United States
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA, Region II
New York, NY 10278
May 1988
iSEPA Final
Environmental Impact
Statement for the
Designation of Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal
Sites for Arecibo,
Mayaguez, Ponce, and
Yabucoa, Puerto Rico

-------
f £% \
1332;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I I
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
MAY 0 5 1988
To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:
Dais is to inform you that the Pinal Environmental Impact Statement for the
Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Areclbo, Mayaguez.
Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico will be available for public review ab the
following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Impacts Branch
26 Federal Plaza, Roan 500
New York, New York
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Caribbean Field Office
1413 Avenida Fernandez Juncos - Stop 20
Santurce, Puerto Rico
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Reference Unit
Roan 2904 (Rear)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District Office
400 W. Bay Street
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Juan Area Office
400 Avenida Fernandez Juncos
San Juan, Puerto Rico
This final environmental Impact statement (EIS) was prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region II, with the assistance of Science
Applications International Corporation, an environmental consulting firm under
contract to Battelle Laboratories. The document has been prepared in accordance
with the EPA regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and in accordance with EPA's policy for voluntary preparation of EISs
on significant regulatory actions (39 FR 37119)*
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural Resources
Gficina 204
Centro Gubemanental
Avenida Rotarios
Arecibo, Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural Resources
Oficina A
Centro Comercial
2 Alturas de Mayaguez Carr.
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural Resources
5 Calle Celenia
Hunacao, Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural Resources
Hospital Sub-Regional
Ponce, Puerto Rico

-------
2
A draft EIS regarding these proposed site designations was published on
September 3» 1986. The draft EIS evaluated the environmental impacts associated
with the designation of sites for ocean disposal of dredged material from the
harbors of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico, and utilized
these evaluations in proposing particular sites for designation. Die final EIS
recapitulates the alternatives analysis, responds to comments on the DEIS, and
presents the EPA's conclusions on these site designations.
In accordance with the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Part 228), a
proposed rule-making for designation of the four ocean disposal sites is also
being issued concurrently with this final EIS. Copies of the proposed rule-
making are also available for public review at the above repositories. Comments
or questions on the proposed rule-making should be sent to Mario P. Del Vicario,
Chief, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Roan 837, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.
Comments concerning the content of the final EIS may also be submitted to the EPA
for consideration. All ccranents must be received within 45 days after the date
of publication of the proposed rule-making and the Notice of Availability for
this final EIS in the Federal Register, which is expected to be Mav 27. 1988
Please address all comments concerning the final EIS to Ms. Barbara Pastalove,
Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rocm
500, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.
If you require additional information regarding this final EIS, please contact
Mr. Robert Witte, Project Monitor, at (212) 264-6681.
Sincerely,	a
Christopher J. Daggett /
Regional Administrator

-------
Final
Environmental Inpact Statement
for the Designation of Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites for Arecibo
Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa,
Puerto. Rico
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Abstract: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), a final
environmental inpact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the designation of
four ocean dredged material disposed sites for Puerto Rico. Hie purpose of the
proposed action is the designation of environmentally acceptable ocean sites
for disposal of dredged material from the four harbors of Arecibo, Mayaguez,
Ponce, and Yabucoa.
The final EIS summarizes the purpose and need for the action, describes the
analytical methodology and the alternatives analysis conducted for each site,
provides a responsiveness surmary concerning the comments received on the draft
EIS, and presents the conclusions of the final EIS regarding the four sites.
The final EIS concludes that for Arecibo, the interim site, located approximately
1.5 nautical miles (nmi) north of the harbor, should be designated as the
disposal site. For Mayaguez, Alternate Site 1, approximately 6 nmi west of the
harbor, should be designated. For Ponce, Alternate Site 1, approximately 4.5
nmi south of the harbor, should be designated. For Yabucoa, Alternate Site 2,
approximately 6 nmi east of the harbor, should be designated as the disposal site.
A proposed rulemaking concerning designation of these four sites is being issued
concurrently with this final EIS.

-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE DESIGNATION OF OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES FOR THE HARBORS OF
ARECIBO, MAYAGUEZ, PONCE, AND
YABUCOA, PUERTO RICO
May 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed action addressed by this final environmental impact state-
ment (FEIS) is the designation of four environmentally acceptable ocean
dumping sites for the disposal of dredged material from the harbors of
Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico, resulting from maintenance
or new dredging projects. The draft EIS (DEIS) for this action vas published
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 3, 1986. This
FEIS has been prepared as a summary document because the comments received did
not require major changes or additions to the DEIS. Unless otherwise noted,
the DEIS is incorporated by reference into this document. Together, the DEIS
and this FEIS constitute the complete FEIS.
BACKGROUND
Ocean dumping has been regulated by EPA since the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) authorized EPA to establish and
apply criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications for the dump-
ing of waste material into ocean waters, and to designate sites where such
dumping may occur. In addition, Section 102(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires that Federal
agencies prepare EISs on proposals for major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. The objective of NEPA is to
build into the EPA decision-making processes careful consideration of all
environmental aspects of proposed actions. Although EPA activities under
MPRSA are statutorily exempt from compliance with NEPA, EPA has voluntarily
made a commitment to prepare EISs in connection with ocean dumping site
designations (39 FR 16186; May 7, 1974).
SUMMARY OF ANALYSES
The purpose of this FEIS is to identify and select for designation four
environmentally acceptable ocean disposal sites for dredged material from the
four harbors. The designation of an ocean disposal site for dredged material
must be based on an evaluation of possible sites using the Criteria (40 CFR
228.5 - 228.6) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (ODR). All candidate sites
S-l

-------
are evaluated for compliance with the criteria. Of the sites that are
acceptable under the criteria, the site nearest the point of dredging is
selected unless there are significant environmental advantages in designation
of more distant sites. If no site is found that satisfies the criteria, no
site is designated. Two alternate sites for Arecibo and three alternate sites
each for Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa vere identified using a site selection
methodology developed by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Locations of the interim sites for the four harbors are as follows:
•	Arecibo - 1.5 nautical miles (2.7 km) north of the harbor
•	Mayaguez - 5 nautical miles (9.3 km) northwest of the harbor
•	Ponce - 4 nautical miles (7.4 km) south of the harbor
•	Yabucoa - 4.5 nautical miles (8.3 km) east of the harbor.
Normally, EPA ocean disposal sites are chosen in such a way that dumped
material is contained within the site after disposal as far as possible. This
is generally feasible in those shallow water environments where valuable
natural resources will not be placed at risk. In Puerto Rico, however,
shallow water environments typically are inhabited by corals. To avoid direct
disposal on coral resources, deeper water sites are selected. As a conse-
quence of selecting deeper water sites, some dredged material will be trans-
ported outside, site boundaries. However, the effects of transport will be
small.
The key factors used in deciding which site to designate for each
location considered in this FEIS are discussed below.
Arecibo
At Arecibo, the interim site is suitable for designation. The site meets
all criteria of the ODR. Dredged material is not expected to be transported
far from the site by ocean currents because the site is in water that has
depths between 101 and 417 meters and the dredged material to be disposed of
is primarily sand, which will be rapidly deposited on the sea floor. No
adverse effects are expected on living resources, mineral resources, or
socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment from the continuing use
of this site. There have been no operational problems encountered during
surveillance or monitoring activities at this site.
S-2

-------
Previous use of this interim site has resulted in more sand in the sedi-
ments in the area of the site than is found in other areas near the site.
This has caused an increase in the number of animals that are adapted to live
in coarser sediments at the site. The designation of the interim site
therefore will result in less change in the composition of species of the
local environment than would result from the use of any alