1.6 million cy
from NAS Alameda and NSC Oakland and dispose of the material in
the ocean. The Port of San Francisco currently does not have a
permit for dredging and disposal. Annual dredged material
disposal volumes for the 3 in-Bay sites have been 2,555,610 cy
for SF-11, 8,810 cy for SF-10, and 344,167 cy for SF-9 in 1992;
1,199,854 cy for SF-11, 28,080 cy for SF-10, and 359,848 cy for
SF-9 in 1991; and 2,061,206 cy for SF-11, 63,060 cy for SF-10,
and 986,658 cy for SF-9 in 1990. These volumes, particularly
for permit projects regulated by the Corps, should be verified
by the San Francisco District's Regulatory Branch.
1.2 (1-9). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
statement implies that projects are being certified for
compliance with state water quality standards that should not
receive state Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality
certification. If so, this statement should be clarified with
the SWRCB.
1.6.2.3 (1-15). Ocean disposal of dredged material is
regulated by the Corps in accordance with Section 103 of the
MPRSA, 33 CFR 320 through 330, and 40 CFR 225, 227, and 228, and
is not subject to Section 404 of the CWA. Therefore, Section
4 01 of the CWA, and compliance with state water quality
standards are not applicable. Actions regulated in accordance
with Section 103 of the MPRSA are not in waters of the
territorial sea. This section should be clarified to reflect
the non—applicability of CWA Sections 401 and 404 to ocean
disposal regulated in accordance with Section 103 of the MPRSA.
A-43
-------
-3-
1.7 (1-21). See comment S.4.2 (S-13). The Corps is a
cooperating agency with the Navy in the preparation of a SEIS
for the Navy's proposed action, and designation of an ocean
disposal site in accordance with Section 103 of the MPRSA. The
DEIS should reflect this relationship.
2.1 (2-2). The Corps is responsible for evaluations made in
accordance with 40 CFR 227 for applications and authorizations
for dredged material permits under Section 103 of the MPRSA.
The Corps is also responsible for making factual determinations
of compliance with CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Corps
regulations for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
implementation procedures for the Regulatory Program are found
at 33 CFR 325, Appendix B. Corps responsibilities should be
accurately reflected in this section.
2.1.2 (2-4). See comment 3.2.5.5 (3-90) regarding
comparability of EPA and Navy methods.
2.1.2.1 (2-11). The Corps will likely make a decision
regarding the Navy's Section 103 permit application in early to
mid-1993. Site management is not an outstanding issue for this
permit application.
2.1.3.1 (2-21). Dredged material disposal at SF-9
(Carquinez Strait DMDS) was 344,167 cy in 1992, 212,257 cy in
1991, 986,658 cy in 1990, 284,722 cy in 1989, 613,225 cy in
1988, 614,508 cy in 1987, and 184,682 cy in 1986. Dredged
material disposal at SF-10 (San Pablo Bay DMDS) was 8,810 cy in
1992, 18,300 cy in 1991, 63,060 cy in 1990, 28,600 cy in 1989,
720 cy in 1988, 977,749 cy in 1987, and 32,772 cy in 1986.
Dredged material disposal at SF-11 (Alcatraz DMDS) was 2,555,610
cy in 1992, 1,240,661 cy in 1991, 2,061,206 cy in 1990,
3,044,091 cy in 1989, 1,968,241 cy in 1988, 5,025,213 cy in
1987, and 1,218,341 cy in 1986. Good records and data for
dredged material disposal prior to 1986 are not available. The
cited volumes should be verified since they may not be
accurate. EPA does not regulate the use of the in-Bay disposal
sites. The regulatory agencies for dredging and dredged
material disposal in San Francisco Bay are the Corps, San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC). This section should be clarified to accurately reflect
these regulatory responsibilities.
2.1.3.2 (2-25). See comment 2.1 (2-2) regarding Corps
responsibilities for evaluations made in accordance with 40 CFR
227.
2.2 (2-27). Navy (1992) should be the Draft SEIS or Final
SEIS, not an Administrative Draft SEIS. The Draft SEIS has been
released by the Navy, and the Final SEIS should be available
A-44
-------
—4 —
soon (early 1993).
2.2.2.1 (2-28 to 2-29). See comment S.4.2 (S-14) regarding
agency authorities for requiring barges to stay within certain
navigation lanes.
2.2.2.5 (2-31). Reference to U.S. Army should probably be
U.S. Navy. See Table 3.1-2 (3-7).
2.2.4 (2-32). The process used by EPA to select the
Preferred Alternative should be discussed in detail,
particularly since different field methods were employed by the
Navy in Study Area 5 [See comment 3.2.5.5. (3-90) below].
Table 2.2-1 (2-37). The statement that potentials for x—v
cumulative effects of previous discharges and dumping in the
area of Alternative Site 5 are considered unlikely should be
better supported, especially since the potential environmental
effects are stated as being unknown [See 3.1.3 (3-18)].
©
2.2.4 (2-42). See comment 2.1.2.1 (2-11) regarding the (|4S
Navy's Section 103 permit application.
3.1.4.2 (3-20). A specific schedule should be presented for mTt)
developing the site monitoring plan.
3.2.3.3 (3-50). Explain in the text why total suspended
solids (TSS) were not measured during the EPA surveys.
3.2.3.5 (3-53). Explain in the text why nutrient
concentrations were not measured during the EPA surveys.
3.2.3.6 (3-53). Explain in the text why trace metal
concentrations were not measured during the EPA surveys.
3.2.5.5 (3-90). Reference is made to different methods used
to collect data in Study Area 5 by the Navy, and those used by (W)
EPA to collect data in Study Areas 2, 3, and 4, and the
comparability (or lack of comparability) of these data. Since
many of the EPA and Navy data sets are probably not comparable
because of different methods employed during ocean research
cruises, the process used by EPA for selecting the Preferred
Alternative [2.2.4 (2-32)] should be clearly described in the
FEIS.
3.3.1.2 (3-103). Additional support should be provided for ©
the statement that "effects of dredged material disposal on
plankton populations are likely to be transitory at most and
should not result in impacts to food webs in the Gulf of the
Far a Hones".
3.3.2.1 (3-104). See comment 3.2.5.5 (3-90) regarding the
A-45
-------
-5-
lack of comparability between EPA and Navy field methods and
data sets.
3.3.2.2 (3-122). See comment 3.2.5.5 (3-90) regarding study
methods used by EPA and the Navy, and the inappropriateness of
comparing these data sets.
3.3.2.2 (3-134). See comment 3.3.2.2 (3-122). Its probably
inappropriate to make comparisons between data sets and Study
Areas because of the different methodologies.
Table 3.3.3-2 (3-147). Another example of incomparable data
sets. The incomparability of data should be stressed, and not
foot-noted.
3.3.3.1 (3-156 to 3-157). See comment 3.3.2.2 (3-134)
regarding different methods and data interpretation.
Table 3.3.4-1 (3-168). Legal status should be defined, in
terms of Federal (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and state law.
For example, the.American osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is not
listed as a threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
3.3.4 (3-173). Explain why only 10 species of birds were
selected to be "Key Species".
3.3.6.1 (3-225). Federal agencies are required to consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
threatened or endangered species (T/E), or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Formal
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) is not required by the ESA of 1973. This should be
clarified in the FEIS.
3.3.6.1 (3-227). Clarify the statement that CDFG has
jurisdiction over T/E species in state waters. How are state
waters defined (i.e. are any of the Study Areas in state
waters?), and is reference made to Federal or state listed T/E
species?
3.3.6.2 (3-232). The American osprey is not listed as a T/E
species under the ESA of 1973 (see 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12).
This should be corrected in the FEIS. The current listing
status of the marbled murrelet (Brachvramphus marmoratus) should
also be verified.
3.4.5 (3-264). 3.4.6 (Recreational Activities) heading and
©
A-46
-------
-6-
some text appears to be missing.
Table 4.1-1 (4-3 to 4-6). It appears from this summary
table that there no clear differences of potential environmental
impacts between alternatives. If this is the case, it is
critical that EPA describe in detail the process that lead to
the selection of Alternative Site 5 as the Preferred Alternative
in the FEIS [See comment 2.2.4 (2-32)].
4.2 (4-7). Specify which impacts and processes occurring at
shallow water sites can be extrapolated to deep water
environments.
4.2.1.3 (4-15). Support should be provided for using 6,000
cy barge capacities in the model. It seems likely that smaller
barges with less capacity would be most available in the San
Francisco Bay area.
Table 4.2-2 (4-16). The use of data from NSC Oakland only
in the sediment deposition model is questionable. This kind of
data is available from other sites around San Francisco Bay and
should probably be used in the model as well.
4.2.1.4 (4-45). It is interesting to note that EPA's
Preferred Alternative (Site 5) is the only site that would
result in dredged material being deposited on the bottom within
a National Marine Sanctuary.
4.2.2.2 (4-51). The word "significant" is used to describe
mortality to benthic organisms if dredged material accumulates
in thicknesses of 5-30 cm. The context in which "significant"
is used should be stated (i.e., statistical significance or
significant as defined by NEPA).
4.2.2.5 (4-59). Dredged material permits issued by the
Corps in accordance with Section 103 of the MPRSA would be
conditioned on a case-by-case basis, if necessary. This should
be clarified.
4.2.2.5 (4-60). The statement concerning "material that
exhibits a potential for contaminant bioaccumulation will not be
discharged at an ODMDS" is factually incorrect. EPA/Corps
(1991) states when tissue concentrations of contaminants of
concern in organisms exposed to dredged material statistically
exceed those of organisms exposed to the reference material, EPA
and the Corps should develop and agree upon case specific
evaluative criteria for determining compliance with the
bioaccumulation aspects of the benthic criteria of 40 CFR
227.13(c)(3)[Page 6-6].
4.2.2.8 (4-63). See comment 4.2.1.4 (4-45). EPA concludes
that dredged material will accumulate on the bottom within the
A-47
-------
-7-
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (NMS)[i.e., the
dredged material footprint], which seems to inconsistent with
the statement here regarding disposal within NMS's. In
addition, Corps specifications for maintenance dredging of
federal navigation channels allow for a 10% loss in draft
(leakage) from hopper dredges, barges or dump scows while
transporting dredged material to disposal sites. For 6,000 cy
barges the leakage allowance would be 600 cy. The "reality" of
transporting dredged material for ocean disposal should be clear
in the FEIS.
4.4.2.2 (4-76). The statement "no species that are known to
be unique to the area or geographically limited in distribution
are found at this site (Alternative Site 3) or at Alternative
Sites 4 or 5" seems inconsistent with 3.3.2.2 (3-134) which
states that 5 species of megafaunal invertebrates, believed to
be previously unknown to science, were collected in Study Area
5.
4.6.1 (4-88). Information that the Corps may require permit
applicants to submit will be consistent with the Corps'
Regulatory Program regulations (33 CFR 320-330), NEPA
regulations (33 CFR 230 and 325), and EPA's ocean dumping
regulations (40 CFR 225, 227, and 228).
4.6.1 (4-89). The San Francisco District Regulatory Branch
does not prepare "draft" permits for external review. In
accordance with 40 CFR 220.4(c), EPA has the authority to
review, to approve or to disapprove or to propose conditions
upon dredged material permits for ocean dumping of dredged
material. This section should be clear regarding agency
authorities. In addition, EPA Region 9 and the Corps South
Pacific Division are preparing a Regional Implementation
Agreement for Evaluating Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean
Disposal. This Agreement will focus on dredged material
sampling and testing only, and does not address permit
conditions to ensure disposal within an ODMDS.
4.6.1 (4-90). Provide a citation for EPA's authority to
take enforcement actions on violations of Corps issued Section
103 dredged material permits. 33 CFR 326 provides the
regulations, and cites the authority, under which the Corps
takes enforcement actions for violations of authorized
activities.
4.6.2 (4-90). In accordance with 40 CFR 228.3, EPA has site
management responsibility. No mention is made of the Corps for
having such an authority or responsibility for sites designated
by EPA in accordance with Section 102 of the MPRSA.
5.3 (5-8). It appears that EPA went through an elaborate
process to develop an Ocean Studies Plan (OSP), but ultimately
A-48
-------
selected Study Area 5 as the Preferred Alternative based on data
collected by the Navy. This section of the FEIS should have a
comparable discussion of the Navy's field research plans, and an
analysis of the comparability or non-comparability of these
methods with those employed by EPA in their OSP.
5.3 (5-14). See comment 5.3 (5-8), and comment 3.2.5.5
(3-90), regarding the lack of data comparability and the process
used by EPA to select the Preferred Alternative.
A-49
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-50
-------
. ^ •»- •«*/
State of California Exhibit ( 1S ) | ^ jJOj
Memorandum environmental protection
To Mr. Michael A. Kahoe Date :January 11, 1993
Assistant Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agency
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 235
Sacramento, California 95814
From Department of Fish and Game
Subject • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for San Francisco Bay
Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the
subject DEIS, issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), proposing the designation of a deep water ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS). The designation is prepared
under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and in coordination with the regional,
multiagency Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS). The ODMDS is
expected to partially fulfill the LTMS objective of providing a
range of disposal options for sediments dredged from San
Francisco Bay. The proposed site is designed to accept an
estimated six million cubic yards of material annually, which
must meet EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) sediment-
quality criteria, for a 50-year period.
The DEIS describes and discusses, in detail, three deep
water alternative sites (No's. 3, 4, and 5), with emphasis upon
the preferred alternative (No. 5), and provides information on
two near-shore alternative sites (No's. 1 and 2). Alternative
Site No. 5 is a former chemical munitions disposal area and is
located on the continental rise (depths between 2,500 and 3,000
meters) approximately 50 nautical miles west - southwest of the
Golden Gate.
The preferred alternative is characterized by relatively low
infaunal diversity and abundance, moderate numbers of megafaunal
invertebrates and fishes, common coastal plankton communities,
and higher use by marine birds and mammals when compared to the
alternative sites. Commercial and recreational fishery
activities at Alternative Site No. 5 are described as very low.
Identifiable potential adverse impacts to marine resources are,
for the most part, identified as insignificant or mitigatable to
the insignificant level. The lone exception to this overall
assessment would be burial or other forms of disturbance to
benthic organisms at the site of deposition. Modelling studies
discussed in the DEIS predict that there will be no measurable
movement of materials by either coastwide or localized currents
into any of the three adjoining National Marine Sanctuaries.
A-51
-------
Mr. Michael A. Kahoe
January 11, 1993
Page Two
The DFG commends the EPA and all contributing members of the
LTMS Ocean Studies Work Group for the preparation and execution
of a thorough and comprehensive study plan. In general, we view
the DEIS as adequately portraying the complex and dynamic
physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic factors
influencing the study areas and the selection of an
environmentally acceptable ODMDS. Additionally, we strongly
support the choice of Alternative Site No. 5 as the EPA's
preferred alternative. We believe that placement of approved
sediments at this site will result in the least damaging impacts
to marine resources and sharply reduce any potential conflicts
with California's valuable commercial and recreational fisheries.
While we support selection of Alternative site No. 5, we
also wish to comment on the following two aspects of the DEIS:
1. The level of detail found in the characterization of
demersal fisheries resources was not as precise as the DFG
feels it should have been taking into consideration that a
trawl fishery database, which incorporates both logbook and
landing receipt information, was made available to the EPA
by the DFG. This database allows for generalized catch-
block information to be evaluated in light of specific
depth contours. To our knowledge, analysis or information
from this database was neither presented, nor referenced,
in the DEIS. The absence of this database in the DEIS,
however, does not alter our conclusion that the Alternative
Site No. 5 possesses the lowest fishery values and
potential use conflicts of the alternatives under
consideration.
2. The discussion of site management and monitoring could be
improved with respect to specific actions to be taken by,
or opportunities available to, the EPA and COE. For
example, in the likely event that the U.S. Navy receives
approval to use Alternative Site No. 5 for the disposal of
approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of sediment from
Naval Air Station Alameda and Naval Supply Center Oakland,
under Section 103 of the MPRSA, tracking of disposal event
effects could be used to validate footprint and suspended
sediment transport models, as well as contribute to other
study elements. However, project-specific use of this area
by the Navy was discussed in depth in the DEIS only
relative to cumulative impacts. Site management and
monitoring are critical issues to the long-term success of
any aquatic disposal site and should be a substantive part
of the public review process.
A-52
-------
Mr. Michael A. Kahoe
January 11, 1993
Page Three
These limited concerns notwithstanding, the DFG wishes to
reaffirm our approval and support for the EPA's efforts in the
lengthy and laborious site designation process and their on-
schedule production of the DEIS as well as reiterate our
concurrence with the selection of Alternative Site No. 5 as the
preferred alternative for an ODMDS to receive San Francisco Bay
dredged sediments. As always, DFG personnel are available to
discuss our comments in greater detail. To arrange for^
discussion, please contact Mr. Robert N. Tasto, Enviroranental
Specialist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4A1 Burgess
Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025, telephone (i^5)/688f6360.j
JdhryL. Turner, Chief
ifnvifronmental Services Division
cc: Mr. Robert N. Tasto
Department of Fish and Game
Menlo Park, California
A-53
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-54
-------
Exhibit (^)
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
WESTERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO. CALIFORNIA 94066-2402 IN REPLY REFER TO
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director 2 2 'JAN 1993
Water Management Division
Attn.: Ms. Shelley Clark
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, California 94105
Mr. Seraydarian:
This constitutes the U.S. Navy's review comments on your December 1992 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for designation of a deep water dredged material disposal site off San Francisco.
We concur with your conclusions that no significant adverse impacts are likely to result from selection of
any of the considered alternative ocean disposal sites, and especially from the preferred site 5. As you
know, the Navy recently conducted extensive field studies at the same site for our proposed disposal on
up to 1.6 million cubic yards of sediments from Naval Air Station Alameda and Naval Supply Center
Oakland, in support of a proposed Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act Section 103 permit,
as documented in our own 1990 Final EIS and ongoing 1992 Supplemental EIS. All of our studies led to
similar determinations of no significant effect at the preferred site. Of the many regulatory agencies and
environmental groups who have publicly reviewed our documents, none has yet indicated different
conclusions.
Designation of an ocean disposal site is urgently needed for the San Francisco Bay area. The Navy
recognizes the sensitivity of the sole existing disposal site, adjacent to Alcatraz Island within the Bay.
While we do not think that existing sediment disposal at that site results in significant impacts, we also
acknowledge the regional conclusion that one or more alternate disposal sites are needed for large
quantities of new dredge sediments. In order for the Navy to achieve its defense-related mission for the
Pacific, we must maintain navigational access to our port facilities in San Francisco Bay.
Although the DEIS deals with disposal site designation, we would note based on our own studies that M6-*)
typical dredge sediment from the ports around San Francisco Bay may not be as clean as that of any —
ocean disposal site. EPA and the other regulatory agencies may need to reevaluate the protocol criteria
for determining what sediments are suitable for ocean disposai, achieving a reasonable balance between
environmental protection and effective use of the disposai site by maritime dredgers.
We recommend that a dredge management and disposal plan be drafted for public review, as noted in
DEIS paragraph 4.6. page 4-87. Such a plan should indicate the types of requirements that may be
placed on dredge disposal operations, what the costs would be, and who would bear those costs.
We support your DEIS document's studies and conclusions, and your expeditious designation of an
ocean disposal site.
For further information, contact Mr. John H. Kennedy, Head, Environmental Planning Branch Code 203
(415)244-3726.
A-55 ^
WHN H. r.Z"72.)Y
MANAGER, Ei,tf'I^0iIUE"TAL PLANNING BRANCH
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-56
-------
Stata «l California
» »
Exhibit (^)
Bualnaaa, Tranai
Memorandum
'JAN 2 7
To:
MICHAEL A. KAHOE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Date: January 22,1993
Assistant Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agancy File No:
555 Capitol Mall. Suite 235
Sacramento, CA 85814
From: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Directors Office
Subject: DEIS for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredge Material Disposal Site Designation
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document The proposal
creates no adverse impacts to the state transportation system. Additionally, the ability to
dispose of dredge material at an environmentally sound site will permit the dredging
necessary for Improved waterside access to San Francisco Bay Area ports.
I would like to take this opportunity to voice Caltrans' support. Improved access to our
ports will increase the operating efficiency of such facilities, generate higher employment,
permit California to better compels In International trade and the global economy, and enhance
the goods movement elements of the state's transportation system. These benefits are fully
compatible with Caltrans* mission to improve mobility of both people and goods.
A-57
£0d 8t>9«
C0PQ—pT£ :nM ip f ; n t cc:cp nut _o7_ktu<*
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-58
-------
/ r
¦ 1 I
.-cv, ^
Exhibit
A NON-PROFIT CITIZEN GROUP DEVOTED TO EDUCATION IN MARIN COUNTY ON ENVIRONMENTAL MATT
Kr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne St. (ff-7-l)
San Francisco, Ca. 94105
Dear Mr. Seraydarian;
I am writing on behalf of the Environmental Forum, an
organization concerned with the environmental health of the San
Francisco bay area. We have studied your EIS for proposed San
Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material and feel that the pre-
ferred alternative is a very inappropriate site for dredge spoils.
You prefer site 5 because of its depth and previous use as a
disposal site for radioactive waste. One error should not be com-
pounded by mingling spoils of unknown chemical content with those
of nuclear waste.
Can the safety of a site be equated with its depth below the
ocean? Did you consider areas further off the coast - away from the
sanctuaries that envelope the bay?
By chosing site 5 closest to the Farallone Islands, you put at
risk an area highly valued by scientific research for its remoteness
from human disturbance and its traditional use by marine life. As
stated, it is the site most frequented by threatened and endangered
species. If foraging prey decreases due to water disturbances,
birds, fish and mammals will follow then. We feel that frequent
disturbances will occur, regardless of barge routes.
How can you call an activity one of temporary nature when it
will continue when it will continue to be done on a daily basis
for fifty years, resulting in the ultimate disposal of 400 million
cubic yards of dredged material. Frequency of barge trips will
result in disturbances to marine life as long as the site is used.
Any activity that increases plankton mortality will impact
every animal on the food chain. It will increase stress on pela-
gic fish already suffering from overfishing.
We believe that ocean dumping will affect marine life to a
far greater extent than acknowledge by the EIS. The possibility of
cummulative damage is not adequately addressed. Because you have
no examples of successful dumping in similar circumstances, the
EIS has too many uncertainties.
January 19( 1993
A-59
-------
The desire to find a site beyond public scrutiny may influence
EPA's preference for ocean dumping. We did not know what we were
doing when we pushed radioactive waste into the ocean; it appears
that we still don't know enough to sanction the dumping of dredged
material at site five.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely Yours,
Lindsay Rehm
Water and Bay Chair
A-60
-------
. a 0^.0 0 ' — —
Exhibit @
Golden Gate Audubon Society
A Ourns or m Nattokai. Assmw Sockxt
Sstmc Sam Fiuwnmo ud Pairs of Ai >mw» *» Comt Cor* Cuuniiu
Monday, January 25, 1993
Hany Scraydartan, Director of Water Management Division
U3.EPA
75 Hawthorne Stmt
San Banctaeo, CA 941©
Fax#744-122>
re: Draft HS for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation
Dear Mr. Scraydartan.
The Gokfcn Gate AudrixmSodety regrets to infonn you that we believe that
the Draft Eiiviiuiuiwutol Impact Statement (DEIS? for San Piaiicfaco Bay Deep Water
Dredged Material Disposal sac Designation is a flawed docaimi A fluishoddnotbe
used to determine fee proper alternative for ocean disposal erf dredged material. The
document is incomplete. To correct its flaws, a Supplemental EIS must be prepared.
Our reasons are detailed betow.
The lnfon nation available in fee DEIS on bird and marine mammal use of the
pjupusalsttes is inadequate. The wuipeed by the Fofrit Reyes Bfatl Observatory
on avian and marine mammal use of the alternative sites was based an existing data.
Thfe data was raflrrtrri lor areas feat do nut an tfuiin exactly to the proposed aBemate
fllyonl SBBCOBtoiimuflS. 1HB BCK OICMBQniuiy WWWB 08HI TO SnWDBffllBO
serious question the value of such data.
White some new avian and marine mammal data was developed for sites 3
and 4, thfe data is inadequate because not enough data was collected. Stte 5 avian and
marine mammal analysis used data developed by fee Navy. Tito data was obtained by
observations taken at times of fee year different 60m those obtained for Sites 3 and!
~early we are dealing wffevetyinconastert data. Some obtained years ago,
scaiiemus ifly. The times of year of fee observations differ, and fete can be atttca for
fee breeding cotooies of fee FaraBones Islands. Both avian and marine mammal
numbers vaiy dramatically over a yeart seasons. The fact feat different consultants
^^e used fix the differing sites also puts fee results very much into question.
Different orswiflhmta often cnmfctip %ntlh different mwrthwrg fafrfrd CTTTrtS.
There is no consistency in thb EIS's data ceDecttan and intopretaUon and feis must
lead to doubt as to fee scientific validity of any condusfcans reached in this DEIS.
A-61
. AMnocAr»» OTM>nrrB3 to consekvatton
6* Berkeley, California 94702 ' (415)843-2222
-------
We can only conclude that mora data must be compiled on aO the sites: 1) by a
singe consulting team, 2) at stanflar times of the year and 3) on the specific disposal
sites in question Any other ooune must result tn an HIS based on the most suspect of
We do not a^eewtth the selection of Site Rve as the aretaredaltemative.lt is
the site dosest to the Gulf of the FaraHones National Marine Sanctuary aid thus is
most Mcefyto impad the marine mammals and avian spedes inhabiting the
Sanctuary. Site Iwe was shown to have highest bird and mammd use. We prefer site
4 because it has the least bird and mammafuse and ts farthest away from the
FanBones Islands' breeding colonies.
The Monitoring componerrt of the DEIS is completely inadequate. Sediment
and current meters should be hiptace before any dumping is aDawed on the site ivte
have learned this from the CALTRANS Highway (be monitoring fiasco). A
iimiHuiu
eveiy <
to I
No such jMuvfafcMis are in this DEIS, yetsuch inoniluiing ptuvaiui>s ate essential to
ensure that thfc ocean diwdge cth»jinsal o^jeidUon does not impact avian, marine
mamma] and fish species.
WebeBevethat thecostoftheumrilaUigjJiummniBHtbebomebythe
not forthcoming no dredge disposal should take place at the selected ocbsi site.
Enforcement of this
intended site) and flie use
s process is vitally important. IBegaJ dumping Wwrt of the
or die site by those without permits must aBbe controlled
We thank you far yum consideration of our views and hope that a
Supplemental EIS will be prepared. We are aware of the feefing « urgency of this
project but we know that you share our view that an ocean dredge disposal pbn that
leads to the devastation of marine species is not in the public interest Aalher stucbes
must be performed before such species areput at risk.
Sincerely yours,
suuiur wbibibui
Rugiain Coordinator
A-62
-------
Exhibit (aT) / V
' \ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Gulf of the Farallones
National Marine Sanctuary
Fort Mason, Building 204
San Francisco, CA 94123
tel: 415/556-3509
fax: 415/556-1660
21 January 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
US EPA
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco. CA 94105
Re: DEIS San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredge Material Disposal
Site Designation
Dear Harry:
The Sanctuary program of the Department of Commerce has assigned me the
responsibility and authority to respond to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredge Material Disposal Site
Designation (DEIS) for the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CB), Gulf of
the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GF) and the area of the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary (MB) north of Santa Cruz County. The three
Sanctuaries have been established under authority of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (CB (1989), GF (1981) and MB (1992)] to protect
the resources of the most productive area of the continental United States. These
resources include marine mammals, fish, invertebrates, plants and other living
organisms and historic resources of the area. The GF is the closest Sanctuary to
your prefered site number 5; however, material disposed at this site could also
enter and effect the resources of CB and MB. Each Sanctuary has unique
regulatory requirements to accomplish the resource protection required for the
area as well as mandated protective responsibilities incorporated in the Act.
The Sanctuaries are concerned that the material disposed at site 5. could move
and effect the Sanctuary resources. Mathematical models which expostulate this
will not occur have not been verified or tested. Because this site has the
possibility of damaging resources in three of the nations ten National Marine
Sanctuaries verification of models must be accomplished as soon as possible. This
opportunity may present itself prior to the establishment of the 102 site by using
data which can be developed when this area is used as the 103 site, by the US
Navy (USN). How this verification will be accomplished by 103 operations needs
to be clearly stated in the DEIS. Therefore, the proposed monitoring plan for the
USN needs to be incorporated and reviewed for comment within the scope of the
102 DEIS.
A-63
-------
Page 2
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
21 January 1993
Dumping in any of the proposed area sites (5, 3, or 4) must not occur unless an (x>-
agreed upon monitoring plan is in place and operational. Environmental
conditions need to be studied by independent observers onboard all vessels to
determine the prevalence, deportment and avoidance of marine mammals, birds,
other marine life and the general ecological conditions of the site. This data
should be systematically collected by qualified observers independent of the
dredge company, dredge permittee or transport operators. This effort is needed
for your DEIS states the limited nature of your data in duration, systematics,
repeatability, seasonality and scientific regor. Current meters and sediment
movement equipment must be in place and operational during all dumping until
verification of the models.
The monitoring plan in the DEIS must give a veiy specific route of travel for all
material moved through the GF. GF has recommended to the USN that transit
outbound be via the west bound US Coast Guard (USCG) separation scheme to 37°
28.5' N, thence due west (270° T) to the center of the site at 37° 28.5' N, 123°
29.5* W. This location is mentioned because you state your site (S-12-13.) is 10
nmi from the Sanctuary, but your diagrams presented show it as close as 3 nmi.
Three nautical miles is too close to the GF. The DEIS's more northly location,
would also increase the vessel round trip transit distance by roughly 1.3 nmi. The
DEIS site also increases the likelihood that vessels will depart the USCG
separation lanes early.
GF prohibits (Sec 936.6) vessels (4) from entering within 2 nmi of the Farallon \^°
Islands. These Islands are a US Fish and Wildlife Refuge of unique ecological
importance and productivity in the continental United States. TTie GF also has the
authority (Vol 46, No. 16, Jan 26, 1981 Article 4) to regulate all vessels, except
fishing vessels and vessels within a Traffic Separation Scheme. Therefore,
knowledge of the exact vessel transit routes are needed for GF to determine if it
needs to institute regulations. GF believes this should be unnecessary given the
cooperative nature of the Long Term Management Strategy process; however,
transit requirements must be available for all to discuss so interested parties may
comment end provide EPA and GF a review of their concerns.
The following is a summarization of Sanctuary concerns:
1. Monitoring plans must be developed within the DEIS (monitoring needs are
mentioned over ten times in current DEIS as important).
2. Monitoring (sediment and environmental assessment) personnel and Uo-f
equipment must be in place and functional during dumping.
3. Monitoring must be conducted by qualified independent investigators.
4. Incorporating 103 work will help verify models.
5. Expanding characterization of site 5, is needed technically and to reduce
uncertainty.
A-64
-------
Page 3
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
21 January 1993
0
6. Dumping site center should be no closer to the Sanctuary than 37° 28.5' N,
123° 29.5' W.
7. Dumping should be prohibited more than four tenths of a nautical mile
(.4 nmi) from the above center.
Included as an appendix are a number of items which need clarification, bounds
or definition.
The Sanctuary thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this document and
appreciates the hard work and quality of this DEIS. EPA has developed a usable,
accurate and informative document which is also readable. The data developed,
compiled and presented within the DEIS represents an important body of
knowledge for this project and the overall understanding of this complex ocean
environment.
Sincerely yours,
Edward Ueber
Sanctuary Manager
Gulf of the Farallones
and Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuaries
EU: cmg/APl
c: R. Lopez, SRD
T. Jackson, MBNMS
A-65
-------
Appendix
Page Comment
S-1 Limited data on planktonic communications
S-5 "moderate use"
S-7 10 Km squared over 10 cm - over 1 cm
S-8 "minimal and temporary"
"could cause some interference"
S-10 How probailities"
* mention twice "barge transit routes" this is important
* What is site management and monitoring program (criteria 3)
S-11 US Navy site 2 miles south
S-12 3. "at least 10 nmi"
S-13 * 5. This is dependent on monitoring plan
S-14 * 8. This should be required
1-12* What is monitoring to be
1-13 1.5
1-17 1.6.2.7 Endangered species
1-21 GOFNMS is GFNMS
3-19 * 3.1.4.2 - monitoring plan?
* Related to monitoring.
Action requested
get more
define
calculate
define
why
define #
where are they
define
move prefered site
does not
give plan
traffic lanes
define
who and when
monitoring
change in document
when
(20-Wj
(20?)
A-66
-------
Exhibit (2?)
HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAUUFFE
ATTORNEYS
Anchorage
Los Angeles
Palo Alto
Portland
Seattle
Tacoma
98413-0001
(415) 772-6724
333 Bush Street a partnership of professional corporations
San Francisco
California 94104-2878
January 22, 1993
Facsimile. (415) 772-62 6 8 J
Telephone- (4151772-6000
Writers Direct Dial Number
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne St. (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal
Site Designation Draft EIS
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
These comments on the above-referenced Draft EIS are
submitted on behalf of my clients, the Half Moon Bay Fisherman's
Marketing Association (HMBFMA).
A. Introduction
HMBFMA applauds EPA's decision to designate Site 5 as the
preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). Study Area 5 is an area which my clients have for the
last five years been urging upon EPA as a site most likely to
have the least impacts on the marine environment, if an ocean
dumping site was determined to be absolutely necessary. This
site is off of the Outer Continental Shelf, and as such complies *
with Congress* mandate to protect the Shelf and fishery
resources.
The DEIS' discussion of the baseline environment is detailed
and constitutes a valuable resource in understanding this marine
area. It goes a long way toward filling major information gaps.
We have some concerns about certain aspects of the DEIS,
primarily: (1) the absence of a monitoring plan; (2) the failure
of the DEIS to adequately document the need for the projected
A-67
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 2
amount of dredged material disposal in the ocean environment; (3)
the DEIS1 sidestepping of the availability of non-aquatic
disposal alternatives; and (4) specific deficiencies in the
analysis of environmental impacts. HMBFMA is also troubled by
the DEIS1 confusing references to the B1 site. Our detailed
comments are below.
B. The DEIS Fails to Establish the Need for Deep Water
Disposal of 6 mcv annually
The DEIS correctly states that EPA is required by law to
demonstrate the need for the proposed deep water site. However,
the DEIS fails to adequately fulfill this mandate. The DEIS
proposes the dumping of 6.0 mcy annually into the ocean (out of a
total 7.6 mcy/year) for a period of 50 years; a project with
potentially devastating impacts for the marine environment. It
is inappropriate to designate a disposal site of such magnitude
without clearly demonstrating: (a) that there is an actual need
to dredge this enormous amount of sediment; and (b) that there is
an actual need to dump over 80% of such sediment in the ocean.
No one doubts that some amount of dredging is required to
keep open various ports and channels in the Bay Area. However,
the DEIS makes no attempt to assess the quantity of those needs.
That San Francisco is an important thoroughfare for international
trade does not, without further analysis, demonstrate a "need"
for an ocean dump site capable of handling almost all of the Bay
Area's maintenance and new work dredging over the next 50 years.
The "Need for Action" section is fundamentally flawed in
three respects: (1) it fails to evaluate the quantity of sediment
for both maintenance and new work "required" to be dredged over
the time period of the project; (2) it dismisses viable
alternatives to ocean disposal without any analysis, thus
premising the "need" for a massive ocean site on the supposed
"unavailability" of alternatives; and (3) it ignores EPA's own
regulations which guide the determination of whether ocean
dumping is "needed."
Turning to the first issue, the DEIS accepts without any
discussion the Army Corps' estimate that 7.6 mcy "must" be
dredged from the Bay each year over the next 50 years, for a
total of roughly 400 mcy. As far as we can ascertain, the total
volume figures relied upon in the DEIS were developed several
years ago by the Army Corps as planning estimates, and have never
A-68
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 3
been subjected to any type of independent scrutiny.1 While we
recognize that EPA is entitled to rely to a certain extent on
research conducted by sister agencies, it is not entitled to
abdicate its responsibility under NEPA to ascertain a reasonable
range of probable dredged material disposal needs justifying the
establishment of a permanent ocean site. It is critical that the
DEIS for an ocean dump site spell out the basis for claims
regarding the total volume of disposal capacity required.
With regard to the second issue, no source or documentation
is provided in the DEIS for the assertion that over 80% of the
projected dredged material (6.0 mcy) "must" be dumped into the
ocean each year. The only justification offered in the DEIS is
the disappointing statement that non-aquatic sites "generally
have limited capacities" and the tired repetition that there are
"presently" no non-aquatic sites available.2 The DEIS fails
entirely to establish a "need" for the volume of dumping proposed
in the ocean by simply turning a blind eye to alternative sites.
While it is generally true that no single upland site has an
unlimited capacity for dredged sediment, it is patently false
that upland alternatives taken as a whole do not constitute a
major dredged material disposal option. EPA has prepared this
DEIS expressly as part of the LTMS, and has based its assessment
1 The DEIS cites to the Final Ogden Beeman "Alternative
Disposal Options" Study, dated 1992, as the source for the 7.6
mcy annual/400 mcy 50-year volume figures. This Study cites to
another source for these figures, the Army Corps1 "LTMS Phase I
Report," dated December, 1990, Table 2 (Page 33). No source or
documentation for these figures are provided in the 1990 Report.
Moreover, the Corps expressly recognized at that time that:
"Planning estimates of future dredging requirements from historic
dredging records tend to have large standard deviations due to
confounding factors such as amount of rain fall, upstream
erosion, freshwater diversions and the degree and extend of
sediment resuspension." Id. at 31.
2 There are "presently" no ocean sites available either.
The absence of a site at the instant the DEIS is published is not
ground for the DEIS to ignore the fact that various sites are
coming on-line in the foreseeable future. Indeed, several
planned sites are already well into the permitting process.
Moreover, at least one port has already begun using an upland
site, the Redwood Sanitary Landfill, in a limited capacity.
A-69
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 4
of the "need" for an ocean disposal site of substantial magnitude
on the LTMS goals calling for the development of disposal options
in three different media. It cannot then ignore other aspects of
the LTMS which are dedicated to the study and development of
alternatives to ocean disposal.
This leads to the third issue, that EPA has inexplicably
ignored its own regulations establishing the criteria for
determining the "need for ocean disposal." Among these criteria
are the relative environmental risks, impacts and costs of
alternatives "including but not limited to: (1) landfill; ...(4)
spread of material over open ground; (5) recycling of material
for reuse ..." 40 C.F.R. § 277.15(a).3 HMBFMA recommends that
the DEIS be revised to include a critical evaluation of the
quantity requirements for an ocean dump site in light of the
future availability of non-aquatic and reuse sites.
C. The DEIS Fails to Monitoring the Impacts of
Long-Term ocean Dumping and Therefore Fails to Provide
Adeguate Mitigation
The DEIS recognizes that EPA's regulations require that even
after a site is chosen, its use must be discontinued if it
becomes apparent that the site "does not meet the criteria set
forth" in the site designation regulations. (Page 2-30).
Nevertheless, EPA never commits to a monitoring plan that would
determine the actual (as opposed to modeled) impacts of the
proposed disposal, and the performance of dredgers.
The assurance in the DEIS that an adequate plan will be
developed once the site is approved (pages 3-19, -20, 4-87) is a
classic example of "piecemealing" the environmental analysis, a
clear violation of NEPA. Monitoring, for NEPA purposes, is
essentially a mitigation measure. Without proper monitoring,
there can be no assurance that: (1) permit conditions are being
We recognize that these criteria are listed in the
section nominally dealing with the issuance of permits.
Nevertheless, if EPA's regulations expressly require it to
consider the availability of non-aquatic alternatives in issuing
permits for ocean dumping, obviously it cannot ignore the
availability of such sites in establishing the "need" to
designate an ocean site in the first place.
A-70
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 5
complied with; (2) dredge spoils are staying in place as
expected; and (3) the environmental impacts of disposal in the
ocean are not significant. Hence, monitoring is necessary to
support EPA's conclusion that the proposed ocean disposal will
not cause significant impacts.
However, the DEIS hedges on whether or not monitoring will
actually occur. The DEIS "assumes" that equipment and vessels
will be available. This is not a commitment, and indeed, rings
hollow following EPA's public admission at the last LTMS meeting
of the Policy Review Committee that monitoring in any given year
would be subject to the vagaries of EPA's budget appropriations.
What is the public to expect if the funds for equipment and
vessels are not available, contrary to the DEIS' assumption?
Moreover, The EIS' entire discussion of site managing and
monitoring is phrased in self-consciously non-committal,
equivocal terms. It is entirely unclear from reviewing Section
4.6.2 which of the various site management options, if any, will
be employed.
EPA's plan to develop a monitoring proposal for inclusion in
the Final EIS cannot be sustained under NEPA. To a large extent,
the question of whether a site should be designated hinges on
whether potential impacts can be effectively mitigated.
Monitoring is of special mitigation significance for this project
since EPA's conclusions that the project will not cause
significant impacts are based almost entirely on modeling
studies. The only way to mitigate against inaccuracies and/or
unforseen circumstances in the model predictions is to monitor
dredger performance and impacts of the disposal. Therefore, the
strength of the modeling program is a fundamental aspect of the
project, and should be a major component in the determination of
whether or not to proceed.
The Final EIS will be released along with the final decision
on the project. Any comments on this final document are
therefore superfluous and irrelevant to the decision-making
process which will have ended. In order to comply with NEPA it
is critical that all vital project components be placed before
A-71
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 6
the public and decision makers prior to and not after the
decision has been made to proceed.4.
By putting off the development of a monitoring plan until
after the project has been approved, EPA is essentially saying to
the public and decision makers: "Trust us. The monitoring plan
will be just fine." We have the greatest confidence in the
integrity and sincerity of EPA in this regard. Nevertheless,
NEPA demands and we must insist that the full project be placed
before the public at one time. The monitoring plan is a critical
aspect of the project, and project approval should not be
provided unless it is absolutely clear in the EIS that monitoring
of dredgers' performance and disposal impacts is part of the
project being approved.
The DEIS provides no rationale for why this critical part of
the project has been cut out of the EIS process. The flaws in
this decision are apparent. For example, the DEIS speculates
that "management action" such as limits on disposal volume or
timing may be taken if monitoring indicates that negative impacts
have occurred. HMBFMA would recommend that EPA implement such
"management activities" prior to the occurrence of negative
impacts in order to avoid them. If the monitoring plan were part
of the EIS, issues like this would be exposed to the "hard look"
Congress intended. HMBFMA concurs with the comments submitted by
the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, and
incorporates them herein by reference. In particular, we agree
with the recommendations of the Sanctuary Manager that: (1)
independent observers must be required to study environmental
conditions, and not the dredge operators; and (2) the models must
be independently verified.
Without a clear and unqualified commitment to monitoring
both the performance of dredgers and the environmental impacts of
dredged material disposal at the proposed site, HMBFMA cannot
support the project as proposed. We will urge our fellow
4 EPA has suggested informally that the public will be able
to comment on the monitoring plan in the rulemaking process. By
this time, however, the ocean site will have already been
designated. Thus EPA is attempting to isolate the decision about
the ocean site from any decision about monitoring. Our point is
that without an adequate monitoring plan, the site should not be
designated at all.
A-72
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 7
commercial and recreational fishermen, and environmentalists to
adopt similar positions.
D. Certain Aspects of the Environmental impact Analyses
Are Flawed.
1. Modeling assumptions appear to be very limited.
In preparing the disposal plume model, EPA assumed a total
annual volume of about 4.4 mcy. The DEIS makes clear, however,
that the site is expected to accommodate 6.0 mcy. Thus, the
actual dumping at the site will exceed the model's assumptions by
over 25%. This appears to be a significant difference. Please
explain: (1) why the model did not assume the full amount of
dumping which is expected; and (2) to what extent an additional
25% of dumping annually would alter the results of the model if
at all. It appears that the EIS should be revised to include a
"most likely case" scenario, the disposal of 6.0 mcy. NEPA
precludes decision-making based on only best case scenarios.
In addition, it does not appear that the model considered a
worst case situation, in which an amount in excess of the
estimated 6.0 mcy is dumped at the site. The EIS should be
revised to include analysis of a worst case dumping scenario.
2. Fish impacts analysis fails to consider any but
the "expected conditions."
The analysis of impacts to fish as a result of the proposed
dumping asserts that to the extent that fish are mobile, they
will simply avoid a dumping area, and thus, that impacts to these
species are not significant. (Pages 4-58, -58) Impacts to
habitat are given short shrift. This fails to address a
situation in which the dredged material does not move exactly as
anticipated by EPA's model. For example, the DEIS (and
apparently the model) does not address the very likely scenario
in which a lot of dumping occurs in a short period of time, due
to weather constraints. This would obviously affect the length
of time the plume is present in the water column.
The analysis should be expanded to address the possibility
that dredged sediments will move beyond the expected footprint
into a larger area than expected. Impacts to habitat should also
be addressed, or the conclusion that habitat will not be
significantly affected should be supported.
A-73
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 8
3. Impacts to marine sanctuaries and proposed
mitigation measures are fundamentally flawed.
The DEIS states that the accidents in the marine sanctuaries
through which the dredged material must pass are "likely to be
small, 6000 cy per barge." (page 4-63) The DEIS provides no
support for this statement. The DEIS should be revised to
include such support. Moreover, again, the DEIS fails to
consider a worst case scenario for transport or short dumping
incidents in the GFNMS. The DESI should be revised to include
such worst case analyses.
The section is also flawed in that it fails to describe the
impacts to the Sanctuary of either small or large disposal
incidents. The DEIS should provide decision-makers and the
public with information regarding the potential impacts to
Sanctuary resources of inadvertent disposal incidents.
We agree that the impacts of inadvertent or improper
disposal can be mitigated. The mitigation recommended, however,
(page 4-63) is wholly inadequate. First, the DEIS does not
indicate how barge transport routes should be "specified" or what
agency should do so under what authority. Second, there are any
number of additional mitigation measures which could protect the
Sanctuary beyond designated routes, including as onboard
observers, electronic monitoring, limits on barge traffic
depending on weather conditions, limits on the amount of material
that barges can take, etc. The DEIS should be revised to include
a complete range of mitigation measures which could lessen the
possibility of impacts to the Sanctuary. Third, the DEIS
contains no commitment to the implementation of even the single
mitigation measure proposed.
This section should be revised. There is no support in the
DEIS to support the implication that specifying transport routes
alone will mitigate to insignificant levels the potential for
impacts to Sanctuary resources resulting from spills and short-
dumping. The commitment to mitigation measures should be made an
explicit part of project approval.
A-74
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 9
E. Miscellaneous fninmpwfq
1. The DEIS1 characterization of B1 Area is
inconsistent and confusing.
©
HMBFMA objects strongly to the DEIS' characterization of the
BIB site as "removed from Dungeness crab and rockfish habitat"
and as supporting low abundance and diversity of commercial fish.
(Page 2-13) First, the studies cited in the DEIS themselves are
in conflict, some of them actually stating, to the contrary, that
the B1 area supports high numbers of commercial species and crab,
and is an important nursery and breeding habitat. (See Table 2.1-
2). The failure of EPA to clarify this point in the text creates
the impression that it has accepted the Corps' 1988
characterization of the area as unimportant from a fisheries'
perspective, a view categorically rejected by my clients and
other commercial fishermen.
Second. these statements in the DEIS are based on Army Corps
studies which are out of date and widely disputed by commercial
fishermen, as EPA has heard on numerous occasions. Third, and
most important, we do not understand why EPA is citing to studies
that are 10-5 years old and admittedly not comprehensive, when it
has spent a fortune on recent studies of the Continental Shelf,
specifically including the B1 area.5 To the extent that EPA
feels that it is appropriate to establish in this EIS that the B1
area is an unimportant area for commercial fishing and contains
low abundances and diversity, we must insist that it back these
statements with its own studies conducted specifically for the
ocean designation process.
In addition, HMBFMA reiterates the objections we have stated
previously in Ocean Studies Group meetings, and previous written
comments, regarding EPA's characterization of the BIB site as "a
historical site." (Pages 2-32, 3-16) The use of this area was
precluded by the California Appellate Court because the permittee
failed to obtain consistency review from the Coastal Commission.
Moreover, the few barge loads intended for this site were
5 These studies are cited at length in other sections of
the DEIS, and consistently refer to the high abundance of fish
and invertebrates in the B1 area, as well as the richness and
diversity of this area. This contributes even further to the
confusion around EPA's characterization of the B1 area.
A-75
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 10
illegally dredged and were dumped so far off the mark that EPA
itself engaged in lengthy proceedings against the port and its
dredger. The dumping which did occur at this site was extremely
limited, the DEIS states that it was no more than 18,000 cy. In
all likelihood this limited and troubled episode would not serve
as the necessary precedent to justify designating the area as the
receptor for 6.0 mcy of dredge spoils annually.
Nevertheless, the repeated characterization of this site in
the DEIS as "historic" implies just that: that its status as a
"historic site" would make it a likely candidate for a permanent
disposal site, but for only the fact that it now lies inside the
Monterey bay Sanctuary. HMBFMA believes that this is inaccurate
and that the EIS should be revised.
2. Zone of Siting Feasibilitv/Ocean Dumping
Regulations
The DEIS states that the zone of siting feasibility is part
of the designation process for an ocean disposal site. (Page 2-
3) This characterization is misleading and unclear suggesting
that the ZSF is part of EPA's site designation regulations. The
fact is that the Ocean Dumping Act and EPA's ocean dumping
regulations are the sole criteria for the designation of an ocean
disposal site. The zone of siting feasibility analysis is an
Army Corps overlay on the legally mandated process. The DEIS
should be revised to correctly characterize the role of the ZSF
in the siting process, and must contain cites to the regulations
and/or policies authorizing the ZSF analysis' role in the ocean
dump site designation process.
Moreover, it is disturbing that the DEIS identifies various
issues involved in the selection of potential ocean disposal
sits, but places last among them, only one of the various
criteria outlined in its own regulations. After commenting
numerous times on the need for EPA to focus on its own very
explicit ocean dumping criteria in selecting candidate dump
sites, HMBFMA is baffled by the primacy given by EPA to the ZSF
and other informal guidance documents, apparently over
considerations mandated by the MPRSA and EPA's regulations.
(Page 2-3)
A-76
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Water Management Division
January 22, 1993
Page 11
Conclusion
HMBFMA concurs with EPA's decision that of the ocean sites
studied, Site 5 is the best option. However, we are concerned by
the unquestioned assumption that ocean disposal is in all cases
required, and that the proposed dumping will never have any
adverse impacts on the ocean environment. We urge EPA to revise
the DEIS to address these issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
We look forward to working with EPA in the future on this issue.
cc: PRC
Congressional Delegation
A-77
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-78
-------
Exhibit (22
Tom Jow
1108 Beaumont Drive
San Jose, CA 95129
(408)446-5603
Mr. Allan Ota
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
January 19, 1993
Dear Allan:
Attached for your consideration are suggestions for changes
in the draft EIS.
As much of the commercial fish caught in the study region
are taken in trawls, I have incorporated results of
analyses of the CDFG Trawler Database in the EIS as much as
possible.
In reviewing my paper to make comments, I have also
uncovered a number of typos. The corrected pages are
attached.
Sincerely,
A-79
-------
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS FOR SAN fRANCISCO BAY DEEP WATER
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Page 3-141
Third paragraph, first sentence: delete pink shrimp. Reason:
According to CDFG no shrimp fishery exists in Study Area 2
or in the Study Region.
Page 3-148
First indented paragraph, next to last sentence: Change to
read: Of these, all except pink surfperch and plainfin
midshipman have important commercial value. Reason: no
landings reported for midshipman in CDFG bulletins.
Page 3-161
Third paragraph, first sentence: Change to read- This
section describes the commercially and recreationally
important species of fishes in the study region including
those collected by trawls from EPA (SAIC 1992b) and Navy
studies (Calliet et al. 1992), as well as information
summarized in Bence et al. 1992, and Jow (1992), unpublished
California Department of Fish and Game Battelle (1989).
Last paragraph,second sentence: Did SAIC collect Pacific
halibut or were they California halibut? Table 3.3.3.3.
names California halibut. See my earlier comments to Shelly
Clarke (attached).
last sentence: change tunas to albacore tuna. Reason:
Albacore is likely the only tuna taken by anglers. Its
possible that an occasional bluefin, bigeye tuna or
skipjack might be caught.
Page 3-162
Second paragraph, first and second sentences: Pacific
halibut-see comment above.
Insert as third sentence: The rank order of flatfish landed
by trawlers was Pacific sanddab. Dover sole, English
sole,petrale sole, and rex sole (Jow 1992).
last paragraph, last sentence: Change to read- MMS/CDFG
Commercial Fisheries Database (1992) and CDFG Trawler
Database (Jow 1992) indicated rockfishes Study Areas 3
and 4.
Page 3-164
Table 3.3.3.3. - Replace tunas with albacore tuna.
A-80
-------
Page 3-165
Second paragraph: Insert as line 11: The commercial trawl
catch of sablefish occur in the deeper part of Study Area 2
in 110 to 183 m and in shallower parts of Study Areas 3 and
4 in 457-1372 m and 1006-1280 m, respectively (Jow 1992).
Page 3-241
Last paragraph, second sentence: Change to read - The
principal market species in this region include Dungeness
crab, market squid, salmon, albacore tuna, flatfishes (Dover
sole, English sole, Pacific sanddab, petrale sole, rex
sole), a variety of rockfish (Sebasies spp.) ; including
chilipepper, bocaccio, widow, splitnose, yellowtail, canary,
and shortbelly) , thornyheads (SebasioJobus spp.)and sablefish
(MBC 1989; Tetra Tech 1987; Jow 1992).
Third sentence: Change to read - In addition to primary
market species, a number of other species including several
species of sharks, albacore tuna, mackerels, anchovys and
Pacific herring Reason: The main fishery for herring is
in San Francisco and Tomales Bays where they are caught for
their roe so baitfish is a misnomer.
Page 3-246
Last paragraph, first sentence - delete baitfishes such as
and insert albacore before tuna. Reason: Sentence implies
that herring, salmon, etc are baitfish. Also for reason
above where herring are fished for their roe so they are a
foodfish rather than a baitfish.
Page 3-247
First sentence: Add Jow 1992 to references.
Page 3-248
First paragraph: I couldn't find any mention of tunas or
mackerel in Battelle 1989. My previous suggestion on
mackerel was that the domestic fishery is carried out with
roundhaul nets in nearshore areas. There is an offshore
element of the jack mackerel resource that is comprised of
large mackerel. It has not been the target of a domestic
fishery but has entered the foreign trawl catch. I do not
mention mackerels in my paper. A suggestion is to delete
this sentence. In the previous sentence replace tunas with
albacore tuna.
Page 3-251
[22-0
First paragraph
A-81
-------
Second sentence - replace baitfishes with pelagic fish.
Page 3-252
Second paragraph: Replace the fourth sentence with: In the
study region, sablefish were caught in trawls mainly between
128 and 1097 m. The highest trawl catchs were from 366 to
823 m depths (Jow 1992). Traps and longlines are fished at
depths between 384 and 1262 m.
Page 3-253
First paragraph, line 2: Change to read: rockfishes
(primarily including chilipepper, bocaccio, widow,
splitnose, yellowtail, canary, shortbelly, and thornyheads),
and flatfishes (Dover sole, English sole, Pacific sanddab,
petrale sole, rex sole, and sand sole). Reason: Rank order
of species catches from 1985-1987 in study region.
line 8: Change to read : (1992) and the CDFG Trawler
Database (Jow 1992), while recreational catches are from the
CDFG Recreational Fisheries Database (1992).
Second paragraph, line 3: Change to read: however, most
rockfishes (Sebas/es spp.) are caught in the study region at
depths between 128 and 293 m and most thornyheads (SebastoJobus
spp.) are caught at depths between 549 and 914 m (Jow 1992) .
Page 3-254
First paragraph: Insert as last sentence - The major
fishery in the study region by commercial trawlers is in 457
to 914 fm depths; a minor Dover sole fishery occurs at 73 to
91 m depths (Jow 1992). The latter depths corresponds to
depths in Study Area 2 while the former depths corresponds
to depths in the shallower parts of Study Areas 3 and 4.
Second paragraph, second sentence: Change to read: They are
taken from depths ranging from 18 to 457 m (Miller and Lea
1972). They are caught in trawls in the study region at
depths between 18 and 366 m. Most are caught between 73 and
146 m but a substantial spawning ground fishery occurs at
329-366 m (Jow 1992).
Last paragraph, first sentence: Change to read: English
sole are found from the Bering Sea to southern Baja
California at depths between 18 and 457 m (Miller and Lea
1972). Their distribution is centered from the Gulf of
Alaska to southern California (Love 1991). Reason: 600 m
depth is questionable whereas Miller and Lea (1972) depths
are substantiated.
A-82
^224>)
©
©
©
©
-------
Insert before last sentence starting with SAIC: The major
trawl fishery for English sole in the study region occurs
between 37 and 146 m depths (Jow 1992).
Page 3-255
Replace first sentence with: Rex sole has a depth
distribution similar to Dover sole. In the study region
trawl catches were recorded from depths of 18 to 914 m with
most catches from 366-549 m depths (Jow 1992). (This peak
abundance conflicts with the last sentence of the paragraph,
but its a contrast between commercial trawls and research
trawls and the last sentence could be qualified by changing
it to read: In Contrast, research bottom trawls indicated—
(Bence et al. 1992).
Page 4-64
Second paragraph, first sentence: Replace with: Analyses
of the MMS/CDFG Commercial Fisheries Database (1992), the
CDFG Trawler Database (Jow 1992) and the CDFG Recreational
Fisheries Database (1992) indicated that the majority of
commercial and recreational fisheries are located
predominantly in the continental shelf region.
Page 7-18
Add as the third reference:
Jow, Tom. 1992. Analyses of 1985-1987 Californai department
of fish and game trawler database for designation of an
ocean dredged material disposal site near San Francisco. 57
pp. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, San Francisco Ca.
A-83
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-84
-------
LEAGUE OF Exhibit
WOMEN VOTERS ^
OF THE BAY AREA
An Inter League Organization of the San Francisco Bay Area
I
January 24, 199J
Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #si p»?m»
^EM- 1
Co.- 1
D,p,&X^/r t>(/.
TT&'T+f' 3tf J7
Fw«
fm
¦f
Harry Seraydarian, Dire^tpr
Hater Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne St. (W-7-1)
San Francieco, CA 94105
RE: DRAFT EIS FOR SAN FRANC'lSCJU BAY DEE? HATER DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
DESIGNATION
Seraydarian:
. i>,L^avue of Homen Voters of the Bay Area (LWVBA) appreciates the opportunity
to. 'a&mnlent on the EIS for designation of an ocean disposal site for material .
dftp&d from San Francisco Bay. The LWVBA has a long-standing concern for the
advdrsfe environmental impacts of disposing of dredged material in the Bay.
Our comments on the EIS are as follows:
1. our major probl«uo with the draft Kis is the lack of a well-defined
monitoring program. An adequate monitoring program ie key to ensuring that the
ocean environment ie not degraded. It is essentia), that the program be fully
described and available for public review prior to adoption of an ocean
disposal site. The monitoring program as described at 3.1.4.2 and 4.6.2 ie
vague and poorly defined. The EIS should identify the specific ecological
impacts that would be monitored, as well as the methods which would be used to
monitor. At a minimum, the following should be included: changes in
elevation of the disposal site; changes in the pollutant levels in the
sediment; impacts on all 6pecies that have used the disposal site; and
compliance with permit requirements. Also, the monitoring program should be
able to identify illegal ocean dumping. Use of satellites and on-board
observers could be appropriate for monitoring various aspects.
The monitoring program should include a schedule for frequent review of the
monitoring results. The ability to make revisions in the disposal site is
also essential should monitoring results indicate that adverse impacts on the
ocean environment would occur or are occurring. Considerable and widespread
damage could occur with the disposal of 400,BOO,000 cubic yards of dredged
material over the 50-year time span. To ensure potential impacts would be
avoided where possible, an ocean disposal permit should be sufficiently
flexible so that revisions can be made when warranted. Aspects such as
timing, disposal method and location may also need to be revised depending on
monitoring data.
2. Several areas ot potential impact do not appear to have been adequately
investigated. In particular, little data have been gathered on turbidity at
and near the potential disposal sites, and the data on bird and mammal use of
Alternative 5 do not match with data for Alternatives 3 and 4. Information
gaps could make it difficult to evaluate adverse impacts of disposal events on
fish, birds, and marine mammals.
3. Ocean disposal Is but one aspect ot the dredging and dredged material
disposal issue. There should be a comprehensive analysis of disposal
alternatives including options for beneficial uses of dredged material, such
as to recreate wetlands or repair levees, as well as opportunities for
minimizing dredging. Addressing ocean disposal and upland disposal in
isolation does not provide an opportunity to fully assess benefits and
A-85
500 Sl.Mary sfioacl. Suite 14, Lalayeue. Ca 94549*Tel. ( 1 ) 283-7093 • Fa* 2B3-2613
-------
disadvantages of each method or to fully evaluate how each method can be usad
to the benefit of ecjuatic resources.
Thank you Cor the opportunity to comment.
Sli)c6rely
President
A-86
-------
Exhibit
a
LEVINE*FRICKE
January 22, 1993 LF 2393.08
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, California 94105
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation, December 1992
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
We wish to provide the following comments on the subject
document.
1) Table 2.1-4 - Site Status and Feasibility for the
Montezuma Wetlands Candidate Site—Please
note that the project proposal for this
site does include dredged sediment
rehandling. Also, the site should be
identified as a proposed "rehandling
facility," as was done for Port
Sonoma-Marin, Leonard Ranch, and
Praxis/Pacheco, rather than as a
"reprocessing facility." The draft EIR/EIS
for the Montezuma project is expected to be
available for public review in May 1993.
2) Table 2.1-4 - Additional Remarks for Montezuma Wetlands
Candidate Site—Please note that the site
is immediately adjacent to an existing deep
water (>18-foot depth) barge access channel
and that no public funds are needed to
bring the site on line.
3) Table 2.1-4 - Project Site Capacity—Please note that the
20-million-cubic-yard figure is for habitat
creation, including some disposal of
sediment unsuitable for uncontained aquatic
disposal (but not "designated" or
"hazardous" sediment) in areas not coming
into biological contact. We are currently
estimating the rehandling facility annual
throughput.
2393\2393DEEP.LTR:FNC 1900 C°we': Stree'. 12:n Floor
» 07 Emeryville. California SAtdb
(5'.0)652-4503
Fax (£ '0j 652-2246
Otne-othces ,n Irvine. CA. Sacramenrc'Vosesihe. CA. rauar.assee :i Honolulu H
-------
LEVINEFRICKE
4) The document presents quantities of sediments planned to
be dredged from the Bay, but does not indicate how much
sediment would be suitable for disposal at the ODMDS.
Nor does it discuss the impacts from chemical
constituents in the disposed sediments that are deemed
suitable by testing under the Ocean Dumping Regulations
("the Green Book"). Therefore, it would be useful to
provide a discussion of the chemical characteristics of
the potential dredged sediments in the context of their
disposal criteria mentioned in Section 4.6.1.
Thank you for your attention to these comments. If you have
any questions, please contact me, Mr. Stuart Siegel, or
Ms. Kim Buchanan at (510) 652-4500.
Sincerely,
2393V23930EEP.LTR:FNC
2
A-88
-------
Exhibit (J)
-AJ- -ijL,
'Marin JAudufion Society Ho^$33 Miff Vattey, Cafifornia 34342-0533
January 25, 1993
VIA FACSIMILE
Harry Seraydarian, Director
Hater Management Division
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
75 Hawthorne street
San Francisco, CA 94105
EE; COMMENTS ON EIS FOR SAN FRANCISCO HAY DEEP WATER DREDGING
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
The Marin Audubon society is very concerned about the potential
for the disposal of dredged material in the ocean to result in
significant destruction. The ocean is a precious resource. The
coaslai waters from Bodega to Monterey Hay are of immense
biological importance providing habitat for resident and
migratory sea bixils and mammals rearing young and/or during long
migrating routes to other habitat areas. The Farallone Islands
are Lhe largest nesting colony of sea birds on the west coast
(outside of Alaska). Fish abound in the highly productive
waters. It is essential that the EPA commit to ensuring that the
ocean disposal does not in any way compromise biological
resources. The deis does not make clear this would occur.
We are particularly concerned about failure to obtain adequate
baseline data on bird and marine mammal use of the preferred
site. The data is not adequate to support a finding that use of
Site 5 would not have significant effects on seabird or marine
mammal populations nor does it provide sufficient baseline data
for comparison of monitoring results. Throughout the EIS, the
value of 5 is minimized and conclusions are drawn that there
would be no significant impacts/ but data to support these
conclusions are insufficient.
Because Site 5 is the closest to the Farallones and has the
highest bird and marine mammal use, we believe it should not be
the preferred disposal alternative, instead, we recommend that
Site 4 be chosen, it is farthest from the Farallones and would
likely have the least impact on breeding populations well as
migrating bird and mammal populations.
Furthermore, the monitoring and site management are not
adequately addressed. A comprehensive monitoring and enforcement
plan should have been provided in the DEIS. Since it is not, we
& Chapter of 9\[ationa[ Audubon Society
A-89
-------
recommend that a Supplemental EIS be prepared to address this and
other deficiencies.
We have the following specific comments:
1. s.l Indicates that this deis has been prepared in
coordination with other components of the LTMS and that an odmds
is required to fulfill the ltms objective of a range of disposal
options for sediments dredged from SF Bay. An ODMDS is but one
piece of the dredging picture. To fulfill the goals of the LTMS
process and develop adequate solutions the dredging and disposal
problem, the issue as a whole needs to be considered, other
disposal options that result in less environmental damage and/or
that could benefit the environment, such as beneficial reuse and
minimization of dredging, should be given equal consideration
with ocean disposal. Considering ocean disposal sites separately
from other options constitutes plecemeallng. it gives greater
weight to ocean disposal if only because it would be easier and
available, it Is also unclear whether consideration of an ocean
disposal site in isolation complies with requirements of section
404 of the Clean water Act and Title 1 of the Marine Protection,
Research and sanctuaries Act, as referred to in para. 2, p. i.i.
2. The first sentence, p. S.2 states that a specific goal of
this Eis is to provide an acceptable ocean disposal site which
will not cause unreasonable degradation of the ocean, what level
of degradation would be consider reasonable and what level
unreasonable?
3. The Response to Selection Criteria 3. indicates that use of
sites will be terminated if at any time it Is determined that
existing disposal sites do not meet the selection criteria, as
soon as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated, in
order to comply with this criterion, a monitoring program that
will ensure compliance with selection criteria should be
developed and an alternate disposal site should be identified,
uoth issues should be addressed in the supplemental EiS. and
approved prior to the disposal of any material.
4. why couldn't Study Area 3 be redefined to exclude the
eastern point that extends into the MBNMS? A major problem with
3 Is that it extends into the MBNMS, however, a simple redesign
could avoid this Impact.
5. Several International Migratory Bird Treaty Acts have been
executed between the U.S. and several countries, including Mexico
and Japan, compliance of the project with these treaties should
be discussed.
6. The basis upon which the LTMS Upland/Reuse work Group ranks
the Montezuma wetlands as a highly feasible marsh restoration
site (p. 2-23) should l^e stated. The Montezuma wetlands is a
project proposed by a private interest group about which numerous
concerns have been raised and on which environmental review has
A-90
-------
not been completed. We have serious question as to whether it is
in the public interest to commit to this as a disposal option
even before completion of environmental- review. We recommend
that it be deleted as an option.
7. it is unclear how compliance with criterion at 4-CFR 228.5(b)
can be determined when there have basically been no baseline
turbidity data gathered.
8. a perceived advantage of Site 5 is that the dredged material
could be used "specifically for burying waste containers" (p. 4-
93). Considering that deposition in the ocean waters results in
corrosion of metal, is there any danger that the containers
holding radioactive materials could be broken open and spread
throughout a wider area by disposal materials? Material that
could pierce or crush containers would undoubtedly be illegal.
However, illegal disposals have occurred at Alcatraz therefore
should be considered a possibility at the ocean site.
9. Would depositions of dredged material with concentrations of
metals and other contaminants higher than on-site levels be
allowed?
10. why were different methods with lower sensitivity allowed
for sediment from Site 5 than other areas, and concentrations of
n-alkaue and many PAHs not analyzed in Area 5 sediments (p. 3-
90)?
11. what part/ if any, did proximity to the Bay, which would make
transport of dredged material less expensive, play in selecting
site 5 as the preferred alternative?
12. The data collected for fish and particularly birds and marine
mammals are disappointingly inadequate. We question how
comparable surveys dune in September and October at Areas 2,3 and
4 as compared to July for Study Area 5. Quite different fish,
birds and mammals could use each site in these different months.
Also, different sampling methods were used for sites 5 and 2
through 4, so that "quantitative comparisons...do not appear
appropriate." Much of the marine bird data were gathered from
surveys that coveted the general vicinity not the specific sites
and we understand that some censusors had to find their own way
to the sites (basically find a boat to hitch a ride on). If EPA
can't even provide funding for transportation to the survey
sites, we have serious doubts that adequate funding for a
monitoring and enforcement program would be provide.
Consistent surveys during all seasons and using uniform methods
should be undertaken prior to issuance of any disposal permit.
Baseline data should Included site specific surveys for species,
movement/migration through the area, and responses to turbidity
plumes. This information should be presented in a Supplemental
A-91
-------
eis. As a result of these data, permit restrictions and
monitoring parameters should be recommended.
13. We object to selection of Alternative Site 5 as the
preferred alternative. The primary reasons given for its choice
are depth and slightly higher seasonal abundance of mldwater fish
and lnfaunal species at sites 3 and 4. we do not find the
information demonstrates a convincing rationale for Site 5. in
fact, it appears just the opposite. Bird and mammal use of 5 is
higher, site 5 Is also closer to the Farallone islands, the
largest seabird nesting colony on the west coast (outside of
Alaska), and has the greatest potential for significant impacts
on marine mammals, seablrds and endangered species. (See further
discussion of biological values below.) it appears to us that
Site 4 has less potential to cause significant biological impacts
and therefore recommend Site 4 as the preferred alternative.
14. The information provided does not support a finding of no
significant impact on seablrds, marine mammals and endangered
species. For many species, the h'arallones breeding population is
a significant percentage of the world population, in addition,
masses of marine birds pass through the area on route to other
areas depending on productive waters to sustain them on their
journey. The area is an important movement corridor for marine
mammals. Disposal of dredged material will impact presence of
prey and the visibility of prey items. Turbid plumes could have
a significant effect on nesting sea birds, particularly during El
Nino years when fish populations are down, if they have to travel
further from breeding sites to forage. Populations of many
species are already low due to gill netting and el Nino. The
DEIS should recommend seasonal limitations to minimize adverse
impacts on Farallone breeding populations.
15. The discussion of potential effects on endangered and other
special status species is deficient. The first para. 3.3.6.1 p.
3-225 indicates that any critical habitat of candidate,
threatened or endangered species that may be impacted by dredged
material disposed within the study areas was submitted to the
USFWS and other agencies as required by the Endangered Species
Act.. This Information should also be provided in the
Supplemental EXS.
16. statements that the number of observations of certain
special status species has been minimal is misleading. If these
species were observed In great numbers they would not need to
have special classification, it appears that certain of the
sites are important for movement of endangered, rare and special
status species. However, the discussion does not provide clear
or consistent data about their use. For example, HumpbacK whales
were observed 'in the study region' from March through January
with greatest concentrations mid-August through October; Blue
whales occur 'in the Farallone Basin' in summer and fall, no
A-92
4
-------
location. The discussion Is not very clear about the location of
the sightings. A figure showing the locations of sightings of
rare, endangered and threatened species should be included, in
addition, the DEIS should recommend seasonal restrictions to
avoid impacts to endangered, rare and threatened species.
17. The potential adverse Impacts of the movement of turbid
plumes is a great concern. "Effects on water quality from
dredged material disposal at the preferred alternative site are
considered a Class III potential Impacts because plumes are
expected to disperse within 46 hours of discharge...changes to
water quality parameters... are expected to be transient and
localized within the discharge plume." (p. 4-35) Impacts of
decreased light penetration reducing primary productivity is
similarly minimized: on p. 4-48, the statement is made that
effects would only last a few hours until plume dissipated (p. 4-
48). Minimization of impacts occurs throughout the DEIS and It
may be valid if there would only be rare, isolated disposal
events. However, we are talking about the annual disposal of 6
million cubic yards of material, and 400,600,000 cubic yards
disposed over 50-years. Vague references are made to discharges
every 12 hours, there are, In fact, no restrictions recommended
on timing or frequency of disposal events.
16. Considering the complexity of the currents, the Inadequacy
of data collected on suspended solids at disposal sites, and the
lack of information on the effect of turbidity on foraging fish,
birds and marine mammals, it 6eems that the potential for
significant adverse impacts on food chain species including
seablrds and mammals is very real and cannot be considered
insignificant. Great plumes of clay-silt material could be
transported about depending on currents at any given periods and
the amount of material dumped and the frequency of dumping.
Massive plumes could destroy food chain species, cause prey
species to move, inhibit or prevent foraging activities, destroy
prey species and eliminate large areas from foraging or migration
habitats, increased noise interference would be an additional
impact on marine mammals which could have to change migration or
movement course, primary productivity reduced and prey items
would be reduced or destroyed.
19. Baseline data adequate to assess Impacts of turbidity on the
movement and foraging of fish, seablrds and marine mammals should
be obtained and presented for public review in the Supplemental
E1S. Seasonal restrictions to avoid migrating and breeding as
well as endangered species, and timing restrictions to avoid
great numbers of plumes be transported for days over large areas
should be recommended.
20. The DEIS also minimizes impacts on lnfaunal organisms. On p.
4-54 and in other discussions, high recolonlzatlon rates within
six months are predicted. However, if disposals events are
A-93
5
-------
repeated and frequent there would not be opportunity for
recolonlzatlon. Also, discussion p. 4-55 states that disposal
"would result In most of the dredged material footprint being
less than 10 cm thick." P. 4-51 para, one, indicates that as
little as 5 cm coverage can result In significant mortality of
the buried species." localized impacts on taxonomlc composition,
density and biomass of epifauna could, therefore, be significant.
21. In addition to inadvertent discharges or overflow from
barges into Marine Sanctuaries, there Is potential for
intentional dumping violations. This has occurred at Alcatras
and other parts of San Francisco Bay, why wouldn't it occur in
the middle of ocean? Simply specifying a specific transit route
as suggested would not be sufficient mitigation.
22. Use of sites 3 through 5 by albatross should be discussed.
These are also a species of particular interest of naturalist
tours focusing on birds.
23. A Monitoring Program should have been developed and
presented for public review in this DEIS. It is* essential that a
thorough and effective program to monitor both biological and
physical impacts be required. The monitoring discussion pp. 4-90
to 4-92 is inadequate, indicating only that the general items
listed "may" be assessed. Thorough monitoring and enforcement
programs should be ln-place prior to the disposal of any dredged
material and should be presented for review in the Supplemental
EIS. At minimum, the monitoring program should be designed to:
track turbidity changes and movement of turbid clouds.
While it is understandable that the areas of concern are the
Marine sanctuaries, significant damage to ocean resources could
occur with movement deposition of sediment at other locations.
Size, persistence and movement of the plumes according to
currents as they vary according to seasons must be documented.
- identify impacts on the movement and feeding patterns of fish,
marine mammals and seabirds with particular attention to
endangered threatened and candidate species, impacts could
disrupt migration and foraging patterns for fish, birds and
marine mammals and cause significant loss of foraging area. Loss
of foraging habitat close to the Farallones is a particular
concern particularly during years when fish populations are low.
- determine the amount of bottom sediment deposited and the rate
and amount of smothering of benthic organisms and the destruction
of plankton and disruption of planktonlc patterns.
- determine increases in contaminant levels of sediments at
disposal site and/or other locations of sediment deposition.
- identify disposal events outside of Intended site, at the
A-94
6
-------
chosen site and anywhere along the route to the dump site.
In addition,
- monitoring methods that are most effective should be utilized.
Sediment and current meters should be ln-place; on-board
observer-experts in marine mammals and bird identification should
be on-board disposal vessels; and other means, such as satellites
if necessary, to determine the movement of turbid plumes and
their effect on marine species should also be in place.
cost of monitoring should be borne by dredgers.
a schedule that assures regular adequate review and assessment
of all monitoring results should be developed and adopted. The
program should also ensure compliance with selection criteria.
Review of the data at least every year or two, or on an as-needed
basis should be required.
responsibility fur monitoring should be delegated to an agency
with a primary interest in biological resources, such as the Gulf
of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary,
24. An enforcement plan that assures prompt action on violations
should be developed and adopted. It should include speedy
imposition of substantial fines that would serve as a deterrent
to violations, and the ability to revise permits to remedy or
avoid adverse impacts that are occurring.
25. An advisory committee should be appointed to review
monitoring results and recommend revisions to monitoring and to
permits. Committee should include members of wildlife agencies,
Marine Sanctuaries, and interested environmental organizations.
26. The EIS should recommend permit restrictions to minimize or
avoid adverse Impacts prior to issuance of any permits.
Restricting permits should not wait until there is evidence of
significant adverse effects. We are particularly concerned that
the frequency of disposals be restricted to minimize impacts, and
that timing be limited to avoid breeding and migration seasons
and to reduce the potential for transport. If there evidence
after adequate monitoring that plumes are not causing adverse
effects on the marine species, restrictions can be listed.
Thank you for considering our comments.
fiaroara SjaTnhdn v
for th^Conservatlon Committee
?
A-95
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-96
-------
THF
MMUNE
MAMMAL
CENTER
Exhibit
©
A
Marin Headlands
Golden Gate
National
Recreation Area
Sausalito,
California 94965
(415) 289-SEAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Rgigin C Barrerr
board of directors
Jerry GiDDons Cr>oif
Pov EisenhorOT
Aso Honomolc
Kevin O'farreli
CarcH Read
Joseph W Rogers
Dt Frarxk Tatoot (Honorary)
Beverly F Tanner
Rooert j Wilson
Alan Young
John Zrvnusko
BOARD Of
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS
So ran Aden
Murray Dodey PhD
teste Dteraul VMD
Deoorcn Duftieia PhD
Murrov Fowler DVM
Joseoh R Geraci, PhD
linao lowenstrne DVM
Hoi Marnowitz PhD
Leo Ortiz PhD
Dtano Reus. PhD
J Pete Schioeoer. DVM
Neyion vearos. PhD
Tom Williams DVM
COMMUNITY BOARD
OF ADVISORS
William R Beech
Jeffrey Bingham
Walter A Connotty
Artnur & Eteno Court
Michoei B Demetrtos
Susan Douglas
Joe & Faiejayk
Howora Fteias
Gary Gtovonm
Potrico Heaiy
Don Houhtaias
Joan jocooson
Wilbam Keener
Dennis Lee
Michoel Newman
Peter O'Hara
Susan SoCnn Pease
Walter Ryce Jr
Dennis Scnever
George Sumner
Fran Zone
yf ''^4 ^3 "'2
[r ^arry Seraydarian
21 January, 1993
Mr ^
Director, Water Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1),
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr Seraydarian,
We arc responding to the call for comments on the EPA DEIS for
San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation.
The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC) is a non-profit wildlife facility that
rescues, rehabilitates and returns to the wild distressed marine mammals
along 1000 miles of California coastline. Founded in 1975, TMMC now
has over 30,000 members and donors nationwide. TMMC promotes public
9
awareness and furthers scientific knowledge of marine mammals.
There are a number of issues requiring clarification that arise from
the draft impact statement, both regarding marine mammals specifically as
well as some general comments. There are several issues pertaining to
potential impact on marine mammals that we would like to address.
Additional detailed research into these matters would be warranted prior to
initiating a dredging and dumping program.
1. Dredge barge activities may be prolonged (time to reach dump site
and complete dumping) and frequent (up to twice a day, p. 3-259), causing
potential disruption of foraging and other habits in the area of the dump site
(section 4.2.2.6). With Alternative Site 5, this could be very intrusive for
northern fur seals, a depleted species that favors the area over the
continental slope and rise (pp. 3-218,3-229), as well as many of the
cetacean species. Any disturbance caused by dumping activities would
contravene the regulations set out under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA).
2. The increased turbidity of the water (section 4.2.1.3 & p.4-31)
may affect foraging success as well as prey species abundance (p. 4-57).
All the Alternative Sites are areas with juvenile rockfish and other prey
species (section 3.3.3), which are expected to be affected by the dumping.
This in turn will have effects on their pinniped and cetacean predators. In an
El Nino year (such as 1991-92 and now 1993), already depleted fish stocks
1
A-97
Printed on recycled paper
-------
MAsRINE
MAMMAL
CENTER
Jl
Marin Headlands
Golden Gate
National
Recreation Area
Sausalito.
California 94965
(415) 289-SEAL
may not withstand the regime changes brought on by dumping (particularly
juvenile fish). This may also have a detrimental effect on the marine
mammal populations.
3. The foraging habits of many pinnipeds and cetaceans have not
been fully described There are suggestions that adult male elephant seals
feed at depth (p. 3-216) and may graze benthic communities in all the
proposed sites. This may also be true for several cetacean species. The
bioaccumulation of heavy metals and other substances from the dredging
spoils could have serious consequences for the health and survival of
marine mammal species.
4. Marine mammals may not be impacted in a manner identical to
potential effects on seabirds (pp. 4-60 & 4-79-4-81). They have different
*
foraging habits and habitat requirements, which have not been fully
investigated.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
fteigrn C Barrett
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
jeny GiDDons Cho»
Gov Eisennarat
Aso Hanamoto
Kevin O Porre"
Carol Reaa
joseoh W Rogers
Di Fran* ToiDOf (Honorary)
Beverly F Tanner
RoDert J Wilson
Alan Young
Jonn Zwncsko
BOARD OF
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS
Sarah AHen
Murray Doiley PhD
leshe Dierauf VMD
Deooran Duffiekj PhD
Murray Fowler DVM
Joseon R Gerao PhD
Unao Lowensiine DVM
Hal Markowitz PhD
Leo Ortiz PhD
Diana Reiss PhD
J Pete Scrvoeoer. DVM
Nevian Vearos PhD
Torn Wilbams. DVM
COMMUNITY BOARD
OF ADVISORS
Wiiijam R Beech
jetttev Bingham
Walter A Connolly
Arthur & Eteno Court
Michae' B Demetrros
Susan Douglas
Joe & Liz Fotejcjvk
howara Ftekss
Gey Giovanrn
Ftotrico Heoty
Dan Hountatos
Joan Jacobson
Wiibom Keener
Dennis Lee
Michael Newman
Aster OHoro
Susan SoDin Pease
Wafter Ryce Jr
Denms Scnever
George Sumner
Fran Zone
©
In addition to our specific comments regarding marine mammals,
there are also some general concerns about the proposed dumping sites.
5. Most of the modelling of the dumping effects has been derived
from shallow site extrapolation (pp. 4-2 & 4-7). There is no evidence that
deeper water dumping will act in the assumed ways. There should be more
systematic investigation of sediment dynamics at depth (and current patterns
in the specific site) prior to dumping (p. 4-37).
6. The geology of the preferred Alternative Site 5 suggests, although
this has not been a major focus, the widespread presence of submarine
canyons. In addition, there is strong indication of turbidity flows (section
3.2.5.1 & p. 3-114), and subsequent resuspension of fine silt and clay
sediments (p. 3-31 & section 4.2.1.2). There are also old munitions
deposits in the general area (as yet undisclosed - p. 2-37 - and probably
shifted by currents and other activities). The erosive action of turbidity
currents could be disastrous in connection with dumping of chemicals and
munitions (pp. 3-8-3.13). The proposed volume of sediment could easily
cause destabilization and slumping, with turbidity flows to deeper waters.
In turn, this could spread dredged sediments over a much wider area than
proposed. This could combine with a nepheloid layer to impact a larger site
and more benthic communities than suggested (p. 4-14). In fact, there is
2
A-98
Printeo on recycled paoei
-------
THE
MMUNE
MAMMAL
CENTER
Jl
Marin Headlands
i
Golden Gate
National
Recreation Area
Sausalito.
California 94965
(415) 289-SEAl
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Aeigin C Barrett
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Jerry GiDaorti Chair
Rov Eisennordt
A$o Honomoto
Kevin O Farren
Carol Reac
Joseph w Ropers
Dr Frank Toloot (Honorory)
Beverly F fanner
Robert J Wilson
Alan Young
Jonn 2ivnusK0
BOARD OP
SCIENTIFC ADVISORS
Sarah Aden
Murray Dailev PhD
Leslie Dterauf VMD
Deborah Duffield PhD
Murray Fowter DVM
Joseph I? Geroci PhD
Linao lowensnne DVM
Hal Markowitz, PhD
Leo Ortiz PhD
Otana Reiss PhD
J Rete Schroeaer. DVM
Neyton vearos PhD
Tom Williams. DVM
COMMUNITY BOARD
OF ADVISORS
William R Beech
Jeffrey Bingham
Waiter A Connolly
Artnur & Eleno Court
Micnoei B Demetrios
Susan Dougtos
Joe & Liz Faiejczyk
Howara Fteias
Gary Govarxm
ft3trtcio Healy
Don Hountalas
Joan jacoDson
William Keener
Dennis Lee
Michcet Newman
Reter o Hara
Susan SoDm tease
Waiter Rvce Ji
Denms Scheyer
George Sumner
Fran Zone
©
Printea on recyciea paper
insufficient discussion of the impact on the area covered by dumped
sediment, which is anticipated to be significantly larger than the apparent
dumping site (p. 4-45).
7. While there has been some analysis of the sediments in the
Alternative Sites (section 3.2.5.4), there is no documentation regarding
specific analysis of the proposed dredge sediment components (p. 3-17). As
with many dredge sites, San Francisco Bay has an accumulation of heavy
metals, hydrocarbons and agricultural compounds (e.g. chlorinated
pesticides and PCBs) from drainage and commercial activities around the
Bay. Alternative Site 5, for example, already shows a relatively higher
concentration of heavy metals, such as mercury (Table 3.2-6); this is
probably a result of sediment accumulation in submarine canyons, gradually
working away from the coastal areas. It seems unwise to add to an already
slightly elevated concentration of heavy metals and other substances (e.g.
lindane) by dumping dredging spoils.
8. Alternative Site 5 is over the continental rise and in an area of
frontal activity (p. 3-74) and productivity (pp. 2-34 & 2-40), hence the
abundance of juvenile fishes and marine mammal predators (pp. 3-191 & 3-
213). Dumping in this area would impact local productivity and could have
wider effects up the food chain.
9. All of the Alternative Sites have an abundance of benthic [ ^
invertebrates (section 3.3.2). The preferred site has a number of unique
characteristics, including the only sponge species found in the proposed
sites (p. 3-105), as well as a number of species known only for that site (p.
3-134). On page 3-114, a natural disturbance is mentioned, as well as its
subsequent effect, decreasing species diversity and density. This
disturbance was similar to the effect of dumping, but much smaller in
impact; the dumping could have a much larger effect than anticipated on the
benthic community (both in the site and nearby) (sections 4.2.2.2,4.4.1.3.
& 4.4.2).
10. El Nino conditions occur sporadically, every 2 to 8 years on
average; they are found in conjunction with decreased or suspended
upwelling (sections 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.7, 3.2.2.8 & 4.2.1.2). In a severe year,
this may result in some sediment moving eastward into the marine
sanctuaries near all the proposed sites (p. 4-20).
3
A-99
-------
THE
MARINE
MAMMAL
CENTER
Jl
Marin Headlands
Golden Gate
National
Recreation Area
Sausalito.
California 94965
(415) 289-SEAL
EXECUTIVE DiRECTOU
Rsigm C Barren
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Jerry GiDOOas Cnou
Qo) Eisenno'O*
Aso Honomoto
Kevin O Forrefi
Caro1 Reoa
joseon w Rogers
Dr Froru Toioo' (Honorary)
Beverly F Tonner
Pooet j Witson
Alon Young
Jonn Zivnusko
BOARD OF
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS
Soran Alien
Murrov Do'iey PhD
Leslie Dierauf. VMD
Deborah Duff«ta PhD
Murray Fowler DVM
Joseph R Getao PhD
Linaa Lowensfine DVM
Hcl MarkowitZ PhD
Leo Ortiz PhD
Diana Reus PhD
J Ftete Schroeaer DVM
Neytan vearos PhD
Tom Williams. DVM
COMMUNITY BOARD
OF ADVISORS
William k Beech
Jeffrey Btngnom
Waite' A Connoflv
Arthur & Elena Court
Mjchoei B Demetrros
Susan Dougias
Joe & Liz Fatejczyk
Howara Fteias
Gary Gtovanm
PcTrico Heoiy
Dan Hountaos
Joan Jacobson
Wtlham Keener
Dennis Lee
Michael Newmon
Reter O Horo
Suson Soon ftease
Walter Ryce Jr
Denrus Schever
George Sumner
Fran 2one
©
11. The potential problems with monitoring deep water sites are
very important considerations (section 3.1.4.2). In particular, there are
insufficient provisions made regarding this study with respect to Alternative
Site 5, the deepest of the proposed sites (p. 2-36). Unless there are definite
plans and methods for conducting appropriate monitoring (section 4.6.2),
dumping is not advisable. Litde is known about the system prior to
dumping (re: biology, chemistry, geology and physics), so predictions
about consequences are not necessarily accurate. With incomplete
preliminary data, monitoring after dumping would be poor science and
potentially disastrous. The Marine Mammal Center opposes any disturbance
that cannot be appropriately monitored.
12. Why is the proposed volume of dredging increasing (section
1.2)? San Francisco Bay is very shallow on average, due to the dynamics of
the system and previous human disturbances. None of the dredged sites will
be sustainable without continued dredging (p. 1-6). How feasible is the
continued existence of the Oakland and Sacramento ports in the face of
perpetual dredging? There is surely no need to dredge new channels for
recreational reasons (p. 1-6), considering the expense and potential oceanic
impact of such activities. And the proposed increase in water coming into
the delta (through a decrease in water allocation to agriculture) will mean an
increase in the sedimentation rate in the Bay. On an economic note, this
seems like a short-sighted solution to a rather monolithic problem.
13. The risk of barge accidents in the region of the Farallon Islands
is a problem (pp. 2-28 & 3-259). Routing barge traffic well clear of the
sensitive areas may not be practical or enforceable.
There seems to be a need for additional research on a number of
these aspects of dumping. We appreciate the amount of work that has gone
into the environmental impact statement to date, but this proposal has wide-
ranging implications that require more study before the plan is implemented.
Dumping on land does not have the potential to hold the amounts of material
proposed, and the deep water Alternative Sites do not seem appropriate
based upon the information thus far. We are particularly concerned with the
potential biological impact of the dumping, and concur with the comments
made by PRBO on this matter (1/15/93). Adequate monitoring is essential to
4
A-100
Pnntea on recycled Daoer
-------
THE
MARINE
MAMMAL
CENTER
ML
Marin Headlands
Golden Gate
National
Recreation Area
Sausalito,
California 94965
(415) 289-SEAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PetgjnC Borrett
BOARD Of DJr?£CTOR5
Jerry GiDDons Cnoif
Roy Eisenharc!
Asa Hanomoto
Kevin O'Farreil
Carol Reaa
Joseph w Rogers
Dr Fraru TaiDOt (Honorary)
Beverly F Tanner
Rooert J Wilson
Aran \fcung
JOJin Zivnusno
BOARD Of
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS
Saroh Alien
Murray Doiiey PhD
Lesne Dieraut vmd
DeDorah Duffieta PhD
Murray fowler, DVM
Josepn R Geraci PhD
linaa loweraime DVM
Hal MorkowiU PnD
Leo Ortiz PhD
DtanoRetss PhD
J Pete Schroeaer. DVM
Neytan vearos PhD
Tom Wilhoms DVM
COMMUNITY BOARD
Of ADVISORS
William R Beech
Jeffrey Bingham
Wafter A Connolly
Arthur & Eleno Court
Michael B Demetnos
Susan Douglas
Joe & lu Faiejczvk
Howora fietas
Gary Giovanni
Patrtcio Heaiy
Don HountaJas
Joan Jacooson
William Keener
Dennis lee
Michael Newman
PBter O'Hcro
Susan Soo
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-102
-------
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Metro Center, Suite 420 ^fab
CHAIRMAN . . /—-v 2000 SW First Avenue EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Philip Anderson Exhibit (iij Portland, Oregon 97201 Lawrence D. Six
Telephone: (503) 326-6352
January 22, 1993
Mi. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorn Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
The Pacific Fishery Management Council has been following the Long-Term Management Strategy
(LTMS) established to select an ocean dump site for dredge spoils from San Francisco Bay. The
Council considers attention to this activity an important part of its directives under the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The directives include development and monitoring of
management plans for fisheries within 3 to 200 miles off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and
California, as well as concern for fishery habitat.
The Council agrees with the selection of "Site 5" as the preferred alternative in the "Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal
Designation" (DEIS). This site appears to be the most likely one to avoid any net loss of the
productive capacity of the marine and estuarine environment which sustains commercial and
recreational fisheries. However, the Council is troubled by the lack of a scientific monitoring plan
in the DEIS to determine the actual impacts of dumping at the site. It is our understanding that a
monitoring program will be included in the final EIS.
The Council believes that a scientific monitoring program is necessary for the dump site and that
there must be opportunity for comment on the program prior to its final adoption. Under the
authority of 16 USC 1852 (i)(2), the Council requests your agency to apprise us of your intentions
with regard to providing for public input into the development of a monitoring program. (16 USC
1852 (i)(2) states that: "Within 45 days after receiving a comment or recommendation under
paragraph (1) from a Council, a Federal agency shall provide a detailed response, in writing, to the
Council regarding the matter. . ." )
In addition to our concern about a monitoring program for materials dumped at the site, the Council
is also concerned that provision be made for monitoring and enforcing compliance with dumping
materials at the site and not in other unauthorized areas. Absent such monitoring and enforcement,
significant habitat damage may occur.
A-103
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
January 22, 1993
Page 2
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the deposition of dredged materials from San
Francisco Bay. We look forward to your response to our concerns. If you have any questions with
regard to our comments, please contact Mr. John Coon of the Council staff (503/326-6352).
Lawrence D. Six
Executive Director
JCC:
cc: NMFS, SW Region
Boyd Gibbons
Habitat Committee
A-104
-------
Exhibit { 28
r
US aiu1 Wildlife Si-rviu'
. raUmiArin Field Station
I dini Roves Bird Observatory
iv ri knat iona i utoi
-------
seasonality of occurrence and the ecological needs of various organisms. In terms of
mid-water prey, some sort of mooring, with upward looking hydroacoustic and turbidity
monitoring capabilities would be in order. If marked responses by organisms are shown
this might necessitate certain monitoring programs be instituted (e.g. if a change in
seabird diet becomes a possibility, due to change in prey behavior, then perhaps diet
monitoring).
3. Samples should be collected regularly from the Farallones to monitor bioaccumulation
of contaminants (heavy metals, pesticides and organochlorines). Samples would include
mus?e!s (Mytilus) and bird eggs from several species (Western Guii, Cassin's Auklet,
Rhino Auklet & perhaps Common Murre and Ashy Storm-Petrel, if enough eggs can be
found). Analyses should be run regularly by EPA and other labs; collaboration with
NOAA's "Status and Trends" program, in which contaminants in the marine system are
monitored (though not near the Farallones), may be fruitful. If contaminants are found
this program should be expanded to include more intensive studies of the food web.
Perhaps some benthic organisms, as well, should be sampled from the disposal site (e.g.
sole).
4. Finally, a naturalist should be assigned to the barges at regular intervals in order to
record responses to disposal events and to chronicle any changes in bird/mammal use
of the area (indicators of changes in mid-water organisms as well; changes in abundance
of benthic organisms would be indicated by changes in elephant seal use of the area).
Trends, rather than a baseline "snapshot" (much more expensive over the long run),
would be more sensitive and would better reveal alterations in habitat use/occurrence
patterns of birds/mammals.
We look forward to working with you more as the management and monitoring
programs begin to take shape.
Sincerely yours,
David G. Ainley PhD
Director, Marine Studies
LTMS Study Group Member
A-106
-------
Farallon Island Station
In Cooperation with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
international biological research
Palomann Field Station
Point Reves Bird Observatory
''9?
January 15, 1993
Board of Directors
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
John H. Jacobs
Chairman
Dix Boring
Vice Chairman
Patricia Klitgaard
Vice Chairman &
Secretary
Ann Stone
Vice Chairman
Alexander R. Imlay
Treasurer
Theodore L. Eliot, Jr.
Past Chairman
lohn Da kin
Susan Flora
John Harte, PhD
Richard C. Honey
Bruce Howard
Robert E. Hunter
John L. lones
Graham B. Moody
Patrick O'Brien, PhD
C. John Ralph, PhD
Benson B. Roe, MD
John T. Rotenberry, PhD
Mary W. Thacher
Executive Director
Daniel C. Evans, PhD
RE: Comments regarding the EPA DEIS for deep water dredge material
disposal - recommendations for a marine monitoring program to
include the principal vertebrates of the area, including seabirds,
pinnipeds, and cetaceans.
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
We are responding to your call for comments on the DEIS for San
Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. We
made extensive comments on a preliminary version of the Draft. Many of our
criticisms were addressed. We appreciate that, in large part, our comments
were taken seriously.
The DEIS continues to view the importance of endangered, threatened
and depleted bird and pinniped species relative to their PRESENT abundance.
That is, the tone of the DEIS dismisses any potential impacts on them because
these species are presently rare. The DEIS does not qualify its statements
regarding efforts to detect these species' use of the disposal sites; the EPA-
funaed preliminary studies were, at best, minimal. Thus, the DEIS tone
disregards the historical population size of these species and the recovery
plans that have been devised for each.
Considering the high natural productivity and biological significance of
the proposed dump site, which led to the creation of the Gulf of the Fara-
llones National Marine Sanctuary immediately to the east, the potential impact
on the diverse vertebrate animals found in the area should be considered. It is
our recommendation that a regular monitoring program be established to v
determine the impact of the proposed dumping and to better understand the (^)
movements and feeding strategies of seabird, cetaceans, and pinnipeds in the
area. The dumping of dredged materials will potentially have a major impact
on water quality in the area, principally water clarity, which could affect the
prey species of the vertebrate marine organisms in the area, or potentially
affect the predators' ability to capture their usual prey if visibility is reduced.
A-107
Arctic Alaska Antarctic Eastern Pacific Ocean All Western States Mexico Mono Lake
4990 SHORELINE HIGHWAY, STINSON BEACH, CA 94970-9701 TEL. (415) 868-1221 FAX (415) 868-1946
Kecvcled Paper ^
-------
2.
Our specific recommendation is that EPA should require the
development and initiation of a monitoring program PRIOR to the actual
dumping of dredged materials to evaluate the ecological impacts and
consequences of dredged material disposal at sea. This is especially important
considering the sensitive nature of the marine environment, and the many
seabirds, cetaceans, and pinnipeds that depend upon the waters of the entire
region. The elements of the disposal site monitoring program should evaluate
all the aspects indicated on pages 3-19 and 20 of the DEIS, and should also
include vertebrate species in the area as well.
Many of the marine vertebrates potentially affected by the proposed at-
sea dumping of dredge materials are currently at historical lows in their
populations due to a variety of unnatural disturbances. At-sea dumping adds
one more factor to the environment that these species must cope with. The
long term protection of our marine mammals and seabirds requires constant
vigilance to insure the increase of these already decimated populations.
Therefore, the least that should be done is establish a regular monitoring of
the species in the area, throughout the year, to assure that no adverse impacts
occur. This is especially important since the size and nature of the plume,
slated to last 50 years, in still unknown.
This issue was addressed in a previous letter to J. Y. Hashimoto, Chief
of the Maine Protection Section. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your
information. I hope these comments will be adequately addressed in the final
Environmental Impact Statement and that the recommendations will be
adopted as a condition for at-sea dumping of dredge spoils.
Daniel Evans, Ph.D.
Executive Director
cc: J.R. Raives, California Coastal Commission
A-108
-------
Exhibit
©
LSSsf'1
PORT OF OAKLAND
January 25, 1993
fn i/j 7
Mr. Harry Seraydafxan, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DEIS FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY DEEP WATER DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation. We applaud the quality of the scientific work that supports this
study and its conclusions. We appreciate and support EPA's very thorough and
timely effort to develop an ocean disposal site for dredged material.
The maritime industry plays an important role in the Bay Area economy. It
directly generates 100,000 jobs and generates $5.4 billion in annual economic
benefits. The development of an array of environmentally sound and affordable
disposal options is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of the Bay area's
maritime industry. The designation of an ocean disposal site is a crucial step
in development of the long term management strategy for dredged material
disposal.
The draft document states that a monitoring program will be developed to monitor
disposal at the site and its impacts. We concur that monitoring is appropriate,
and recommend that the monitoring program include transport of material to the
disposal site. The program to be developed should also indicate how the
monitoring program will be funded and implemented. The monitoring program should
be made available for public review and comment, perhaps through the Final EIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
-g
'/James McGrath
v/ Environmental Manager
JM/JZ
c:\wp51\files\ltms\ocean.eis
A-109
530 Water Street ¦ Jack London's Waterfront ¦ P.O. Box 2064 ¦ Oakland, California 94604-2064
Telephone (510)272-1100 ¦ Fax (510)272-1172 ¦ Cable address, PORTOFOAK, Oakland
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-110
-------
Exhibit
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
MICHAEL P HUERTA
Executive Director
Ferry Builamg
San Francisco. CA 94111
Telepnone 115 274 0401
Telex 275940 PSF UR
Fax 415 274 0528
January 22, 1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
Director
Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-71-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: DEIS For San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
Your office is commended for the comprehensive technical analysis in the Draft EIS on
the deep water dredge disposal site designation for San Francisco Bay. The range of
alternatives and the completeness of the environmental analysis will allow selection of
an environmentally sound alternative.
The Port of San Francisco, as a member of the Long Term Management Strategy
(LTMS) Implementation Committee, is concerned that discussions of feasibility of an
ocean disposal site have not included analyses of a monitoring program and
associated costs. The feasibility of use of the ocean disposal site will ultimately depend
on cost. The outcome of the LTMS and ability of users to access the alterative
disposal sites (upland, ocean, in-bay) could be directly impacted by decisions made
as a result of this EIS.
A- 111
-------
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
January 22, 1993
page 2
The implementation of a monitoring program for use of the disposal site should be
addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Implementing the
feasibility of a monitoring program will depend on the costs of the monitoring and on
the availability of funds to conduct the monitoring. In addition, development of a
monitoring program itself will also have associated costs. If the EPA is unprepared to
absorb these development costs the Port of San Francisco offers support in seeking
the necessary funding authority to develop the ocean disposal monitoring program for
the selected site.
The FEIS should discuss in greater detail the required elements of a monitoring
program and present an overview of mechanisms to implement the monitoring
program. Further decisions on a monitoring program should take place in the context
of the LTMS implementation discussion currently underway. Using the LTMS process
will help to resolve questions regarding the choice of implementation mechanisms for
an ocean disposal monitoring program. These discussions and decisions are too far-
reaching and complex to take place in the forum provided in the review of this DEIS.
The Port of San Francisco looks forward to the completion of the FEIS for the ocean
disposal site designation and the discussions to follow in the LTMS process.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Uuerta
Executive Director
MPH/TJ/I-KARENP4
A-112
-------
JAN-15-'93 FRI 17:12 ID:SC BAY CNSRUTN & DEU TEL NO:904 54003CCCKNNNNhWN tt863 P03
Exhibit Q
STATEOFajUFORNU^mnLSatLSSSM
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THIRTY VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2011
SAN FRANCESCO, CALIFORNIA 041024080
PHONE: (41S) 657-9660
January 15,1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, California 94105
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for San Francisco Bay Deep
Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation (December,
1992) Inquiry File Nos. MC.MC.7415.20 & MC.MC.7402306;
Planning File: LTMS, Ocean Studies
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
I am writing in regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation, published
December 1992, and issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX
(USEPA). The subject DEIS analyzes potential impacts associated with several options
for an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) to receive material dredged
from San Francisco Bay, including a "No-Action" alternative, and identifies Alternative
Site 5, located in deep water 57 statute miles off the coast, as the preferred alternative
The staff of the San Francisco Conservation and Development Commission
(Commission) has reviewed the subject DEIS, and is submitting comments regarding
the document, based on the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), McAteer-
Petris Act and the Commission's San Francisco Bay Plan.
Although die ODMDS alternatives under consideration are located outside of
the Commission's permit Jurisdiction/1 am commenting on the DEIS because the
development and designation of alternatives to existing disposal sites for material
dredged from the San Francisco Bay is of tremendous importance to the Commission
and the region. The Commission staff commends USEPA's efforts to evaluate the
possible designation of an acceptable ocean disposal site. We find the DEIS to be a
thorough and well written document that should serve as a sound basis for the
designation of an environmentally acceptable ocean site for disposal of Bay material.
Jurisdiction
Under the McAteer-Petris Act the Commission's area of jurisdiction includes
all parts of the Bay subject to tidal action. Commission permits are required for projects
proposed within its area of jurisdiction including dredging and disposal activities; the
issuance of such permits occurs if the Commission finds activities to be consistent with
A-113
-------
JAN-15-'93 FRI 17:13 ID:SC BAY CNSRUTN t> DEU TEL NO:904 54003CCCNNNNNNNN tt863 P04
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
January 15,1993
Page 2
the McAteer-Petris Act and the policies and findings of the San Francisco Bay Plan. In
addition to any needed permits, federal activities that affect the Commission's
jurisdiction are subject to consistency review by the Commission, pursuant to the
federal CZMA, for their consistency with the Commission's federally-approved coastal
management program, including the McAteer-Petris Act and the policies and findings
of the San Francisco Bay Plan. The proposed ODMDS are well outside the Commission's
jurisdiction and thus will not require Commission permit and/or consistency review or
certification. The DEIS correctly states that the California Coastal Commission would
review any necessary consistency determinations for ocean disposal.
However, dredging projects in the Bay, for which an ODMDS would be
proposed for use as a dredged material disposal site, would require permit and/or
federal consistency review by the Commission. Section 2.1.3.1 of the DEIS addresses San
Francisco Bay disposal alternatives and discusses regulation of such projects, but does
not mention the Commission. We request that the DEIS be amended to note the
Commission's regulation of the siting and use of in-Bay sites for the disposal of dredged
material. We further request that the DEIS briefly state the preference in the
Commission's Bay Plan dredging policies (see attached copy) for ocean or upland
disposal and reuse of dredged material, as discussed below, and note that the
Commission has also adopted the volume targets for in-Bay disposal.
Commission Dredging Policy
As stated in the Dredging Findings and Policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan
(attached), regular dredging of San Francisco Bay is essential to the economic and sodal
welfare of the San Francisco Bay region, but the capacity of existing dredged material
disposal sites is limited and in-Bay disposal activities may have adverse impacts on the
Bay's natural resources. Therefore, in regulating these activities, the Commission shall
take particular steps to ensure that these are managed in an economically- and
environmentally-sound manner.
The Bay Plan '$ Dredging Policies No. 2,4, and 5 state the Commission's
preference for disposal of material from dredging projects at non-tidal sites (preferably
for beneficial uses) or ocean sites. As discussed in the DEIS, non-tidal and ocean
disposal sites are presently scarce or non-existent, and the designation of an ODMDS
will help provide environmentally and economically sound alternatives to in-Bay
disposal, thus increasing the Commission's ability to carry out its regulatory
responsibilities under its law and policies. Designation of an appropriate ocean disposal
site is consistent with Bay Plan Dredging Policy No. 4 which states:
To ensure adequate capacity for necessary Bay dredging projects and to
protect Bay natural resources, acceptable non-tidal disposal sites should
be secured and ocean disposal sites designated. Further, disposal
A-114
-------
JAN-15-'93 FRI 17:14 ID:SC BAY CNSRUTN t> DEU TEL NO:904 54003CCCNNNNNNNN 8863 P05
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
January 15,1993
Page 3
projects should maximize use of dredged material as a resource, such as
creating, enhancing, or restoring tidal and managed wetlands, creating
and maintaining levees and dikes, providing cover and sealing material
for sanitary landfills, and filling at approved construction projects.
(emphasis added)
We recognize that ocean resources are of major importance to the state and nation. Thus
any ocean disposal should not unduly jeopardize those resources. The analysis of
Alternative Site 5 indicates that ocean resources would not be unduly impacted if the
site is designated, used prudently/ and monitored effectively. Therefore, Alternative Site
5 appears to be an appropriate ocean disposal site, but its use will likely need to be
subject to a number of requirements. Therefore, the staff supports the designation of an
ODMDS, as discussed and analyzed in the subject DEIS.
Non-tidal Disposal and Reuse of Dredged Material
Support for the designation of an acceptable ocean disposal site should not be
taken to diminish the Commission's strong preference for disposal options that use
dredged material as a resource rather than a waste. We appreciate the USEPA's support
for the reuse of dredged material and your agency's strong efforts to further beneficial
use of dredged material. The Commission staff will continue its management of the
LTMS Reuse/Upland Studies along with the USEPA and its other LTMS partners.
In addition to expressing its support for the designation of the ODMDS, the
staff would like to take this opportunity to suggest minor corrections and provide
updated information relating to studies currently underway as part of the LTMS
Upland Work Group Studies. On page 2-22 through 2-23, the document states that, "lo]f
65 potential sites originally Identified, nine sites have been characterized as "highly
feasible sites"." On page 2-23, it states, "The LTMS selected three of these [highly
feasible sites] sites—Cullinan Ranch, Cargill Salt Div.-l (East), and Cargill Salt Div.-l
(West)—for preliminary engineering feasibility assessments. The assessments are
scheduled for completion in June 1994." The text should be corrected to reflect the
following information. Seventy-eight, rather than 65 potential upland/non-aquatic sites
were originally identified and evaluated for disposal and beneficial reuse of dredged
material. Of the 78 sites, 11 have been characterized as "highly feasible sites."
(Although, Table 2.1-4 on page 2-24 of DEIS lists only nine discrete sites, the Redwood
Sanitary Landfill is considered a separate site, and the Cargill site is considered as two
separate sites). In addition, the three sites for which preliminary engineering feasibility
assessments are currently being prepared are Skaggs Island, rather than Cullinan Ranch,
and the Cargill Salt Div.-l (East), and Cargill Salt Div.-l (West). The preliminary
engineering feasibility assessments for these sites will be ready, in draft form, for public
review and comment in early, 1993.
In addition, it should be mentioned that preliminary engineering feasibility
assessments have also been prepared for the Leonard Ranch, Praxis/Pacheco, and
Cargill Salt Div.-l (east) sites, which were identified as "highly feasible" for the
A-115
-------
JftN-15-'93 FR1 17:14 1D:SC BAY CNSRUTN & DEU TEL ND:904 54003CCCNNNNNNNN tt863 P06
Mr. Harry Seraydarian
January 15,1993
Page 4
development of dredged material rehandling facilities, and are currently available for
public review and comment.
Future USEPA Rulemaking
At the time USEPA proposes regulations to designate an ocean disposal site,
the Commission may have further comments.
During the time that designation language is drafted, we encourage you to
consider requirements for the use of any designated ocean site that addresses the
following objectives: (1) protection of ocean resources; (2) assurance that adequate
monitoring of the use of ocean sites occurs, including providing an estimate of such
costs and an indication as to whether the user will bear those costs; and (3) encourages
non-aquatic, beneficial use alternatives when those alternatives are feasible.
Assuming that aquatic disposal in the Bay and in the ocean and non-aquatic
disposal, including beneficial use of dredged material, become available options, we
would like, in the context of the LTMS, to work with you to describe how the dredging
community should analyze and balance: (a) aquatic disposal in the ocean; (b) aquatic
disposal in the Bay; (c) non-aquatic disposal; and (d) non-tidal beneficial use disposal. If
all four options are available, the regulating agencies should also develop guidance to
the dredging community on the factors they will use in deciding which site or sites are
appropriate.
I would like to thank you for giving the staff the opportunity to comment on the
DEIS. We look forward to reviewing the final EIS/EIR and proposed rulemaking. In the
interim, please keep us informed of any other issues regarding the project If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me or Steve Goldbeck of my staff.
Sincerely,
ALAN R. PENDLETON
Executive Director
Attachment
SG/JM/gg
cc: Lt. Col. Leonard Cardoza
Commissioner Will Shafroth
Mr. Michael Kahoe
Mr. Steve Ritchie
Mr. Peter Douglas
A-116
-------
Exhibit (^T)
w Sierra Club
San Francisco Bay Chapter
5237 College avenue • Oakland. California 9-1618-1414
Telephone 510-633-6127
ALAMEDA COUNTY • CONTRA COSTA • MARIN • SAN FRANCISCO
January 25, 1993 q
/land- del .Vermel by A) ICS.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street/
San Francisco, California 94105
ATTENTION: Mr. Harrv Seravdarian. Director
RE: DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for San Francisco
Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
Dear Mr. Seraydarian:
The Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to present comments
to the above referenced draft. We intend to cooperate with and
work toward developing a beneficial solution to the continuing
issue of how to utilize dredge material.
Our comments are prepared in a spirit of constructive criticism
and we look forward to your response.
INTRODUCTION
It continues to be the policy of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of
The Sierra Club to support a closely monitored program to main-
tain shipping channels in San Francisco Bay. Among the issues we
regularly discuss with the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Port of Oakland are how and where the dredge material is
utilized.
We applaud the approach being developed by the LTMS toward
developing beneficial uses for dredged material such as wetland
restoration, upland habitat creation and fisheries development.
Our goal is to eliminate dredged material disposal in the Bay.
Several hundred million cubic meters of dredged material are
being dredged annually worldwide. This dredged material i6 a
potentially valuable resource (PIANC, 1992). We are actively
working to develop alternative environmentally sound strategies
that are beneficial to the Bay instead of continuing the present
practice of dumping the material off Alcatraz with questionable
regard for the consequences.
A-117
rvcydrt
-------
The DEIS presents a strategy that we view as a better alternative
than disposal in the Bay. We accept that deep water site five is
the best choice contained in this DEIS and we urge that dumping
in the Bay be stopped.
ISSUES OF SPECIFIC CONCERN
Issues raised in the DEIS that are of particular concern to us
relate to:
A) Monitoring, surveillance and enforcement at the proposed
dump site to assure compliance with regulations and proce-
dures ;
B) Monitoring, surveillance and scientific observation at the
proposed dump site to analyze the effects of dumping on
resident benthic and pelagic species.
C) The lack of development of a plan to monitor, survey and
observe the impact of long term ocean dumping;
D) The failure of the DEIS to state a preference for reusing
dredged material, and;
E) The monitoring, mitigation and description of environmental
impacts on proximate marine sanctuaries;
A) Monitoring, surveillance and enforcement at the proposed
dump site to assure compliance with regulations and proce-
dures.
Does the EPA have the budget, equipment, personnel and available
expertise to monitor the dredging and disposal of six million
cubic yards per year of material? The DEIS inadequately address-
es these most important issues. The two sections of the DEIS
dealing with monitoring, sections 3.1.4 (Feasibility of Surveil-
lance and Monitoring) and 4.6.2 (Site Management and Monitoring)
tell us that site management is the joint responsibility of the
EPA and COE. Page 4-90 goes on to state that the United States
Coast Guard, EPA and the COE are responsible for surveillance and
enforcement of ocean disposal activities.
The DEIS does not explain how this monitoring, surveillance and
enforcement is to occur. Mill one agency be in charge of en-
forcement, a second in charge of surveillance and a third in
charge of monitoring?
Monitoring, surveillance and enforcement should be guaranteed by
the presence of a full-time EPA, COE or Coast Guard representa-
tive on board the barge containing the dredged material.
A quick analysis of the time and energy spent in the DEIS on
these issues can be gleaned from the table of contents. Page ix
A-118
-------
A quick analysis of the time and energy spent in the DEIS on
these issues can be gleaned from the table of contents. Page ix
shows that page 3-19 is spent on both surveillance and monitor-
ing. On page xii of the table of contents are the words "Site
Management and Monitoring," but only two pages are devoted to the
subjects (pages 4-90 and 4-91).
A thorough exploration of these issues can only be accomplished
in a supplemental EIS. We call for the EPA to prepare this
document so that these subjects receive treatment they require.
**********
B) Monitoring, surveillance and scientific observation at the
proposed dump site to analyze the effects of dumping on
resident benthic and pelagic species.
It would be appropriate for the DEIS to expand its discussion of
the site monitoring plan and the management options to be devel-
oped. The present discussion is brief and inadequate.
The DEIS explains how difficult it will be to monitor benthic and
pelagic impacts at greater depths but says nothing about how to
mitigate this problem. It states only that a site monitoring
plan to detect and minimize adverse impacts through appropriate
management options will be developed.
The EPA must conduct a thorough, publishable and scientifically
peer-reviewed study of the effects of dumping six million cubic
yards of dredge material in an area where during any particular
month, the flow pattern may differ significantly from seasonal
mean conditions (section 3.2.2.1, page 3-28).
Many studies cited in the section on the consequences of dumping
dredge material on the biological environment at site five
(4.2.2, page 4-47 to 4-63) have little to do with the actual site
five environment. Hirota's 1985 study of the effects of deep-sea
mineral mining on macrozooplankton is cited, Paffenhofer's 1972
study of the effects of fine-grained red bauxite muds on the
survival, growth rates and body weight of a copepod is mentioned;
we learned that few plankton appreciate bauxite muds.
There is no bauxite mud at site five, so why cite Paffenhofer?
Hirota's concern with deep-sea mineral mining has little or
nothing to do with deep sea dumping of dredge spoils (see section
4.2.2.1, page 4-47).
The DEIS states that benthic species in general do not survive
rapid burial. Total mortality is inferred (See page 4-50,
section 4.2.2.2). Also, the DEIS does not call for mitigation of
the loss of these benthic species.
Based on minimal data, the DEIS concludes that the impacts of
dredged material disposal on pelagic fishes will be insignifi-
cant. This conclusion is reached by logic presented in the DEIS
as summarized below (see section 4.2.2.4, page 4-57):
3
A-119
-------
1) Near-surface pelagic species (rockfishes, salmon, tunas,
mackerels) become blinded in a disposal plume because of the
increase in turbidity.
2) "Deep-water mesopelagic and bathypelagic species such as
deep-sea smelts and lanternfishes characteristic of the
region also should be able to avoid the disposal plums,
although there are no specific studies on avoidance behavior
in these fishes. Therefore, it is estimated that potential
impacts of dredged material disposal on pelagic fishes will
be insignificant, and classified as Class III."
There is no basis to draw a conclusion that deep-sea smelts and
lanternfishes should be able to avoid the disposal plum. No
study or evidence is cited.
The DEIS is fatally flawed in its attempt to analyze the effects
of dumping on resident benthic and pelagic species.
**********
C) The lack of development of a plan to monitor, survey and
observe the impact of long term ocean dumping.
By reference we incorporate comments made by Heller, Ehrman,
White & McAuliffe on behalf of their clients, the Half Moon Bay
Fisherman's Marketing Association (HMBFMA 1993) in this document.
We agree that not committing to a monitoring plan fatally flaws
the DEIS.
On pages 4, 5, and 6 of the HMBFMA response they thoroughly
analyze the inadequacy of EPA's commitment to a monitoring plan.
By leaving out this important issue the EPA shows a lack of
concern for the long term effects of this proposed dumping on the
environment of the area.
We repeat that The Sierra Club cannot support this DEIS until a
supplemental EIS is prepared, hopefully in consultation with the
LTMS, to address these concerns. Otherwise the present document
fails to address a these key issues.
**********
D) The failure of the DEIS to state a preference for reusing
dredged material;
Developing environmentally and economically sound alternatives to
in-Bay disposal is a continuing goal of the LTMS.
We urge the EPA to support agencies within the LTMS who are
working toward development of the reuse of dredged material.
The beneficial use of dredged material is an available option
that is being currently developed by the LTMS. We feel that the
DEIS prematurely proposes long-term use of site five without
taking the work of the LTMS into consideration.
4
A-120
-------
The DEIS ignores the dredging findings and policies of the San
Francisco Bay Plan. The Bay Plan's dredging policies No. 2, 4,
and 5 state the preference for disposal of material from dredging
projects at non-tidal (preferably for beneficial uses) or ocean
sites. A more thorough discussion of these non-tidal sites for
beneficial uses should be made a part of the DEIS. A discussion
of both ocean dumping and beneficial uses of dredged material as
a resource could lead to a balanced dredging policy.
E) The monitoring, mitigation and description of environmental
impacts on proximate marine sanctuaries.
Page 4-63 of the DEIS, last paragraph classifies potential
disposal impacts as Class II (significant adverse impacts that
can be mitigated to insignificant levels)/ No data is given to
support this conclusion.
The DEIS states that the volume of material to be released by a
single incident (accident?) would be 6,000 cubic yards for a
single barge load. No data is given to support this conclusion
(page 4-63, 3rd paragraph).
The DEIS fails to include in its limited description of "inci-
dents" scenarios exploring the probability of bilge material or
bunker fuel discharge into a marine sanctuary. The impact of
such an "incident" on the Farallon Islands, which lies on the
direct route of barges in transit from San Francisco Bay to
preferred alternative site five, would be at least a Class I
adverse impact that would be nearly impossible to mitigate.
Page 2-38 of the DEIS (Alternative Site 5) states as follows:
"Dredge barge transit could cause some interference with recre-
ational and scientific boat traffic, particularly near the
Farallon Islands. Under normal conditions, no interference with
areas of special importance is expected; however, accidents
resulting in releases of material near the Farallones may be a
concern. A requirement for barges to avoid the Farallones
vicinity could minimize potential impacts
We appreciate the above acknowledgement by the DEIS of the
possibility of accidents resulting in the release of material
near the Farallones. Many types of material could be released
including bunker fuel, bilge material, accumulated sewage, and
untreated contaminated dredge spoils.
This concerns us because for many species, the Farallon Islands
breeding population is a significant percentage of the world
population. In addition, the masses of marine birds that pass
through the area on route to other areas depend upon productive
waters to sustain them during their journey (Marine Audubon
Society 1993).
Given these facts we conclude that a more thorough discussion of
the impacts to marine sanctuaries, especially the Farallon
Islands, is required.
5
A-121
-------
CONCLUSION
The Sierra Club cannot support this DEIS unless a supplemental
EIS is prepared, hopefully in consultation with the LTMS. The
DEIS fails to address key issues surrounding the proposed project
and is fatally flawed in many areas.
The Sierra Club would be happy to cooperate with the EPA in
developing such a document.
There are many ways dredge material can be used as a beneficial
resource rather than as a waste to be dumped. With proper
planning and coordination between all parties environmentally
beneficial solutions will emerge.
Sincerely,
Conservation Advocate
San Francisco Bay Chapter
JPR:cl
REFERENCES
HMBFMA 1993: Response by Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe on behalf of the Half
Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Association (HMBMFA) dated January 22, 1993
reading as follows:
C. The DEIS Fails to Commit to Monitoring the Impacts of Long-Tern
Ocean Dumping and Therefore Fails to Provide Adequate Mitigation
The DEIS recognizes that EPA's regulations require that even after a site
is chosen, its use must be discontinued if it becomes apparent that the site
"does not meet the criteria set forth" in the site designation regulations (Page
2-30). Nevertheless, EPA never commits to a monitoring plan that would determine
the actual (as opposed to modeled) impacts of the proposed disposal, and the
performance of dredgers.
The assurance in the DEIS that an adequate plan will be developed once the
site is approved (pages 3-19, -20, 4-87) is a classic example of "piecemealing"
the environmental analysis, a clear violation of NEPA. Monitoring, for NEPA
purposes, is essentially a mitigation measure. Without proper monitoring, there
can be no assurance that: (1) permit conditions are being complied with; (2)
dredge spoils are staying in place as expected; and (3) the environmental impacts
of disposal in the ocean are not significant. Hence, monitoring is necessary to
support EPA's conclusion that the proposed ocean disposal will not cause
significant impacts.
6
A-122
-------
would be subject to the vagaries of EPA's budget appropriations. Hhat is the
public to expect if the funds for equipment and vessels are not available,
contrary to the DEIS' assumption? Moreover, the EIS' entire discussion of site
managing and monitoring is phrased in self-consciously non-committal, equivocal
terms. It is entirely unclear from reviewing Section 4.6.2 which of the various
site management options, 1f any, will be employed.
EPA's plan to develop a monitoring proposal for inclusion in the Final EIS
cannot be sustained under NEPA. To a large extent, the question of whether a
site should be designated hinges on whether potential impacts can be effectively
mitigated. Monitoring 1s of special mitigation significance for this project
since EPA's conclusions that the project will not cause significant impacts are
based almost entirely on modeling studies. The only way to mitigate against
inaccuracies and/or unforeseen circumstances in the model predictions 1s to
monitor dredger performance and Impacts of the disposal. Therefore, the strength
of the modeling program 1s a fundamental aspect of the project, and should be a
major component in the determination of whether or not to proceed.
The Final EIS will be released along with the final decision on the
project. Any comments on this final document are therefore superfluous and
irrelevant to the decision-making process which will have ended. In order to
comply with NEPA it is critical that all vital project components be placed
before the public and decision makers prior to and not after the decision has
been made to proceed.4
By putting of the development of a monitoring plan until after the project
has been approved, EPA is essentially saying to the public and decision makers;
"Trust us. The monitoring plan will be just fine." He have the greatest
confidence in the integrity and sincerity of EPA 1n this regard. Nevertheless,
NEPA demands and we must Insist that the full project be placed before the public
at one time. The monitoring plan is a critical aspect of the project, and
project approval should not be provided unless it is absolutely clear in the EIS
that monitoring of dredgers' performance and disposal Impacts is part of the
project being approved.
The DEIS provides no rationale for why this critical part of the project
has been cut out of the EIS process. The flaws in this decision are apparent.
For example, the DEIS speculates that "management action" such as limits on
disposal volume or timing may be taken 1f monitoring indicates that negative
Impacts have occurred. HMBFMA would recommend that EPA implement such
"management activities" prior to the occurrence of negative impacts in order to
avoid them. If the monitoring plan were part of the EIS, Issues like this would
be exposed to the "hard look" Congress intended. HHBFMA concurs with the
comments submitted by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, and
incorporates them herein by reference. In particular, we agree with the
recommendations of the Sanctuary Manager that: (I) Independent observers must be
required to study environmental conditions, and not the dredge operators; and (2)
the models must be Independently verified.
4. EPA has suggested infonally that the public will be able to consent on the tonitoring plan in the
ruleiaking process. By this ti»e, however, the ocean site trill have already bees designated. Thus EPA is
atteipting to isolate the decision about the ocean site froi any decision about Ronitoring. Our point is that
without an adequate aonitoriDg plan, the site should not be designated at all.
7
A-123
-------
Without a clear and unqualified commitment to monitoring both the
performance of dredgers and the environmental impacts of dredged material
disposal at the proposed site, HMBFMA cannot support the project as proposed.
He will urge our fellow commercial and recreational fishermen, and environmen-
talists to adopt similar positions.
Marine Audubon Society 1993: Response by Marine Audubon Society dated January
25, 1993 reading as follows:
The information provided does not support a finding of no significant
Impact on seabirds, marine mammals and endangered species. For many species, the
Farallones breeding population is a significant percentage of the world
population. In addition, masses of marine birds pass through the area on route
to other areas depending on productive waters to sustain them on their journey.
The area is an important movement corridor for marine mammals. Disposal of
dredged material will impact presence of prey and the visibility of prey items.
Turbid plumes could have a significant effect on nesting sea birds, particularly
during El Nino years when fish populations are down, If they have to travel
further from breeding sites to forage. Populations of many species are already
low due to gill netting and El Nino. The DEIS should recommend seasonal
limitation to minimize adverse impacts on Farallone breeding populations.
PIANC 1992
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC), General
Secretariat, Brussels, Belgium, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, A Practical
Guide, Page 9.
8
A-124
-------
i1 0' c*UfORma
Exhibit ( 33 /
PETE WIlSON. Govr-
STATE LANDS COMMISSION !^UT!Tu e
1807 - 13th Street
l|OT VcCAnTHY. L'Cutonun, Governor Sacrtmanto. CA 95B14-71
GBAV DAVIS. Convener CHARLES WAHAEN
THOMAS W. HAYES. 0»ecror or Finance LnARLtS WAHntN
Executive Officer
January 20, 1993
Mr. Mike Kahoe
Assista.it Secretory
California Environmental
Protection Agency
555 Capiiol Mall, Suite 235
Sacraiiicnio, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Kahoc:
The staff of the Stale La/idb Commission has rev iewed ihe Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EJS) for San Francisco Bay Deep Water Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation,
December, 1992, and submits these comments lor your consideration.
Specific Comments
( 33-A
1. Page 1 * 13, * 1.5. U would be helpful if the criteria by which these matters would be
resol\ed prior to the FEIS were listed and briefly discussed. What prooedure would be
used if the preferred site for the ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) did not
mcci such criteria or if these mattcis could not be successfully resolved?
2. Page 3-17, 1stJ; Upon what data or information is the "expected" characterization of '33"B^
"prevalent sediment composito" based? What is the extent of sediment analyses for
historic dredging activities within the LTMS study area?
3. Page 3-17,2nd esj»el transits within 90 days - 8 per day?
Page 3-19, J 3.1.4: The i^suc and preparation of a surveillance and monitoring plan
has been deferred until the preparation of the final E1S. The final designation and
continuing operation of the ODMDS depends on the feasibility of such surveillance and
monitoring in that the impacts of disposed at the site are based exclusively on modeling
and information gathered at shallow disposal sites, see page 4-7,1*15. Also, at page 3-
18, 5, "With the exception of a brief qualitative study of the COE experimental site
following a small tes>i discharge of approximately 4,000 yd * of dredged material
(COE), no studies of the env ironmental impacts of dredged material disposal have been
33-D)
A-125
-------
Mi Mi^L-inl K«hfX-
Assisuni Secretary
n
January 20. 1993
conducted at any of the offshore sites" and at page 3-20, 2^dS, "Impacts lu benthic
communities at deeper sites may be more difficult lo assess because less
information about benthic structure and disturbance response is available."
5. Pages 3-85, Table and 3-90, Study Area 5: Information comparable to that contained in
Table 3.2-8 foi Study Areas 2-4 and Pioneer Canyon should also be obtained for the
preferred site. Study Area 5. How can the "contaminant background*' of the preferred
site be established without such information? Without the site's contaminant
background, on what basis will decisions as to the allowable contaminant constituency
of diedge spoil* lo be deposited at the ODMDS be made? For example, according to
the chart on pages 3-77 and 3-78, mercury from sites within San Francisco Bay is
picxrni at levels six limes higher than the average for proposed sites 3 and 4, and
double the level of the proposed site. Would these spoils be deemed suitable lor
disposal at the ODMDS?
Page 3-226, Table 3.3.6-1: Could this information be further broken down to indicate
in which specific study areas the listed species are found, especially the preferred site?
7. Page 4-9, Section 4.2.1.1: The conclusion of this Section states that "..effects from
barge tug emissions on air quality within the general LTMS study region are considered
negligible..." The statement is not clear as to whether it applies to the barge traffic in
isolation or in combination with existing marine traffic in the LTMS study region.
Specifically, do the barges alone represent a Class III impact, but cumulatively with
existing marine traffic represent a different class of impact?
8. Page 4-12, Section 4.2.1.3: How did the modeling described herein consider the
following sutements - "This difference may promote resuspension and transport of
larger grain sized sediment than would otherwise occur in the absence of 'bottom
trapping'. Enhancement of tides by topographic features also can result in unusually
suung mean flows which can result in unidirectional sediment transport. This may'
occur at Station E. where steady up-canyon flow was observed.", page 3-41, and'
"Because wave-induced currents generated during winter storms can reach depths of
100 m or more, fine grained material likely will be resuspended over most areas of the
shelf (Noble and Ramp 1992)", page 3-42?
9. Page 4-35, 1»' full J: The document stales, "Disposal operations should have
iiiMgiufiuint effects on concentrations of contaminants in the water column, given Ib&t
only dredged material of suitable quality will be permitted for disposal." What are the
specifications for "suitable" spoils? Would any spoils with contaminants over the
existing background of the preferred site be a long term problem?
10. Page 4-62, last J: What types of pMeniial impacts to threatened or endangered species
arc expected at the preferred site and what species could be alfectedV
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Should you or your staff have any questions
or desire clarification, please contact me at 322-7827. We look forward to the successful
A-126
-------
Mr. Michael Kahoc
Assistant Secretary
3
January 20, 1993
(.inclusion of this component of the LTMS.
Sincerely,
Chief, Division of Environmental
Planning and Management
cc: Charles Warren
James F. Troul
Jane Sekclslcy
Eli7iibelh Patterson
Linda Martinez
A-127
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-128
-------
Exhibit
SURFR1DER FOUNDATION
Legal Counsel
1642 Great Highway
San Francisco, CA 94122
#415-665-7008
Fax #415-665-9008
f/tfh 3 Ph 9
January 19,1993
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-1)
San Francisco, California 94105
Re: Proposed Ocean Dumping of Bay Dredge Spoils
The undersigned represents Surfrider Foundation,an international nonprofit organization engaged
in the protection and enhancement of coastal environments. Surfrider currently enjoys the support of over
25,000 members world-wide and at least nine California Chapters. Surfrider Foundation Chapters may
participate separately in these proceedings.
Surfrider Foundation is adamantly opposed to dumping Bay dredge spoils in the Pacific Ocean.
When the Clean Water Act was enacted a mere twenty years ago its primary goal was to eliminate use of the
world's oceans as a dumping ground for unwanted waste. The Coastal Zone Management Act has similar
goals. This proposal is nothing more than a proposal to dump unwanted waste into the ocean.
The proposed project may involve dumping of toxic dredge materials into prime fishing grounds.
Nearshore waters may also be affected as sand is deposited at Ocean Beach and other nearby beaches.
Ocean Beach is a heavily used recreational area, where often more than one hundred individuals may be
found swimming, diving, surfing and windsurfing. Boat and barge traffic in and out of the Bay, and the
dumping of dangerous dredge spoils may interfere with legitimate recreational pursuits.
Further, dumping dredge spoils may interfere with the biological integrity of both the Bay and the
areas used as the dumping ground.
Surfrider Foundation implores EPA to evaluate alternatives to dredging the Bay. EPA is required to
investigate on land disposal alternatives but little progress appears to have been made in that area. EPA
should promptly investigate the prevention of siltation, rerouting shipping lanes, restrictions on shipping etc-
measures which lessen the need to dredge. Further, if dredging is unavoidable, on land dumping is a far
preferable alternative with much less environmental impacts than ocean dumping. Regardless, no ocean
dumping should be permitted until all on land disposal alternatives are thoroughly investigated.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned.
Comments 02 DEIS
Dear EPA;
Sincerely,
Mark A. Massara
A-129
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-130
-------
Exhibit (35
JAN 2 1 1993
State of California
Trade and Com^W^W^AL P*OTECTIOf
Memorandum
To
Michael A. Kahoe
Assistant Secretary,
Cal/EPA
Date: January 20,1993
From Julie Meier Wright
Secretary
Prepared by: Wes brvm
Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR SAN FRANCISCO
BAY DEEP WATER DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
The Trade and Commerce Agency has reviewed the subject document and has no
specific comments on the document at this time. We note that the preferred site,
Alternative Site 5, appears to be the best alternative from both environmental and
compatible use perspectives, and has adequate capacity. Unless overriding objections
to this site arise, we urge you to proceed quickly to guarantee its availability.
We strongly support the need for having an adequate ocean disposal site designated and
ready in a timely manner, which complements the efforts underway for in-bay and upland
disposal sites. Our key interest is in enabling the dredging necessary to support
continued and expanded port activities and its attendant economic benefits in the San
Francisco Bay region. Tens of thousands of jobs, and a major portion of the region's
economy are dependent on a thriving port-related industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We will continue to work with you and the
LTMS team to ensure a coordinated, effective dredging strategy.
cc: Tina Frank, Trade and Commerce
A-131
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-132
-------
NOTE:
Acronyms and abbreviations are defined at their first usage, but are also listed
in the Glossary of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Conversions.
Exhibit 1
Response: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates your review of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Exhibit 2
2-A: The Ocean Studies Work Group (OSWG) is responsible for developing a Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) as part of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) process. Site-use limitations and requirements aimed at reducing the
possibility of accidental spills and disposal of material outside the boundaries of the
site, especially within protected areas such as Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary (GOFNMS), are addressed in the SMMP. These provisions also have been
summarized in the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The OSWG is
composed of a diverse assemblage of members representing industry, the
environmental and academic communities, and State and Federal regulatory agencies.
Environmental protection, scientific validity, and cost are key factors determining the
components of the SMMP.
Exhibit 3
3-A: The Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE 1992) concluded that all of the alternative sites are located within
an area of economic acceptability relative to site use. Costs of using the site were
not considered in the DEIS as a site-selection criterion. However, the costs are being
addressed by the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) OSWG as a critical
component of the SMMP. Implementation issues, including long-term costs of site
use, are being evaluated by the LTMS Implementation Work Group.
Exhibit 4
4-A: EPA will prepare a Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) after the FEIS is
published and before site designation is published in the Final Rule.
A-133
-------
4-B: All dredged materials proposed for ocean disposal must be evaluated for suitability
based on Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) criteria. EPA agrees that threatened and
endangered species, including those frequenting nearshore coastal areas such as
winter-run chinook salmon, California brown pelicans, marbled murrelets, and
northern sea lions, are important resources and they will be considered in the CCD.
(Note: Gray whales have been de-listed from their Federally endangered status and
northern fur seals are not listed as endangered or threatened by Federal or State
agencies, but are considered depleted by the Marine Mammal Commission.)
4-C: The statement on page 3-17 of the DEIS was an estimate by the COE of the
frequency of site use based solely on considerations of suitable sea conditions. The
suitability of sea conditions encountered during transit to the ocean dredged material
disposal site (ODMDS) ultimately is up to the judgment of each vessel captain, who
is responsible for the safety of his/her crew and vessel. Compliance with these
measures will be evaluated by an independent inspector and by reviews of
documentation as part of site-use permits.
The SMMP specifies site-use conditions which include restrictions during certain
weather conditions. Specifically, dredged material barges will not leave San
Francisco Bay when wave heights along the transit route are predicted to exceed 18
feet. Further, when wave heights exceed 10 feet and wave periods reach 9 seconds
or less, additional precautions must be taken to prevent spillage or loss of dredged
material during transit to the ODMDS. These precautions include reducing barge
load capacities by a minimum of 15%, in addition to any other precautions deemed
necessary by individual tugboat captains. These site-use conditions were determined
based on input from industry (i.e., dredgers and barge operators) and the responsible
agencies.
4-D: Weather restrictions are imposed as part of the SMMP (see response to
Comment 4-C) and/or site-use conditions contained in the permit. Specific
restrictions or conditions can be modified based on experience [e.g., use of the Navy
Ocean Disposal Site (NODS) under a Section 103 permit effective through
December 1, 1994],
4-E: At present, information concerning the frequency and amounts of dredged material
spilled under different sea conditions in the project region is not available and
probably anecdotal. However, the SMMP specifies that no dredged material is
permitted to leak from the barges during transit to the ODMDS. Barge volumes
(which include both sediment and water) are rough estimates. The initial mass of
sediment loaded in each barge is not constant and the amount of sediment removed
from an area is based on a final site bathymetric survey. Thus, determinations of
differences in the volumes or masses of materials loaded into the barge versus that
of material released at the ODMDS could not be used practically as a measure of
A-134
-------
losses during transit Other methods, such as draft sensors, may be available for
detecting leakage.
4-F: The SMMP specifies requirements for site use, including transit paths for dredge
barges, navigational accuracy, and compliance documentation.
Exhibit 5
5-A: All dredged materials proposed for ocean disposal must be evaluated for suitability
based on Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) criteria. EPA agrees that threatened and
endangered species, including those frequenting nearshore coastal areas such as
winter-run chinook salmon, California brown pelicans, marbled murrelets, and
northern sea lions, are important resources and they will be considered in the CCD.
(Note: Gray whales have been de-listed from their Federally endangered status and
northern fur seals are not listed as endangered or threatened by Federal or State
agencies, but are considered depleted by the Marine Mammal Commission.)
5-B: Site-use limitations and requirements aimed at reducing the possibility of accidental
spills and disposal of material outside the boundaries of the site are addressed in the
SMMP. These requirements will be incorporated as special conditions to all disposal
permits issued for the site.
5-C: The role of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
in permitting and regulating use of disposal sites within the Bay has been
acknowledged in the FEIS. However, as mentioned, the purpose of the EIS is to
consider designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site. Other disposal
alternatives are discussed briefly in the EIS to describe the range of possible options
for disposal and beneficial reuse of dredged material from the Bay. Regulation, use,
and management of sites other than those in the ocean, are beyond the scope of the
EIS.
5-D: An SMMP is being developed by the LTMS OSWG. A draft version of the SMMP
was reviewed through the LTMS process by member agencies and organizations
following an OSWG meeting in May. Regardless, the provisions of the SMMP have
been incorporated into the FEIS. The final SMMP will be completed in concert with
the Final Rule.
A-135
-------
Exhibit 6
Response: EPA appreciates your review of the DEIS.
Exhibit 7
7-A: As noted, this EIS addresses designation of an ODMDS. It is not the intent of this
EIS to evaluate use of non-aquatic/reuse sites for disposal of dredged material.
Eventually, several options will be available for dredged material disposal. The
appropriateness of any one option will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis using
guidelines and protocols presently being developed by the Implementation Work
Group of the LTMS. For individual projects, the responsible agency and applicable
regulations will depend on the specific disposal/reuse option selected.
7-B: Discussion of the requirements for use of dredged material as landfill cover is beyond
the scope of this EIS. The BCDC is leading LTMS efforts to develop non-aquatic
and reuse options for dredged material disposal. A copy of this comment letter has
been forwarded
to BCDC
for their reference.
7-C:
See response to
Comment
7-B.
7-D:
See response to
Comment
7-B.
7-E:
See response to
Comment
7-B.
7-F:
See response to
Comment
7-B.
Exhibit 8
8-A: LTMS expects to complete designation of an ODMDS by January 1994. Designation
of an ODMDS does not imply that utilization of the site for dredged material disposal
also will be initiated in January 1994. As stated in the EIS, EPA and the LTMS
expect that all available disposal options will be evaluated for each proposed
dredging project according to guidelines and protocols that will be established and
promulgated by the Implementation Work Group. The decision framework probably
will not be in place by January 1994. Consequently, the LTMS may develop an
interim policy on use of the ODMDS until the Implementation Work Group
completes the decision framework. The ODMDS will be available only for projects
where the need for ocean disposal and the quality [as defined by Green Book
(EPA/COE 1991) testing protocols] have been established. This may require an
individual EIS for the project. Thus, decisions regarding the use and timing of the
A-136
-------
ODMDS for specific projects will be affected by the material testing and permit
application review process.
8-B: EPA will continue to consult with representatives from the National Marine
Sanctuaries (NMS), as well as with other State resource management agencies
through the LTMS OSWG, on the use, management, and monitoring of the proposed
ODMDS. EPA regulations require special consideration of NMS resources (40 CFR
228.5 and 228.6). Conclusions from information presented in the EIS indicate that
no significant impacts to sanctuary resources are expected from the proposed action.
Monitoring of the site, as specified in the SMMP, will be performed to confirm these
conclusions.
8-C: Monitoring will be an integral part of the SMMP being prepared by the OSWG. The
provisions of the Plan have been incorporated into the FEIS. The SMMP provides
a framework for site management and monitoring, but the specific requirements will
be imposed and enforced through special conditions on the permit.
8-D: The SMMP addresses potential impacts to sanctuary resources and the marine
environment The SMMP also contains requirements for site use and surveillance,
and possible management actions if monitoring results indicate that significant
adverse impacts are occurring.
8-E: The monitoring component of the SMMP has been designed to verify that predictions
of impacts described in the EIS are accurate and that the extent and magnitude of
changes do not result in unacceptable adverse effects to the marine environment.
8-F: See response to Comments 8-B and 8-D. The monitoring program in the SMMP uses
a tiered approach which provides a structured framework for hypotheses and
observations, management action thresholds or "triggers," and guidance for evaluating
appropriate management actions. Specific monitoring tasks will be performed to
provide data for addressing management questions concerning transport of material
out of the disposal site and, potentially, into adjacent national marine sanctuaries.
8-G: See response to Comment 8-F. The specific monitoring requirements contained in
the SMMP will address nearfield effects first and then progress to farfield
investigations (e.g., NMS) if warranted. Additionally, monitoring requirements will
be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, at regular intervals. Model verification of
sediment footprint and plume dispersion will be performed as part of planned SMMP
studies.
8-H: The monitoring program contained in the SMMP uses a tiered approach to
monitoring physical, chemical, and biological processes. The structure of the
program is designed to provide answers to specific management questions and
A-137
-------
determine whether disposal operations are carried out in compliance with permitting
requirements and environmental regulations.
8-1: EPA will use appropriate verifiable models to predict the effects of dredged material
disposal at the ODMDS.
8-J: See response to Comment 4-C. Disposal techniques and documentation, including
barge capacities, transit routes, navigational accuracy, and surveillance/inspections arc
specified in the SMMP. These conditions, which are based on site-use restrictions
contained in the Section 103 permit for the NODS, can be revised if deemed
appropriate by EPA, COE, and the OSWG.
8-K: See response to Comments 4-C and 8-J. The Management Plan portion of the
SMMP specifies minimum distances from the Farallon Islands allowable during
transit to the ODMDS, barge loading limits, and site-use restrictions during certain
sea conditions.
8-L: The monitoring program in the SMMP uses a tiered approach to address cumulative
effects. In particular, the monitoring program will evaluate any detectable cumulative
effects of disposal on sediment contaminant concentrations and benthic communities
within and outside of the ODMDS relative to baseline or reference data.
8-M: Dredged material proposed for disposal at the ODMDS will be tested for suitability
according to procedures described in the Green Book (EPA/COE 1991). Material
that is contaminated, according to Green Book procedures, is considered unsuitable
for ocean disposal. If monitoring determines that unforeseen impacts are occurring
due to the presence or accumulation of contaminants, appropriate modifications to
site management and use will be made.
8-N: The suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal is not based on bulk chemical
characteristics. Therefore, it is not appropriate to define acceptable contaminant
levels in terms of concentrations of individual chemicals. The Green Book
(EPA/COE 1991) provides the national policy for testing, and EPA Region IX has
developed general requirements for sediment testing of dredged material proposed for
disposal operations within the region. The suitability of sediments proposed for
discharge at the ODMDS is evaluated from results of testing described in these
documents.
8-0: Possible management actions in response to evidence of impacts associated with
dredged material disposal activities are described as part of the SMMP. Actions
could include revising the size or location of the disposal zone, seasonal restrictions,
or, in extreme cases, de-designation of the site.
A-138
-------
Exhibit 9
9-A: Requirements for site monitoring and site management, including surveillance,
inspection, and documentation, will be described in the SMMP. Provisions of the
SMMP have been incorporated in the FEIS.
Exhibit 10
10-A: The modeling section has been revised to make it more understandable to the
informed lay reader.
10-B: If a significant adverse impact(s) resulted from use of the preferred alternative site,
the other alternatives addressed by the EIS could be considered as part of a new site
evaluation process coordinated by EPA. However, supplemental studies may be
necessary before these alternative sites or any new site received designation under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) Section 102.
10-C: Compliance with site-use conditions and other permit requirements, and possible
management actions associated with non-compliance events, are discussed in the
SMMP. The provisions of the SMMP are included in the FEIS.
10-D: Monitoring and surveillance are addressed in the SMMP. Possible strategies for
funding are being developed as part of the LTMS process by the Implementation
Work Group. Since this effort involves issues beyond the scope of the EIS, ODMDS
funding for monitoring may not be finalized by the time the FEIS is published.
However, commitments for site monitoring will be obtained before site use is
authorized.
10-E: The DEIS addresses only ocean disposal alternatives and the No Action Alternative.
The purpose of designating an ocean disposal site is to provide an option for disposal
of suitable material. This is based on chemical and physical characteristics and
testing (e.g., Green Book) results that demonstrate the material is not toxic and does
not contain constituents that are biologically available.
Designation of an ODMDS does not imply that any or all dredged material from San
Francisco Bay would be disposed in the ocean. Rather, decisions regarding specific
projects will be made through their individual EISs, National Environmental Policy
Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) documents, and/or dredging
permitting process. In order to use the ODMDS for a specific project, the need for
ocean disposal must be demonstrated.
A-139
-------
Work Groups associated with the LTMS are evaluating the full range of disposal
options, and the specific conditions or limitations that would apply to each of the
disposal options. Further, the LTMS Implementation Work Group will be developing
guidelines that will be used to evaluate all proposed dredging projects and determine
which of the disposal or beneficial reuse options would be most appropriate. The
array of disposal options eventually identified by LTMS is considered adequate to
meet predictable future needs (at least for the next 50 years) for dredged material
disposal.
10-F: The statement on page 2-17 of the DEIS was made in reference to management of
the Alcatraz disposal site. Mounding, with potential obstructions to navigation, is not
a concern at the proposed deep-water ODMDS because of the great water depths.
In contrast, dredged material disposal at the relatively shallow Alcatraz site has
resulted in mounding to the point that it has become a navigational hazard. As a
result, it has been necessary to impose requirements to slurry dredged material prior
to discharge at this site to increase dispersiveness. The capacity of the Alcatraz site
is unknown because parameters affecting dispersal (e.g., grain size, sorting, shear
strength, water content of each barge load, current speed and direction at the time of
disposal, etc.) are largely unknown. Thus, it is impossible to predict exactly how
much more material could be disposed at this location within the Bay.
10-G: To date, the Bay Farm Borrow Area has not been approved as a dredged material
disposal site. This site is being considered as part of the LTMS In-Bay studies.
10-H: Alternative Site 5 is located approximately 50 nautical miles from shore and in 2,500
to 3,000 meters of water. It was selected as the preferred alternative site primarily
because it is in an area that has been used historically for disposal of low-level
radioactive waste and chemical conventional munitions and because it is located in
deep water away from productive fishery areas. While the proposed ODMDS is
located a greater distance from shore and generally has fewer resources to monitor
than the other alternative sites, monitoring the site may be more difficult. Also, the
area has been used historically for waste disposal and, therefore, may be degraded.
These conditions also may contribute to more hazards during sampling. EPA
recognizes that there are advantages and disadvantages associated with the site, but
feels that overall it is the best choice.
10-1: The SMMP addresses in detail all tasks associated with site monitoring and oversight.
The major provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS. See
response to Comment 10-H.
10-J: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) presently is
evaluating the potential environmental and human health risks associated with the
presence of low-level radioactive waste materials disposed historically in the Gulf of
A-140
-------
the Farallones. If this evaluation concludes that these wastes represent a significant
risk or hazard, then some remediation may be warranted. The scheduled completion
date for this evaluation is unknown. Conclusions from the multiple studies
performed over the past thirty years concerning the magnitude of potential
environmental and/or human health problems associated with the presence of waste
material are inconclusive and are considered controversial. The NOAA study will
attempt to resolve some of these concerns.
10-K: A discussion of potential dredged material disposal impacts on marine mammals
(e.g., temporary impairment of foraging activities and response to vessel noise) is
included in Section 4.4.2.6. Based on these discussions and survey results for Study
Area 5, EPA has concluded that impacts from dredged material disposal to marine
mammals (including whales) are expected to be insignificant.
10-L: The statements on page 4-7 of the DEIS were intended to qualify the limits of
present knowledge regarding possible effects of dredged material disposal at the
alternative sites. The effects of dredged material disposal in water depths of 2,500
to 3,000 meters have not been studied. Therefore, impact assessments must rely on
characterization data and studies conducted at other ODMDSs which are shallower
than the alternative sites. Thus, because direct comparisons are limited, EPA chose
to rely heavily on site specific data that were collected in the study region to evaluate
potential impacts.
10-M: The numerical model of dredged material transport requires quantitative information
on a wide variety of topics (input conditions) such as disposal operations, dredged
material characteristics and settling rates, water column density, the speed and
direction of ocean currents at a range of depths in the region, the rate of horizontal
dispersion of particles at all depth levels, etc. While some of these input conditions
can be accurately determined (e.g., the time, location, and volume of dredged
material to be disposed), other parameters cannot be easily predicted (e.g., settling
rates of clumped sediments in deep water; and currents associated with non-periodic
phenomena). Other parameters, such as the rate of oceanic turbulence and diffusion,
cannot be measured and must be estimated from oceanographic theory.
The statement "limits of present knowledge" is another way of saying that the model
has been driven using "the best available information." For some parameters, actual
data are available; for others, input conditions must be approximated using
knowledge gained from the oceanographic literature and/or oceanographic theory.
With regard to the comment that the DEIS text and figures describing the results of
the dredged material transport model were incomprehensible to the lay reader, note
that FEIS Sections 4.2.1.3 and 4.2.1.4 have been rewritten to clarify and simplify the
results.
A-141
-------
10-N: As discussed in section 3.1.1.2, it is difficult to document the exact position of many
of the historic low-level radioactive waste disposal sites due to security classifications
imposed by military agencies, generally poor record-keeping for many disposal
activities, and the limitations of navigation equipment during the disposal period. In
addition, the movement of radioactive waste barrels through the water column
following disposal, downslope movement of barrels, and the extent of container burial
are unknown. These factors contribute to the uncertainty of determining the present
location of the wastes.
Exhibit 11
11-A: Requirements for monitoring effects from dredged material disposal activities at the
ODMDS, as well as management and site-use conditions, including transit routes and
minimum allowable distances from the Farallon Islands, are contained in the SMMP.
Provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS.
Exhibit 12
12-A: Requirements for site monitoring and management, including surveillance and
documentation of transit routes and discharge locations, are contained in the SMMP.
Provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated in the FEIS.
Exhibit 13
13-A: The Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) model of dredged
material transport used approximately one year of actual current measurement data,
from a variety of locations and depths in the vicinity of the alternative sites, to
predict the two-dimensional transport of disposed dredged material. These data were
representative of all oceanographic processes that will be encountered in this region,
including tides, density-driven flows, wind-driven currents, ocean eddies, and
low-frequency coastal currents. The actual time-series measurements from each
current meter were input to the model. These measurements from specific locations
and depths in the water column were used to construct a detailed, three-dimensional,
time-varying representation of the currents throughout the study region. Simple,
averaged estimates of currents were not used to drive the model. However, EPA
acknowledges that there may be extreme conditions or events that could occur which
were not measured during the one-year study.
Many environmental/dynamical factors would limit or prevent resuspension and
transport of disposed dredged material or other wastes lying on the sea floor at the
A-142
-------
alternative sites onto the San Mateo coast. The primary factor inhibiting transport
of wastes is related to physical limitations in moving very cold, dense water (and
relatively non-buoyant suspended particulate matter) from deep regions in the ocean
(such as the 1,400 to 3,000 meter depths of the alternative sites) to shallow levels.
The water at the sea floor in these locations is roughly 2°C and, consequently, its
density prohibits it from rising to any appreciable level in the water column even
when affected by tidal currents and other dynamical forces that are encountered in
the deep ocean. Thus, there should be no impacts to shallow continental shelf areas
or to the beaches of San Mateo County.
13-B: Dredged material proposed for disposal at the ODMDS will be tested for suitability
according to procedures described in the Green Book (EPA/COE 1991). No
contaminated material will be permitted for disposal at the ODMDS.
Exhibit 14
14-A: The ZSF study performed by the COE (COE 1992c) concluded that all of the
alternative sites could be used economically. Further considerations of cost
differences for individual alternative sites were not considered as criterion for site
selection. Section 3.4 of the EIS presents available information on the fisheries
resource values of the alternative sites.
14-B: The EIS has been revised to reflect the present status of the dredged material disposal
operations at the NODS.
14-C: EPA and COE are the primary agencies responsible for site management Transit
routes and other site-use conditions are specified in the SMMP and in the Public
Notice for permits.
14-D: EPA believes that information concerning regulatory authorities contained in this
section of the EIS is correct. Although EPA does not have regulatory authority to
write permits for dredged material disposal, no dredged material permit can be issued
without EPA concurrence.
14-E: The projected dredged material volumes shown in Table 1.2-1 were taken from an
LTMS document (Alternative Disposal Options, San Francisco Bay Region, Final
Report, U.S. Army Corps, 1992). EPA consistently has relied upon the COE to
provide volume estimates for the LTMS and believes that the volumes in the report
represent the best available information. Annual disposal volumes at the three sites
within the Bay listed in Chapter 2 of the EIS have been revised according to the data
provided in Comment 14-L. Note that the volumes listed in Comment 14-E for 1991
do not agree with volumes listed in Comment 14-L.
A-143
-------
14-F: This statement explains the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to halt disposal within San Francisco Bay (Resolution 90-37). The
SWRCB may elect to not exercise this authority with the availability of other
disposal options. However, EPA does not believe that this EIS is the appropriate
forum for interpretation of SWRCB policy.
14-G: Section 1.6.2.3 of the FEIS has been revised to reflect the suggested changes.
14-H: The COE has been cited in EPA's FEIS as a cooperating agency for the Navy's
MPRSA Section 103 site designation final supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (FSEIS).
14-1: Appropriate citations have been referenced in the FEIS.
14-J: The statement regarding comparability of data (Section 3.2.5.5) refers specifically to
analytical protocols used to quantify concentrations of selected chemical parameters
in sediment samples. Differences between protocols relate to the method-specified
lists of target analytes and analytical sensitivities for individual analytes. These
differences do not invalidate the data used to characterize the chemical composition
of the sediments at the different study areas.
14-K: See response to Comment 14-B. The status of the Navy's Section 103 disposal
operations at NODS had been updated as appropriate in the FEIS.
14-L: The dredged material disposal volumes at existing sites within the Bay listed in
Chapter 1 were revised according to the data provided by the COE in this comment.
The discussion of regulatory responsibilities for sites within the Bay has been
clarified.
14-M: See response to Comment 14-D. Although the COE writes the permits for dredged
material disposal projects, EPA must concur before the permit can be issued.
14-N: At the time EPA's DEIS went to press, the FSEIS had not been released. This FEIS
will now cite the Navy's FSEIS.
14-0: See response to Comment 14-C.
14-P: This reference is corrected in the FEIS.
14-Q: As discussed in the EIS, the process used to select the preferred alternative site
involved comparisons of the alternative sites to the 11 specific criteria for site
selection listed at 40 CFR 228.6. Alternative Site 5 is located approximately 50
nautical miles from shore and in 2,500 to 3,000 meters of water. It was selected as
A-144
-------
the preferred alternative site primarily because it is located in an area that has been
used historically for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and chemical
conventional munitions and because it is located in deep water away from productive
fishery areas. Differences in field sampling methods used for individual study areas
are considered minor and do not significantly affect this evaluation.
14-R: This statement has been clarified.
14-S: See response to Comment 14-K.
14-T: Provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS.
14-U: Due to the high natural spatial and temporal variability in total suspended solids
(TSS) concentrations, it was believed that any discrete TSS samples collected would
not be representative of the range of conditions possible for suspended solids.
Further, EPA believes that existing information is adequate for characterizing the
physical environment of the study areas.
14-V: Nutrient concentrations were not measured during the EPA surveys because the
existing information was considered adequate for characterizing nutrient
concentrations within the study areas. Additionally, studies conducted for the COE's
Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) concluded that effects to nutrient
concentrations from dredged material disposal operations were transient and caused
only minor, short-term impacts to water quality.
14-W: Trace metal concentrations were not measured during the EPA surveys because the
existing information from the study region was considered adequate.
14-X: See responses to Comments 14-J and 14-Q. As mentioned, differences in
methodologies used for characterizing the environments of the study areas are
considered minor; these differences do not hinder the site-selection process.
14-Y: This statement has been clarified in the FEIS.
14-Z: See responses to Comments 14-J, 14-Q, and 14-X.
14-AA: Trawling methods to collect bottom fishes and invertebrates were different between
the EPA and Navy surveys, However, based on the observed similarities among
communities, particularly for fish species from the alternative sites, these differences
were not considered to be a significant hindrance to the site-selection process.
14-BB: See responses to comments 14-J, 14-Q, and 14-X discussing data comparability.
A-145
-------
14-CC: See responses to comments 14-J, 14-Q, and 14-X discussing data comparability.
14-DD: See responses to comments 14-J, 14-Q, and 14-X discussing data comparability.
14-EE: The definition of legal status has been clarified in the FEIS. Those species that are
Federally and/or State endangered, threatened, or which have special status, are cited
accordingly in tables appearing at the beginning of Sections 3.3.4 (Marine Birds),
3.3.5 (Marine Mammals), and 3.3.6 (Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status
Species).
14-FF: According to Ainley and Boekelheide (1990), approximately 122 species of breeding,
migrating, and visiting marine birds are found in the study region. Under advisement
from experts at the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO), ten representative species
were selected that were determined to be characteristic of the resident marine bird
community.
14-GG: The consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) was
voluntary and was pursued in the spirit of project coordination associated with the
State Coastal Zone Management Act. This has been clarified in the FEIS.
14-HH: Although none of the study areas are located within State waters (waters extending
3 nautical miles from the coastline), dredged material barges will pass through State
waters in transit to the ODMDS.
The CDFG has jurisdiction over State waters and is concerned with any activities
which may affect State endangered and threatened species. The responsibilities of
CDFG have been clarified in the FEIS.
14-11: The American osprey currently is not listed Federally or by the State as a threatened
or endangered species; the marbled murrelet is listed Federally as threatened and is
considered endangered by the State of California. The status of these species has
been updated in the FEIS.
14-JJ: This was corrected in the FEIS.
14-KK: Large differences between alternative sites in potential impacts associated with
dredged material disposal were not indicated, as summarized in Table 4.1-1.
Nevertheless, reasons for selecting Alternative Site 5 as the preferred alternative,
discussed in Section 2.2.4, include considerations of potential impacts from historical
waste disposal and proposed dredged material disposal operations, more limited
fisheries resources, and possible, albeit minor, differences in potential impacts to
benthic communities. The purpose of Table 4.1-1 was to assess NEPA type impacts
for overall acceptability for ODMDS designation. This is fundamentally different
A-146
-------
from the purpose of Section 2.2.4 which evaluates the alternative sites relative to
EPA's 11 specific site-selection criteria.
14-LL: Potential impacts, and the physical, chemical, and biological processes which could
regulate the magnitude of impacts, at a deep-water disposal site are discussed in
detail in Chapter 4 of the EIS. Where possible, information from previous studies
of deep-water environments is used to evaluate impacts. If direct information from
deep-water environments is unavailable, observations from shallow-water
environments are used, and possible limitations of extrapolating to deep-water
systems are discussed. However, because information concerning the impacts of
dredged material disposal in deep-water environments is limited, EPA relied heavily
on data collected in the study region to characterize existing site conditions and
evaluate potential impacts.
14-MM: The 6,000 cubic yard barge capacity was an assumption used for developing the
footprint model. This volume was chosen under the advisement of the COE. Actual
barge capacity volumes may differ from the assumed volume.
14-NN: Sediment properties data from the Naval Supply Center (NSC) Oakland used in the
model were based on discussions and recommendations with COE personnel prior to
initiation of the modeling task (see SAIC 1992e).
14-00: The comment is correct However, note that the model-predicted footprint within the
NMS corresponds to deposition over a one-year period of 1 millimeter of mostly sand
material. This amount of material is two orders of magnitude less than the amount
predicted to cause adverse impacts to benthic organisms.
14-PP: The term "significant" used in this instance was meant in a qualitative rather than
quantitative fashion. However, due to the statistical implications of the term, it was
replaced with a more appropriate term in the FEIS.
14-QQ: This statement regarding permit conditions was clarified in the FEIS.
14-RR: This statement has been clarified in the FEIS to indicate that, if dredged material
shows statistically significant bioaccumulation following testing. Green Book
(EPA/COE 1991) factors 1-8 (page 6-6) will be considered.
14-SS: The statement on page 4-63 of the DEIS indicates that because the preferred
alternative site is outside of the Sanctuary boundaries, normal disposal operations at
the ODMDS will not discharge material into the Sanctuary. No spillage or leakage
from barges is allowed under the Navy Section 103 permit for use of the NODS.
SMMP requirements will be based on Navy Section 103 permit special conditions.
A-147
-------
14-TT: This comment refers to infaunal species (page 4-76) and not to page 3-134, which
discusses new epifaunal species collected in Study Area 5 by Nybakken et al. (1992).
14-UU: This information is incorporated in the FEIS.
14-VV: This section of the FEIS has been revised to indicate that COE does not prepare draft
permits. The Regional Implementation Agreement for Evaluating Dredged Material
proposed for Ocean Disposal will be cited in the SMMP with respect to sediment
testing. Site-use conditions also will be discussed in the SMMP.
14-WW: According to MPRSA Section 105(a), EPA is granted authority to take enforcement
actions on violations of COE-issued permits. This is clarified in the FEIS.
14-XX: The EIS was revised to reflect that site management is the responsibility of EPA.
As stated in 40 CFR Section 228.9(c), EPA will require full participation of
permittees and encourages the participation of other Federal, State, and Local
agencies.
14-YY: See response to Comment 14-Q.
14-ZZ: See response to Comment 14-Q.
Exhibit 15
15-A: The CDFG Trawler Database Report (Jow 1992) was not finalized in time for
inclusion in the DEIS. However, this report is now available and its information is
contained and cited in the FEIS.
15-B: Site management and monitoring will be discussed in the SMMP. Provisions of the
SMMP are included in the FEIS. EPA intends to coordinate closely with the Navy
to maximize the information obtained from the Navy's monitoring efforts, and apply
the experience gained through management and monitoring at NODS to the
management and monitoring of the ODMDS.
Exhibit 16
16-A: All dredged material proposed for ocean disposal must be tested according to
protocols in the Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) and in the Regional Implementation
Agreement. Only material deemed suitable will be permitted for disposal at the
ODMDS.
A-148
-------
16-B: An SMMP will be published as a separate document from the FEIS. However, major
provisions of the SMMP are included in the FEIS. The issue of financing for
monitoring studies is being studied by the LTMS Implementation Work Group.
Exhibit 17
Response: EPA appreciates your review and support of the DEIS.
Exhibit 18
18-A: This EIS evaluated three alternative sites within the ZSF and the No Action
Alternative. The sites were selected because (1) they were believed to be far enough
from the coast to prevent any potential negative impacts to shelf and coastal natural
resources (including fisheries, marine birds, and marine mammals) or human
activities (recreational fishing, naturalist expeditions, etc.); and (2) they were not so
far from San Francisco Bay that transport of dredged materials to the potential site
would be economically infeasible. Other regions outside of the ZSF were not
evaluated because use of such a site would not be economically feasible.
18-B: The SMMP utilizes a tiered approach to identify any potential impacts related to
disposal events. In the event that negative impacts are indicated, the SMMP may
initiate a variety of management actions including (1) limiting the amount of dredged
material disposed of at the site, (2) enforcing seasonal limitations on dredged material
disposal events, or (3) designating a new disposal site.
18-C: The listed volumes of dredged material for ocean disposal (6 million cubic yards
annually and 400 million cubic yards over a 50-year period) are planning estimates.
All dredged material will have to pass Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) testing
procedures before it can be disposed at the ODMDS. Therefore, the actual disposal
volumes may be lower than the planning estimates. Further, the timing and
frequency of site use is likely to vary from daily discharge events. Therefore, water
column impacts are not expected to be significant due to the temporary nature of the
disposal plumes.
18-D: As indicated in Section 4.2.2.1 of the FEIS, the patchy nature of plankton
communities throughout the study region and the generally higher abundance of
plankton in shallower waters inshore of the preferred alternative site suggest that a
relatively small proportion of the plankton community is at risk. This, in conjunction
with the limited duration and spatial extent of the disposal plume, suggests that the
potential for negative impacts to plankton communities would be limited.
A-149
-------
18-E: EPA has used worst-case estimates to predict impacts at the disposal site. Even so,
impacts are expected to be minimal even when cumulative impacts over a 50-year
period are considered. EPA agrees that disposal at a site of this depth is
unprecedented, and the OSWG designed the monitoring program (specified in the
SMMP) to address outstanding concerns and verify impact predictions.
Exhibit 19
19-A: EPA does not intend to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS).
19-B: As discussed in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of the FEIS, data from PRBO surveys were
used to provide a long-term record of bird and mammal abundances within the study
region during the June breeding season. These surveys include transects through
each of the four study areas, but not necessarily through the alternative sites. Due
to their mobile and migratory nature, surveys of bird and mammal populations using
fixed location sampling are considered inappropriate. Sampling of transects through
the study areas was done because this method is the most appropriate for
characterizing marine bird and mammal communities. This type of sampling also
provides a larger regional perspective concerning interannual patterns for these
communities. Thus, the bird data and approach used to characterize these
communities are considered valid.
19-C: This statement is incorrect. The PRBO and EPA survey data were collected in each
of the four study areas (Study Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5). While some additional data
were collected by the Navy for Study Area 5 only, these data were not used in the
subsequent EPA analyses.
19-D: See response to Comment 19-B. Seasonal surveys conducted by the EPA served to
supplement the long-term breeding season data collected by PRBO. As previously
mentioned, both sets of surveys were conducted using the same census
methodologies. Also, PRBO and EPA survey data were analyzed using the same
methods. It is EPA's belief that, collectively, the two data sets adequately
characterize marine bird and mammal populations within the study areas.
19-E: See response to Comments 19-B and 19-D.
19-F: Although the preferred alternative site had relatively higher marine bird and mammal
use than the other alternative sites, disposal impacts to these species are expected to
be insignificant (Class ID) due to the localized nature and short duration of the
disposal plume.
A-150
-------
19-G: EPA has utilized review comments received on the DEIS to help design the SMMP.
The provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS. The monitoring
plan portion of the SMMP includes a tiered strategy for assessing disposal impacts
to marine bird and mammal species.
19-H: Funding for long-term monitoring programs is being addressed by the LTMS
Implementation Work Group.
19-1: Surveillance and audits of documentation are considered by EPA to be important
tasks for site management. Surveillance and enforcement methods are addressed in
the SMMP and summarized in the FEIS. Provisions for surveillance include
requirements for documenting (via direct printouts from navigational systems) of
barge transit routes and discharge locations, verification by independent inspectors,
specifications of navigational accuracy, and documentation review by the responsible
agencies.
Exhibit 20
20-A: Verification of model predictions for dredged material transport and deposition is an
important goal of the SMMP. Information will be obtained from monitoring studies
conducted in conjunction with the Navy's dredged material disposal operations at
NODS. These data will be reviewed and incorporated into decisions by EPA
regarding the need for and design of further studies of dredged material dispersion
to be conducted under the SMMP for the MPRSA 102 site.
20-B: The provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS. The Plan
includes a strategy for assessing disposal impacts to marine birds, mammals, and
other organisms. In addition, as discussed in the response to Comment 20-A, the
monitoring program described in the SMMP provides verification of model-predicted
dredged material transport and deposition.
20-C: The preferred alternative site is located approximately 10 nautical miles from the
GOFNMS boundaries. The SMMP specifies that all material will be discharged
within a 1.1 nautical mile diameter circle centered at 37°39'N, 123°29'W, and no
portion of the barge shall be further than 3,200 feet from the site center. Transit
routes for dredged material barges also are specified in the SMMP. Barges must
remain outside of the territorial sea boundary surrounding the Farallon Islands by
following the inner portion of the outbound western shipping lane for transit into and
out of the Bay. When the vessel is west of the Vessel Separation Scheme (VSS), the
tug shall proceed directly to the ODMDS, but remain at least 3 nautical miles from
the Farallon Islands. These specifications are consistent with site-use conditions in
the Navy MPRSA Section 103 permit for the use of NODS.
A-151
-------
20-D: See response to Comment 20-C. Site-use conditions aimed at reducing the possibility
of accidental spills and disposal of material outside the boundaries of the site,
especially within protected areas such as the GOFNMS, are addressed in the SMMP.
These provisions also have been summarized in the FEIS.
20-E: A draft version of the SMMP was reviewed by the members of the OSWG. The
provisions of the SMMP have been summarized in the FEIS.
20-F: Monitoring, as outlined by the SMMP, will be carried out in the time frame
specified. Time intervals for studies may be modified based on periodic review.
Site-monitoring activities likely will not take place during each disposal event.
20-G: Requirements for monitoring tasks and field personnel are outlined in the SMMP.
EPA and the COE believe that barge tug operators are capable of providing adequate
documentation of permit compliance. Nevertheless, independent observers will be
used for some surveillance and documentation activities specified in the SMMP.
20-H: EPA agrees with this comment and will make this integration through review of the
Navy's monitoring plan and results and development of the SMMP for the ODMDS.
20-1: EPA feels that the studies conducted in support of this EIS sufficiently characterize
the preferred alternative site and its vicinity.
20-J: The center of EPA's ODMDS is at 37°39'N, 123°29rW. This corresponds with the
center of the NODS. Disposal at the coordinates you suggest would result in
deposition of material on Gumdrop Seamount, which was not studied under EPA's
LTMS efforts, and which may be associated with more diverse organisms,
particularly if hard-bottom features are present.
20-K: The SMMP specifies that dredged material will be discharged within a 1.1 nautical
mile diameter circle centered at the coordinates listed in the response to Comment
20-J.
20-L: Existing information on zooplankton communities within the study region, from the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) surveys, is summarized in Section 3.3 of
the EIS. As stated in Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2, plankton communities exhibit
considerable temporal and spatial population variability. Because effects to the water
column from disposal operations are expected to be temporary, impacts to plankton
communities are expected to be insignificant.
20-M: Moderate, high, and low use are not meant as strictly quantitative, but as relative
terms. Moderate use implies that the study area is more often frequented or used
A-152
-------
than a low use area, but less utilized than a high use areas. Use categories are based
on results from biological censuses or other studies.
20-N: The total volume of sediment represented by a 10 centimeter thick deposit over a
10 square kilometer area is 10 million cubic meters (13 million cubic yards); a
1 centimeter thick deposit over the same area represents 1 million cubic meters (1.3
million cubic yards).
20-0: Minimal and temporary impacts are anticipated from disposal activities due to the
limited spatial and temporal extent of the disposal plume. Vessel traffic is expected
to increase slightly following ODMDS designation due to the dredge barges that will
be transiting to and from the site; this in turn could cause some minimal interference
with commercial, recreational, or scientific boat traffic. However, the additional
vessel traffic represented by the barges is expected to be negligible.
20-P: The term "low probabilities" was meant to be qualitative, not quantitative.
20-Q: The SMMP specifies requirements for site use, including transit paths for dredge
barges, navigational accuracy, documentation, and agency surveillance. These
provisions have been incorporated into the FEIS.
20-R: See response to Comment 20-Q.
20-S: As stated in the FEIS, the locations of the NODS and the preferred alternative site
coincide.
20-T: The distance from the preferred alternative site to the GOFNMS is approximately
7 nautical miles.
20-U: Site surveillance and monitoring issues are addressed in the SMMP. These
provisions have been incorporated into the FEIS.
20-V; See response to Comment 20-D.
20-W: See response to Comment 20-B.
20-X: Issues identified in Section 1.5 of the DEIS have been resolved. This section of the
FEIS has been revised accordingly.
20-Y: Monitoring of impacts to marine fish, bird, and mammal species, including
endangered species, is included as part of the SMMP.
20-Z: Comment noted.
A-153
-------
20-AA: The provisions of the SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS.
Exhibit 21
21-A: Volumes of material dredged from San Francisco Bay and specific fractions of the
total volumes that will be proposed for disposal at an ODMDS over the next 50 years
are speculative. Data used in the DEIS were obtained from COE documents prepared
for the LTMS. These data were considered the best existing information on potential
volumes generated over the term of the LTMS, but these values will be revised as
more information becomes available through the other ongoing LTMS study
elements. Further, these quantities are viewed by EPA as maximum volumes and
would only be realized if no non-aquatic disposal sites become available in the next
50 years and if all material proposed for dredging is of suitable quality for ocean
disposal. If non-aquatic sites do become available, or if other beneficial uses for
dredged material are identified, EPA will encourage their use. The LTMS
Implementation Work Group will prepare guidance for evaluating all available
disposal options for specific proposed dredging projects at the time that permit
applications are being reviewed.
21-B: See response to Comment 21-A.
21-C: The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate designation of an ODMDS. One of the goals
of the LTMS is to provide an array of disposal options, including ocean disposal.
In this way, EPA believes that the need for an ocean disposal site, for some amount
of material, has been established. It is not the purpose of this EIS to evaluate the
potential benefits of non-aquatic and reuse disposal options relative to the potential
benefits and impacts associated with ocean disposal. These evaluations will be made,
according to the guidance being developed by the LTMS Implementation Work
Group, at the time that permit applications for specific projects are being evaluated.
At the present time, EPA is not aware of any additional information that could be
used to further refine the dredging volumes and disposal requirements presented in
recent COE documents, as cited in the EIS.
21 -D: An SMMP has been prepared that includes specific monitoring tasks to evaluate
impacts associated with dredged material disposal activities at the preferred
alternative site. Provisions of the SMMP are included in the FEIS. EPA will have
an approved SMMP before the site is designated.
21-E: See response to Comment 21-D. The design of the monitoring program in the
SMMP facilitates monitoring of short-term and long-term impacts, enabling EPA and
COE to make management decisions in a timely manner, should potential or actual
unacceptable adverse impacts be detected. The physical, biological, and chemical
A-154
-------
monitoring will also help these agencies to verify whether disposal operations are
carried out in compliance with permitting and environmental regulations.
21-F: See response to Comment 21-D. Section 4.6 of the EIS has been revised to define
the goals and objectives of site management and monitoring. Funding for site
monitoring is being addressed by the LTMS Implementation Work Group.
21-G: See response to Comment 21-D. The tiered approach to monitoring, as described in
the SMMP, incorporates management decision triggers and options for mitigation, as
deemed appropriate based on results from monitoring studies. Further model
verification is one of the goals of the physical monitoring module of the SMMP.
21-H: EPA believes that adequate opportunities for input from the public and
decision-makers on the SMMP through OSWG meetings, circulated drafts of the
SMMP, and comments are being provided in accordance with the LTMS process,
prior to issuance of the Final Rule on proposed rule site designation.
21-1: See the response to Comment 21-H.
21-J: See response to Comment 19-C. A logical sequence of monitoring, data evaluation,
and management decisions/actions is an integral part of the tiered monitoring
framework described in the SMMP. Model verification is an important goal of the
physical monitoring module of the monitoring program. Surveillance and
documentation requirements, including the use of independent inspectors, are
specified in the SMMP.
21-K: The plume model actually assumed an annual disposal volume of 6 million cubic
yards. The EIS has been revised to correct this discrepancy.
21-L: EPA acknowledges that there will likely be some impacts from dredged material
disposal to both water column and benthic habitats. However, changes to the water
column habitat are expected to be temporary, and the duration will be related to the
rate of dispersion of the dredged material. Effects of disposal on midwater and
demersal fishes are expected to be temporary due to the transient nature of the
disposal plume. A higher frequency of discharge events may temporarily increase
the percentage of time that organisms in the vicinity of the disposal site are exposed
to plumes of settling particles. Regardless, in the worst case, only a small portion
of the habitat will be affected.
21-M: The EIS envisions that the worst-case scenario for releases of dredged material within
a sanctuary is related to discharges of an entire barge load (i.e., up to 6,000 cubic
yards). These releases would represent isolated events (both temporally and
spatially). Factors such as short dumping and spillage will be identified and managed
A-155
-------
by provisions of the management portion of the SMMP. Provisions such as use of
independent inspectors, requirements of the permittees to generate hard-copy
documentation of transit paths and disposal coordinates, and navigational accuracy
specifications have been implemented under the Navy MPRSA Section 103 permit
for the NODS. Additional, possible mitigation measures/management actions are
being incorporated into the monitoring program specified in the SMMP.
21-N: Based on the available data. Study Area 2 is considered a productive area containing
the highest abundances of commercially important species. However, compared to
other locations within Study Area 2 (Sites Bl, B1A, B2, or B5), COE data indicated
that Site BIB had lower abundances of commercially important species.
21-0: Previous studies conducted within the study region provided useful background
information concerning characterization of the various shelf sites. However, because
the information was incomplete and/or contradictory, EPA conducted additional
surveys within the study region. Only the Navy and EPA survey results were used
to select alternative sites, and no alternative sites were established on the shelf
because of the highly productive fishery resources and designation of the MBNMS.
The purpose of the COE studies was to evaluate areas on the shelf. EPA studies
compared shelf areas to slope areas.
21-P: EPA acknowledges that disposal operations at the BIB site were extremely limited
and the use of the site was halted by court action. Regardless, some dredged material
was released at or near this site. Therefore, Site BIB is considered a historically
used site. EPA has no intention of using this fact as a precedent for designating a
site in this area. (Note that no alternative sites were identified in this area or on the
adjacent shelf.)
21-Q: The DEIS does not mean to imply that a ZSF is required by the Ocean Dumping
Regulations. However, evaluation of a ZSF does represent an important step in the
site designation process, and is recommended in several existing EPA and COE
documents that provide guidance on ODMDS designation. Inclusion in the EIS of
a discussion of the ZSF performed by the COE for evaluation of potential ocean
disposal sites does not obviate or minimize use of the 5 general and 11 specific
site-selection criteria for comparisons of alternative ocean sites. Sections 2.2.2 and
2.2.3 of the EIS evaluate the alternative sites with respect to these criteria.
Exhibit 22
22-A through 22-F, 22-H through 22-Q, 22-S, and 22-X through 22-Z: These comments are
addressed by incorporating the recommended revisions into the FEIS.
A-156
-------
22-G: This section in the DEIS discusses dominant flatfishes on a study area by study area
basis. There is no mention of rank order in terms of biomass or number of species.
Also, according to Table 2 in Jow (1992), Dover sole rank highest in the study region
followed by English sole, Pacific sanddab, petrale sole, and rex sole.
22-R: While this comment is factually correct, this section is not designed to address rank
order of the number of rockfish or flatfish species collected in the study area, but
rather to describe what species are predominant in bottom trawls.
22-T: The depth ranges reported for individual species often vary between literature
sources. The depth ranges are not critical to the major points of the discussion in
this section, and our original statements are consistent with the references cited.
22-U: See response to Comment 22-T.
22-V: See response to Comment 22-T.
22-W: See response to Comment 22-T.
22-AA: The CDFG Trawler Database Report (Jow 1992) was not finalized in time for
inclusion in the DEIS. However, this report is now available and its information is
contained and cited in the FEIS.
Exhibit 23
23-A: An SMMP has been prepared that includes specific monitoring tasks to evaluate
impacts associated with dredged material disposal activities at the preferred
alternative site. The monitoring program uses a tiered framework with physical,
biological, and chemical modules. The specific objectives (i.e., hypotheses or
management questions) are different for different modules and for individual tiers
within each module. Specific monitoring issues include evaluations of the spatial
extent of bottom deposits of dredged material, assessments of concentrations of
chemical contaminants in bottom sediments, and censusing of birds and mammals in
the vicinity of the disposal site. Management actions/mitigation will depend on
results from the monitoring studies. Surveillance of disposal activities and
enforcement actions also are specified in the SMMP. Use of independent inspectors
and reviews of records of transit routes and discharge locations will facilitate
oversight and compliance assessments. Provisions of the SMMP are included in the
FEIS.
23-B: The SMMP is designed to allow flexibility to accommodate unforeseen needs and the
ability to revise the plan as changes are required. Consequently, the SMMP will be
A-157
-------
reviewed periodically by EPA Region IX, COE San Francisco District, and the
OSWG. Management and monitoring issues and public concerns will be resolved
cooperatively.
23-C: Due to high natural variability and the limited number of turbidity measurements
taken during the field program, EPA believes that any turbidity measurements
collected would not be representative of the range of conditions possible. Further,
EPA believes that existing information is adequate for characterizing the physical
environment of the study areas. Turbidity data will be collected as part of the
Navy's monitoring program at NODS.
Marine bird and mammal survey data were collected by PRBO and EPA within each
of the four study areas using the same census methodologies. There are no
differences in the methodologies used to collect data for Study Area 5 as compared
to Study Areas 3 or 4.
23-D: The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate designation of an ODMDS. Comprehensive
analyses of disposal alternatives, including options for beneficial uses of dredged
materia], are beyond the scope of this EIS. Designation of an ODMDS does not
preclude use of other disposal alternatives, or potential uses of dredged material for
beneficial purposes. These alternatives will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,
using guidance being developed by the LTMS Implementation Work Group, during
the permit application review process for individual projects.
Exhibit 24
24-A: This table has been revised to include this information.
24-B: This table has been revised to include this information.
24-C: Comment noted.
24-D: The fraction of the total dredging volume from planned and proposed projects in the
Bay considered potentially suitable for ocean disposal has been estimated by the COE
(1992a) as 6 million cubic yards per year. The chemical characteristics of potential
dredged sediments are unknown. Contaminant concentrations in Bay sediments, and
the associated toxicity and/or bioavailability of sediment contaminants, are expected
to vary widely. Impacts at the ODMDS associated with the presence of chemical
contaminants in sediments which pass Green Book testing protocols (EPA/COE 1991)
can not be predicted with certainty. However, the purpose of testing the sediments
prior to approval for ocean disposal is to minimize the potential for significant
adverse biological impacts. Analysis of bottom sediments from within the ODMDS
A-158
-------
for chemical contaminants is specified in the monitoring program portion of the
SMMP.
Exhibit 25
25-A: It is EPA's belief that adequate characterization and baseline data have been provided
on use of the preferred alternative site by marine birds and mammals. Further, EPA
feels that the data discussed within Sections 4.2.2.5 and 4.2.2.6 indicate that disposal
impacts to these species will be insignificant (Class III).
25-B: The preferred alternative site is located approximately 50 nautical miles from shore,
in depths ranging from 2,500 to 3,000 meters. It was chosen as the preferred
alternative primarily because it is located in deep water away from productive fishery
areas and in an area that has been used historically for disposal of low-level
radioactive waste and chemical and conventional munitions. The preferred alternative
site also corresponds to the NODS, which has been permitted under MPRSA
Section 103 for use by the Navy to dispose of dredged material from the Naval Air
Station Alameda and Naval Supply Center Oakland.
25-C: An SMMP is being developed. Provisions of the SMMP are summarized in the
FEIS. EPA does not intend to prepare an SEIS.
25-D: The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate designation of an ODMDS. Evaluation of
other possible disposal options is beyond the scope of this EIS. Nevertheless,
ODMDS designation does not preclude use of other disposal and/or reuse options.
Guidance on the evaluation and use of other disposal options is being developed by
the LTMS Implementation Work Group.
25-E: The suitability of alternative sites as an ODMDS is evaluated according to 5 general
and 11 specific site-selection criteria. Criteria for evaluating changes to conditions
within and adjacent to the ODMDS associated with dredged material disposal, as
indicated by results from site monitoring, are presented in the SMMP. In some
cases, these assessments will rely on the best professional judgment of EPA staff and
will be made in consultation with the LTMS OSWG.
25-F: See response to Comment 25-C. Termination of site use and designation of new sites
are discussed in the SMMP, which will be finalized before the site is designated.
25-G: Alternative Site 3 is located in the western portion of Study Area 3 and outside of
MBNMS boundaries. The fact that the eastern portion of Study Area 3 is located
inside MBNMS boundaries did not affect EPA's evaluation of Alternative Site 3
relative to the other alternative sites.
A-159
-------
25-H: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) was passed in 1916 to control
the taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds. It is EPA's belief that the
proposed designation of use of an ODMDS will not result in the capture or killing
of migratory birds. Therefore, this act is not germane to the proposed action.
25-1: Information on ranking this non-ocean disposal site came from the LTMS Non-
Aquatic/Re-Use Work Group. The Montezuma Wetlands site is an option for
dredged material disposal, and is still being evaluated. This EIS was not intended
to evaluate options other than ocean disposal.
25-J: As discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIS, impacts to water quality from dredged material
disposal are expected to be temporary, with plumes dispersing within 48 hours of
discharge. Perturbations in water quality are expected to be temporary and reduced
to the range of background conditions prior to reaching any NMS or shoreline.
Subsequent monitoring will determine the accuracy of these predictions.
25-K: It is unlikely that deposition of dredged material would compromise the integrity of
radioactive waste containers beyond that which has already occurred. Provisions for
site use will include a requirement that larger objects will be screened from dredged
materials during the dredging process.
25-L: All dredged material proposed for disposal at the ODMDS must be tested according
to Green Book protocols (EPA/COE 1991) prior to discharge at the site. These tests
involve sediment chemistry, bioassay, and bioaccumulation evaluations. Decisions
regarding suitability for ocean disposal are based on evidence of biological effects,
not on sediment chemistry concentrations.
25-M: Sediments from Alternative Site 5 were analyzed for the complete list of EPA
priority pollutants. Based on the results from these analyses (i.e., the absence of
detectable amounts of most extractable organic compounds), it was decided to
analyze sediments from the other study areas for a modified list of analytes [that
included non-priority pollutant compounds such as n-alkanes and alkyl-substituted
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] using methods offering higher sensitivity.
25-N: The ZSF evaluation indicated that use of any of the three alternative sites is
considered economically feasible. The costs associated with transit to the preferred
alternative site relative to transit to the other alternative sites were not considered in
the site-selection process.
25-0: As discussed in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of the FEIS, data from PRBO surveys were
used to provide a long-term record of bird and mammal abundances within the study
region during the June breeding season. These surveys include transects through
each of the four study areas, but not necessarily through the alternative sites. Due
A-160
-------
to their mobile and migratory nature, surveys of bird and mammal populations using
fixed location sampling are considered inappropriate. However, sampling of transects
through the study areas was done because this method is appropriate for
characterizing marine bird and mammal communities. This type of sampling also
provides a larger regional perspective concerning interannual patterns for these
communities. Thus, the bird and mammal data and approach used to characterize
these communities are considered valid.
Transect surveys were also used to characterize fish populations within the study
region. Trawling was conducted along transects located within each study area, but
not necessarily within each alternative site. A large commercial trawl, along with
35-millimeter still photographs and color video from a remotely-operated vehicle
(ROV), were used to characterize fishes and invertebrates within Study Areas 2, 3,
and 4. A beam trawl and camera sled were used to characterize these communities
in Study Area 5, including the preferred alternative site. EPA believes that these
were the best methods for characterizing the biological communities within the study
region.
25-P: EPA is confident that the information presently available and discussed in the FEIS
is adequate to describe the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments of
the alternative sites and to predict potential environmental impacts associated with
the use of an ODMDS. EPA does not intend to prepare an SEIS.
25-Q: Although the area near the preferred alternative site may have relatively high marine
bird and mammal use, disposal impacts to these species are expected to be
insignificant (Class III). It must be noted that the potential for biological impacts is
not the only consideration used in designating a disposal site. The preferred
alternative site is located approximately 50 nautical miles from shore and in 2,500
to 3,000 meters of water. It was chosen primarily because it is located in deep water
away from productive fishery areas and in an area that has been used historically for
disposal of low-level radioactive waste and chemical and conventional munitions.
Also, the preferred alternative site corresponds to the NODS as discussed in the
response to Comment 25-B.
25-R: Based on the information discussed in Sections 4.2.2.5 and 4.2.2.6 of the EIS,
disposal impacts to these species are considered insignificant (Class III). No seasonal
restrictions have been identified as necessary for the protection of Farallon breeding
populations. However, site-use restrictions are possible management actions that
could be instituted if indicated by results from the site-monitoring program.
25-S: As discussed in Section 3.3.6, formal consultation letters requesting advisement of
any critical habitat for threatened or endangered species that may be impacted by
A-161
-------
dredged material disposal are included in the FEIS. EPA feels that dredged material
disposal at the preferred alternative site will not impact critical habitat for threatened
and endangered species. Response letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), NMFS, and CDFG are included in Chapter 5 of this FEIS.
25-T: Specific sightings for gray, humpback, and blue whales, and northern sea lions were
provided in Section 3.3.5 of the DEIS (see Figures 3.3.5-7, 3.3.5-8, 3.3.5-9, and
3.3.5-13, respectively); California brown pelican sightings were shown in DEIS
Section 3.3.4 (see Figure 3.3.4-5). The remaining marine bird and mammal species
that are threatened or endangered (finback whale, sperm whale, and peregrine falcon)
were not observed in the study region during EPA or PRBO surveys. Therefore, no
sightings for these species were provided. All of these figures were referenced in
DEIS Section 3.3.6 (Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species) and are
included in the FEIS. Note that the gray whale has been de-listed from its
endangered species status subsequent to DEIS publication and is not included as an
endangered species in the FEIS. Further, based on evaluation of the existing data,
EPA does not believe presently that seasonal restrictions for disposal activities are
needed to protect threatened and endangered species.
25-U: EPA used worst-case estimates for modeling potential impacts from dredged material
disposal on water quality. Assumptions regarding the frequency of discharge events
were made, although actual frequencies and disposal volumes are likely to vary
somewhat (e.g., lower than estimated). Elevated concentrations of suspended
particles may be present in the water column for periods of hours to days after
discharge. However, the water quality model discussed in Chapter 4 predicts that
disposal plumes containing particle concentrations higher than those in ambient
waters will be at subsurface depths following an initial mixing period, and are
unlikely to affect primary productivity. Therefore, model predictions, using
conservative conditions, indicate that effects to water quality (exemplified by
concentrations of suspended particles) outside of the ODMDS will be insignificant.
EPA does not believe that seasonal restrictions on site use are necessary.
25-V: Perturbations to water quality are expected to be transient, affecting a small portion
of foraging areas available to local and migrating marine fish, birds, and mammals.
25-W: See response to Comments 25-P, 25-R, and 25-V.
25-X: Continuous disposal of dredged material at Alternative Site 5 most certainly would
have a continuing effect on the recruitment to and recolonization of the disposal site
by benthic infauna, epifauna, and megafauna. Although there is no way to predict
accurately what the effects on benthic infauna will be until the site is monitored, a
wide range of responses to the disposal activities is likely. In areas where the
maximal annual disposal depths of 10 centimeters per year are attained, rates of
A-162
-------
sediment disposal may be too high to permit successful recolonization by larvae and
the establishment of stable resident populations. However, on the fringes of the
disposal mounds where annual deposits are less than 5 centimeters, it is possible that
dense populations will be recruited and maintained. For example, unusually dense
populations of benthic infauna are maintained on the continental slope off Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina, in an environment where depositional rates of mixed marine
and terrigenous sediments are high (more than 1 centimeter per year) (Diaz et al.
1993). It is possible that the sediments that will accumulate at the preferred
alternative site following dredged material disposal will support an equally dense, yet
somewhat different, species complex than currently exists at the site.
25-Y: The SMMP contains specific provisions to minimize the potential for intentional
violations of site-use conditions. Provisions include tracking systems on each tug and
barge, inspectors to verify barge routes, requirements for documenting and reporting
transit routes and discharge locations, and navigational accuracy specifications.
25-Z: No albatross were observed during EPA or PRBO surveys of the study areas.
However, EPA acknowledges in Section 4.2.3.5 of the FEIS potential impacts from
barge transit to recreational activities such as bird watching.
25-AA: An SMMP is being developed that addresses and incorporates many of these
concerns. Provisions of the SMMP are included in the FEIS. Input to, and review
of, the SMMP is being accomplished through the LTMS process. The SMMP will
be in place before the site is designated, and will be reviewed and updated
periodically. The monitoring portion of the SMMP uses a tiered approach to evaluate
physical, biological, and chemical processes. This information will help address
specific management concerns and questions. Specific monitoring tasks will validate
model predictions of plume transport and dispersion, evaluate deposition of dredged
material on the bottom, assess effects of discharges on concentrations of chemical
contaminants in bottom sediments, and determine whether discharge events have a
significant effect on site use by marine birds and mammals.
25-BB: Site management is addressed in the SMMP.
25-CC: The advisory committee recommended by this comment already exists in the form
of the LTMS OSWG. This forum will continue with responsibilities for reviewing
monitoring results and evaluating recommendations for changes to the monitoring
requirements.
25-DD: EPA does not feel that frequency and timing restrictions on dredged material disposal
are necessary. However, if site-monitoring results indicate that there are unacceptable
adverse impacts which can be mitigated by such restrictions, this will be considered
by EPA and the OSWG.
A-163
-------
Exhibit 26
26-A: The limited duration and spatial extent of the disposal plume is not expected to
adversely affect foraging or other activities of marine mammals including northern
fur seals. Modeling studies predict that suspended particles associated with disposal
activities will be found at depths greater than the typical foraging range of most
marine mammals. The SMMP addresses impacts to marine mammals, including
provisions for additional census work conducted during the June breeding season and
studies conducted by trained observers aboard disposal tugs traveling to the site.
26-B: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 of the FEIS, disposal impacts to fish species are
expected to be insignificant due to inherent avoidance responses by most species.
Further, as discussed in the response to Comment 26-A, dredged material plumes are
expected to sink to depths which are beyond the typical foraging range of most
marine mammals. Therefore, effects from disposal activities on the prey of marine
mammals are expected to be insignificant. Nevertheless, the monitoring program in
the SMMP addresses potential impacts to midwater fishes as well as marine
mammals.
26-C: EPA feels that foraging habits of marine cetaceans and pinnipeds have been
adequately described in the EIS. The extreme depth of the preferred alternative site
(approximately 2,000 to 3,000 meters) lies beyond the feeding range of most marine
mammals, including the 1,500 meter maximum foraging depth of elephant seals.
Further, all material permitted for ocean disposal will have to meet Green Book
(EPA/COE 1991) testing requirements and ocean disposal regulation criteria.
26-D: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.6, foraging of both marine birds and mammals may be
impacted temporarily by reductions in water clarity attributable to the disposal plume.
EPA believes that impacts have been adequately addressed for site designation.
Monitoring will be conducted as specified in the SMMP to assess impact predictions.
26-E: Although the majority of numerical models of dredged material disposal and transport
have been aimed at relatively shallow (< 100 meter) sites, there have been models
developed for applications in deep-water environments (Stoddard et al. 1985). For
the present study, SAIC developed a site-specific numerical model to address the
physical processes affecting initial dilution, particle settling, particle cloud dispersion,
and advection due to the wide variety of oceanographic processes acting in the Gulf
. of Farallones. Detailed bathymetric data were incorporated and actual current
measurement data from a variety of locations were used to simulate the horizontal
transport of particles in the water column. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the
numerical modeling effort for the present study was simply an extrapolation of a
shallow-water model.
A-164
-------
The physical assumptions of the SAIC model follow the approach developed by past
modeling studies that have appeared in the refereed oceanographic literature (Csanady
and Churchill 1986; Churchill 1987). This approach also has been tested recently
and validated for predicting the transport and dispersion of sewage sludge particles
discharged at a deep-water (2,700 meter) disposal site offshore New York
(EPA 1993).
We agree that more field measurements will be needed to validate the SAIC
numerical model of dredged material transport at the alternative sites, including
current measurements from near-bottom levels at locations in the study domain and,
possibly, measurements of particulate plume dispersion during the first 12 hours after
disposal. Actual monitoring studies are specified in the SMMP and will incorporate
feedback from the Navy's 103 site monitoring.
26-F: Section 3.2.1.5 of the EIS presents sediment grain-size data from the preferred
alternative site indicating that natural sediments at this site were predominantly fine
grained, especially when compared to the other alternative sites. This section also
stated that "some gravel sized material occurred on a knoll just south of Study Area 5
that showed other features typical of erosional areas" and "earthquakes and/or density
currents periodically may initiate movement of accumulated sediment in a downslope
direction." Section 3.3.2.1 makes the statement that "bottom photographs ... revealed
a lumpy bottom that suggested a local disturbance, possibly related to turbidity flow."
Although these statements imply that the observed near-bottom currents may alter the
bottom sediments, we do not have direct observations of bottom sediment
resuspension. The depositional characteristics of the preferred alternative site suggest
that resuspension of and erosion of bottom sediments is minimal. Thus, we disagree
with your statement that "there is strong indication of turbidity flows and subsequent
resuspension of fine silt and clay sediment." The available information can only lead
to speculation that the bottom irregularities may be a result of turbidity flows caused
by geological disturbances or other deep-ocean dynamical processes.
It is unlikely that the monitoring program will entail a major, costly measurement
program to obtain (1) detailed maps of the small-scale sea floor characteristics within
the disposal site and (2) long-term measurements of near-bottom currents and
sediment resuspension that would be necessary to answer the questions you have
raised. Note that turbidity flows, like earthquakes, are not predictable. EPA does not
feel that resuspension will occur due to normal bottom currents. Monitoring of such
aperiodic processes requires resources that are beyond the scope and time constraints
of the present study.
26-G: This EIS evaluates designation of an ODMDS. Evaluations of the suitability of
dredged sediments for ocean disposal are considered under the COE Section 103
A-165
-------
permitting process and potentially NEPA evaluation in a separate EIS. As discussed
in Section 3.1.2 of the DEIS, chemical characteristics of potential dredged material
are expected to vary considerably depending on the location of the dredging site and
site-specific history of contaminant inputs. Regardless, all material proposed for
disposal at the ODMDS will be tested according to Green Book (EPA/COE 1991)
testing requirements to ensure that the material is not toxic to marine organisms and
that chemical constituents are not biologically available. Further, site monitoring will
be performed periodically to determine whether chemical contaminant concentrations
in bottom sediments are significantly elevated as a result of dredged material disposal
operations.
26-H: As stated in Section 4.2.2 of the FEIS, disposal impacts to plankton, fish, birds, and
mammals within the preferred alternative site are expected to be insignificant
(Class III). No impact to the overall productivity of the site is anticipated due to the
limited spatial and temporal extent of the disposal plume.
26-1: The fauna at the preferred alternative site is indeed rich, and there are many species
that only rarely have been recorded previously. There is no evidence, however, that
any of the species collected from this site are limited to that location. With repeated
sampling in adjacent areas, rare species tend to appear. For example, four box cores
taken to the west of Study Area 4 in depths that approximated those of Study Area 5
yielded many of the same species that had been collected from Study Area 5.
The disturbance event documented by camera sled and infaunal results is very
interesting from the point of view of natural disturbance in the deep sea. The
relevant biological result from these data is that the structure of the infauna was
generally unchanged from that of adjacent sites, but the density was considerably
reduced. It is possible that deposition of sediment from dredged material disposal
activities will provide a similar type of disturbance. The ability of the resident fauna
to survive burial will depend on the rate of deposition and the depth of the deposit,
which will vary considerably throughout the footprint on the bottom.
26-J: EPA is not aware of any data or studies supporting the contention that the presence
of El Nino conditions would significantly increase the frequency or mass of dredged
material transported into the NMS. Model predictions of the dispersion of suspended
particles associated with dredged material disposal operations at the preferred
alternative site indicated very low probabilities of detectable amounts of material
being transported into the adjacent marine sanctuaries. One of the initial tasks in the
SMMP will be verification of the model predictions.
26-K: Provisions for monitoring the preferred alternative site are contained in the SMMP
and summarized in the FEIS. EPA is confident that the baseline characterization data
collected within Study Area 5 are adequate for describing the physical, biological,
A-166
-------
and socioeconomic environments of the site. The SMMP includes specific
monitoring tasks to evaluate impacts to physical, biological, and chemical processes
associated with dredged material disposal activities at the ODMDS and verification
of computer model predictions. The monitoring program will be established prior to
any ocean disposal. Components of the SMMP will be reviewed periodically to
verify impact predictions.
26-L: Dredged material volumes cited in the EIS are based on estimates developed by COE
for the LTMS studies. The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate designation of an
ODMDS, which is only one option considered by the LTMS for the disposal or use
of dredged material. Projects proposing to use the ODMDS will be evaluated on an
individual basis. Each potential project will have to demonstrate the need to use the
ODMDS and that the proposed material is suitable for dumping.
26-M: Barge traffic to the ODMDS will be confined to the inner portion of the outbound
shipping lane extending southwest below the Farallon Islands. Further, barges must
remain at least 3 nautical miles from the Farallon Islands. No water or dredged
material will be permitted to leak or spill from barges in transit. In the event of an
accidental spill, it is anticipated that any potential impacts will be reduced to
undetectable levels before reaching sensitive areas. The SMMP contains additional
specific provisions, such as a tracking system on each tug and barge, inspectors to
verify barge routes, and tracking of barges by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), to
minimize potentials for intentional violations of site-use conditions.
Exhibit 27
27-A: An SMMP, that includes a monitoring plan, will be finalized prior to site designation.
Provisions of the Plan are contained in the FEIS. The monitoring plan is based on
a tiered approach, and the results will be used to address specific technical/scientific
and management questions.
27-B: See response to Comment 27-A. Public and agency review of the SMMP is being
accomplished through the LTMS process.
27-C: The SMMP also addresses site management issues, including surveillance and
possible enforcement and management actions. Site-use conditions will require
disposal within a spatially defined watch circle (within the disposal site), instrument
documentation of discharge locations, independent observers, and precision
navigational equipment.
A-167
-------
Exhibit 28
28-A: Barge tugs will be required to use an electronic positioning system or global
positioning system. The tug captains will be required to generate a printout from the
navigation system that shows transit routes and disposal coordinates, including the
time and position when the barge doors open and close. These procedures and
systems will be tested during the Navy 103 program and will be revised or improved
as necessary.
28-B: Site-use conditions contained in the SMMP state that the barges must remain within
the specified traffic lanes and at least 3 nautical miles from the Farallon Islands
during transit to the ODMDS. The site-use conditions restrict the location where
discharges can occur, but not the directions in which the barge can turn.
28-C: We agree that field measurements must be conducted to observe actual plume
dispersion and transport, accumulation of dredged material on the sea floor for
validation of numerical models, and possible impact of suspended particulates on
adjacent NMS. Detailed measurement components of a tiered monitoring program
are described in the SMMP. Each measurement component will be implemented in
response to the need for specific data and information such as for model validation,
environmental effects evaluation, or permit compliance.
With regard to the duration of current velocity observations and dredged material
plume measurements, it will be important to make observations in each of the
dynamical regimes that are known to occur in this region. Measurements during
periods of El Nino circulation will be considered, but even with a plan for long-term
measurements, it may not be possible to obtain field observations during all
dynamical regimes given the unpredictable nature of the ocean and the considerable
cost of interannual monitoring programs.
28-D: These suggestions were taken into consideration during development of the SMMP.
The SMMP includes biological monitoring components which involve continuation
of the PRBO breeding season surveys and additional studies conducted by trained
observers aboard disposal tugs traveling to the ODMDS.
28-E: Monitoring ,of contaminant bioaccumulation would be performed only if warranted
based on the results from Tier 1 and 2 monitoring elements. Bioaccumulation studies
using bird eggs are not planned. Monitoring is planned using bottom-dwelling
organisms. Results from the State and/or Federal "Mussel Watch" programs could
be evaluated, if available.
28-F: These suggestions were taken into consideration during development of the SMMP.
The biological component of the SMMP includes a provision for additional studies
A-168
-------
conducted by trained observers aboard disposal tugs traveling to the ODMDS. EPA
agrees that population trends are more sensitive to habitat alterations. However, to
evaluate trends, good baseline data are needed. The only baseline data that exist for
local marine birds and mammals are from PRBO breeding season surveys and EPA's
four season surveys.
28-G: EPA does not believe that any marine bird or pinniped species will be significantly
affected by dredged material disposal at the ODMDS, including threatened,
endangered, and special status species.
28-H: The SMMP has a component for monitoring marine birds and mammals, which
includes provisions for continuation of PRBO breeding season censuses and
additional studies to be conducted by trained observers aboard disposal tugs traveling
to the ODMDS.
28-1: EPA will have the SMMP in place before site designation. SMMP does have
vertebrate components, including birds, mammals, and fishes, in the monitoring
program.
28-J: See response to Comment 28-G.
Exhibit 29
29-A: The management program contained in the SMMP includes provisions for
surveillance during transport to the ODMDS. The provisions include independent
inspectors on tugs or barges, documentation of transit routes, and tracking of transit
routes (up to 38 miles from Mount Tamalpais) using the U.S. Coast Guard Offshore
Vessel Movement Reporting System. Funding and implementation will be addressed
by the LTMS Implementation Work Group. Public review and input to the SMMP
are accomplished through the LTMS process and public review of the Proposed Rule.
Exhibit 30
30-A: The costs of the monitoring program, and specific responsibilities for providing
funding, are being developed through the LTMS Implementation Work Group. The
Implementation Work Group and the LTMS Policy Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) also will address allocation or
comparability of use between ocean and non-ocean disposal alternatives.
30-B: EPA will cover the cost of developing the SMMP. Objectives of the SMMP are
contained in the FEIS. The SMMP will be finalized prior to site designation.
A-169
-------
30-C: EPA agrees that the implementation mechanism is beyond the scope of this EIS.
Implementation mechanisms will be specified in the LTMS Policy EIR/EIS.
However, this EIS provides general provisions of the SMMP, which will be finalized
prior to site designation.
Exhibit 31
31-A: The FEIS has been revised to indicate the BCDC's regulation of disposal sites within ,
the Bay and the BCDC's preference for ocean and non-aquatic disposal alternatives.
31-B: EPA appreciates BCDC's support of the proposed action.
31-C: EPA believes that there is a need for an ocean disposal site and is confident that this
site will provide one of several options for dredged material disposal or reuse. EPA
also supports reuse and beneficial uses of dredged material, whenever feasible. The
need for ocean disposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and only material
suitable for ocean disposal will be discharged at the ODMDS.
31-D: These corrections were incorporated in the FEIS.
31-E: This correction was incorporated in the FEIS.
31-F: Comment noted; these objectives are consistent with EPA's goals.
31-G: These issues will be the subject of the LTMS Policy EIR/EIS, and are being
developed by the various subcommittees of the LTMS Implementation Work Group.
Exhibit 32
32-A: Comment noted.
32-B: An SMMP is being developed, and monitoring and management provisions of the
SMMP have been incorporated into the FEIS. The issue of funding for the SMMP
is being addressed by the LTMS Implementation Work Group.
32-C: Site management and monitoring will be coordinated by EPA. The U.S. Coast Guard
will likely assist with some surveillance and enforcement activities. A Memorandum
of Understanding between EPA, COE, and USCG will be used to formalize these
roles.
A-170
-------
32-D: EPA does not feel this is necessary. Surveillance requirements in the SMMP are
based on permit special conditions for the Navy Section 103 permit project These
include independent inspections, documentation of transit routes and discharge
locations, and review of documentation by the responsible agencies. These
provisions will be evaluated at the conclusion of the Navy project and will be used
in the SMMP, if found acceptable, or modified as appropriate.
32-E: A comprehensive SMMP, that addresses site management, monitoring, and
surveillance, is being developed. Draft versions of the SMMP are being reviewed
by the OSWG. The SMMP will be finalized prior to site designation.
32-F: EPA does not intend to prepare an SEIS.
32-G: See response to Comment 32-E.
32-H: See response to Comment 32-E. Monitoring of deeper sites is more difficult.
However, logistical problems associated with sampling are being resolved by EPA
and Navy characterization studies and by the Navy monitoring program associated
with use of the NODS. The SMMP has been developed to address issues regarding
detection and mitigation of adverse impacts without compromising technical goals
due to sampling difficulties at depth.
32-1: EPA prepared the site designation EIS under its voluntary EIS policy for ODMDSs.
Many of the supporting technical studies may eventually be published in peer-
reviewed journals. However, these publications are ancillary to the EIS requirements
of NEPA.
32-J: We are not aware of studies that directly address impacts to plankton from dredged
material disposal. These references cite the limited information available concerning
impacts to plankton from other disposal practices.
32-K: See response to Comment 32-J.
32-L: Continuous disposal of dredged material at the preferred alternative site would have
an effect on the recruitment to and recolonization of the disposal site by benthic
infauna and epifauna. There is no way to predict accurately what the effects on
benthic infauna will be until the site is monitored; however, it is likely that a wide
range of responses to the disposal activities will be apparent. In areas where annual
disposal thicknesses of 10 centimeters per year are attained, rates of sediment
deposition may be too high to permit successful recolonization by larvae and the
establishment of stable resident populations. However, on the fringes of the disposal
mounds where annual deposits are less than 5 centimeters, it is possible that dense
populations will be recruited and maintained. EPA acknowledges that some adverse
A-171
-------
effects (including mortality to benthic organisms) will occur. These impacts are
estimated to be acceptable when weighed against the project's benefits and do not
require specific mitigation.
32-M: Section 4.2.2.4 of the FEIS states that information about impacts of dredged material
disposal on fish communities is extremely limited. EPA is not aware of any studies
which have directly measured effects of turbidity plumes on pelagic fish species.
However, EPA believes that such effects will be minimal because fish can avoid
plumes and plumes will be limited in duration. It is also stated in Section 4.2.2.4 of
the EIS that "deep-water mesopelagic and bathypelagic species of deep-sea smelts
and lanternfishes should be able to avoid the disposal plume, although there are no
specific studies on avoidance behavior of these species."
32-N: See response to Comment 32-M.
32-0: See response to Comment 32-E. The SMMP addresses in detail all tasks associated
with site monitoring and oversight. The major provisions of the Plan have been
summarized in the FEIS. EPA does not intend to prepare an SEIS.
32-P: EPA supports the beneficial use of dredged material, whenever feasible. As
mentioned in the EIS, designation of an ODMDS is not intended to express a
preference by LTMS member agencies for ocean disposal, nor does designation of
an ODMDS preclude beneficial uses or other disposal options. Rather, LTMS
requested a range of options for dredged material disposal (including identification
and designation of an ocean site), and EPA is responding to that need. Decisions
regarding use of an ODMDS in lieu of other disposal alternatives will be made on
a case-by-case basis according to guidelines being developed by the LTMS
Implementation Work Group.
32-Q: See response to Comment 32-0; detailed discussions regarding use of non-aquatic
sites for dredged material disposal are beyond the scope of this EIS and are being
considered by the LTMS Non-Aquatic and Re-Use Work Group. Policy guiding the
use of various disposal site options or scenarios for Bay area dredging projects is
being developed by the LTMS Implementation Work Group and will be presented
in the LTMS Policy EIR/EIS.
32-R: These impacts were designated Class II because EPA believes that the potential threat
to the GOFNMS was significant, but impacts could be mitigated by specifying barge
transit routes and prohibiting spillage from the barges. These mitigation measures
were imposed on the Navy 103 project as special conditions under the permit. These
permit requirements will be evaluated during and after the Navy 103 project and
included in the SMMP after any necessary revisions are made.
A-172
-------
32-S: The 6,000 cubic yards corresponded to the maximum capacity of a single barge that
could be used for disposal operations. Subsequent discussions with the COE
indicated that barges used for disposal operations likely will have maximum
capacities of 3,000 cubic yards. The EIS has been revised to reflect this change.
32-T: Site-use conditions contained in the SMMP specify that the barges must remain
within specified traffic lanes and at least 3 nautical miles from the Farallon Islands
during transit to the ODMDS. Although these conditions would not prevent spillage,
such as from a vessel accident, the small volumes and the considerable distance from
the Farallon Islands would minimize potentials for impacts. It is not anticipated that
additional restrictions will be placed on disposal tugs, other than standard vessel
regulations imposed by USCG and GOFNMS regulations. Also, only dredged
material deemed suitable for ocean disposal will be transported to the ODMDS.
Thus, this material would not comprise sewage or untreated contaminated sediments.
32-U: See response to Comment 32-T.
Exhibit 33
33-A: Discussion and resolution of issues occurs within the LTMS OSWG forum, led by
EPA. Resolution also is discussed in responses to comments from various reviewing
agencies and by revisions which are incorporated into the FEIS. Criteria used to
address the suitability of the preferred alternative site include the general and specific
site-selection criteria and best professional judgment. The preferred site for an
ODMDS would not have been selected if it did not meet the site-selection criteria.
Any unresolved issues will be addressed by the LTMS OSWG forum.
33-B: There is currently no database for historical information on San Francisco Bay
dredging projects. Most recent dredging projects have not proposed ocean disposal
due to cost, lack of site, or both. Therefore, EPA and COE decided to use data from
NSC and Oakland Middle Harbor as representative of typical Bay sediments since
the COE felt these sites fit the range of sediment types in the Bay. Also, these were
the most recent data available.
33-C: In response to a letter from the Bay Planning Commission, the CDFG made
recommendations (letter to M. Kahoe, EPA, March 16, 1991) regarding seasonal
restrictions on dredging activities that may impact populations of the State
Endangered and Federally Threatened winter-run chinook salmon. These
recommendations include reductions in disposal volumes and prohibition of disposal
within the Bay of dredged material of questionable or unsuitable quality when
outmigrant winter-run chinook salmon are present within the Bay (November 1 to
May 31).
A-173
-------
These recommendations restrict dredged material disposal within the Bay from
November 1 to May 31, but impose no restrictions on disposal at the preferred
alternative site.
Further, as stated in Section 3.1.2, the CDFG recommends that "suction dredging in
parts of north San Francisco and San Pablo Bays be prohibited from May 1 to
August 1" to protect early-stage Dungeness crabs. According to the CDFG, suction
dredging has a greater impact on Dungeness crabs than does clamshell dredging.
Thus, as the statement indicates, some dredging restrictions are recommended based
on the location of the area to be dredged (parts of north San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays) and the type of dredging (suction or clamshell) utilized. Predictions of impacts
associated with more frequent disposal events at the ODMDS within such a limited
disposal window are impractical and unnecessary.
33-D: Surveillance and monitoring requirements for the ODMDS are specified in the ¦
SMMP. The U.S. Coast Guard will likely assist with some surveillance and
enforcement activities. A Memorandum of Understanding between EPA, COE, and
USCG will be used to formalize these roles. Site-use conditions and surveillance
requirements in the SMMP are based on permit special conditions for the Navy 103
project. These provisions will be evaluated at the conclusion of the Navy project and
will be used in the SMMP, if found acceptable. Monitoring of deeper sites is more
difficult, but still is possible based on EPA and the Navy's experience with site
characterization studies and monitoring for disposal operations at NODS. The
SMMP has been developed to address issues regarding detection and mitigation of
adverse impacts without compromising technical goals due to sampling difficulties
at depth.
33-E: As discussed in Section 3.2.5.5, concentrations of the priority pollutant organic
compounds were measured in sediments from Study Area 5 (SAIC 1992c). With few
exceptions, concentrations of all organic compounds were below the respective
method detection limits. Decisions regarding allowable constituent concentrations in
dredged material deemed suitable for ocean disposal will be made according to
protocols described in the Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) and EPA Region DC
recommendations for sediment testing.
33-F: Table 3.3.6-1 provides general information on threatened and endangered species that
are known to occur in the study region. Because these species are generally rare, and
because detailed surveys of the study areas are limited, it may be misleading to
indicate that the species occur within specific study areas or alternative sites (i.e., the
areas in which these species occur would be under-represented). More detailed
information on threatened and endangered marine fish, bird, and mammal species,
including maps of sightings for numerous species, are included in Sections 3.3.3,
3.3.4, and 3.3.5, respectively.
A-174
-------
33-G: Section 4.2.1.1 discusses impacts related solely to barge traffic. As Table 4.2-1
indicates, predicted maximum concentrations of air pollutants related to ambient
concentrations plus project-related operations from barge transit are far below State
and Federal standards.
33-H: The numerical model of dredged material behavior used all of the current meter data
obtained from the year-long EPA current measurement program. This program
consisted of current measurements at various depths at six locations within the study
region. At most locations, near-bottom current data were acquired from within
10 meters of the sea floor. Consequently, the model used actual data on near-bottom
currents for predictions of sediment transport and deposition. The model did not
consider sediment resuspension followed by lateral transport of bottom sediments
because resuspension is unlikely to occur at the depths where the alternative sites are
located, as indicated by the depositional character of the bottom. Similarly, the
model did not address sediment resuspension on the outer continental shelf, and
analyses of potential sediment resuspension on the shelf were not performed because
no alternative site was identified in this region.
33-1: The term "suitable" is used to characterize dredged material that has passed required
Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) testing. According to the protocols, material deemed
suitable for ocean disposal is considered non-toxic, will not result in significant
bioaccumulation of contaminants in the tissues of test organisms, and will not result
in unacceptable adverse impacts to the marine environment. Site monitoring, as
described in the SMMP, is designed to confirm that contaminants are not
accumulating in bottom sediments and, depending on the results from higher-tiered
monitoring tasks, in the tissues of bottom-dwelling organisms.
33-J: As stated in Section 4.2.2.7, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species
at the preferred site may include avoidance, alteration of migration, and/or temporary
impairment of feeding activities. Impacts to marine birds and mammals will be
evaluated during monitoring tasks as described in the SMMP.
Exhibit 34
34-A: This designation action does not include proposals to dispose of any particular
project's dredged material at the ODMDS. Policy on the allocation of dredged
material to various disposal options is being developed by the Implementation Work
Group for the LTMS Policy EIR/EIS. MPRSA, not the Clean Water Act (CWA),
governs ocean disposal outside the baseline. Beneficial uses of dredged material,
land disposal, and disposal in the Bay, are listed as alternatives to ocean disposal.
All available alternatives must be considered before a permit to dispose dredged
material can be issued.
A-175
-------
34-B: It is anticipated that temporary perturbations in water quality and/or environmental
conditions at the ODMDS will be reduced to ambient or undetectable levels before
reaching any beach, shoreline, or sensitive habitats or resources. The preferred
alternative site is located approximately 50 nautical miles from shore in 2,500 to
3,000 meters of water. It was chosen as the preferred alternative site primarily
because it is located in deep water away from productive fishery areas and in an area
that has been used historically for disposal of low-level radioactive waste and
chemical and conventional munitions. The preferred alternative site corresponds to
the Navy NODS. An SMMP is being developed which will be finalized before the
site is designated and which contains provisions for site surveillance and enforcement
against disposal outside of the ODMDS. All material deemed suitable for ocean
disposal must be in accordance with Green Book (EPA/COE 1991) testing criteria.
34-C: Impacts to most biological communities are expected to be minimal. An SMMP has
been developed which contains provisions to verify impact predictions. EPA believes
that use of an ODMDS may help reduce impacts to biological resources from
disposal at sites within the Bay, such as Alcatraz.
34-D: Non-aquatic and Re-Use options are being evaluated by LTMS under the direction
of BCDC. Environmental effects of these disposal options will be compared to ocean
disposal options in the LTMS Policy EIR/EIS. Although part of BCDC's task is to
evaluate possibilities to reduce the need for dredging, it is likely that dredged
materia] disposal options, including an ocean disposal site, will be required for the
near future.
Exhibit 35
Response: Comment noted.
A-176
------- |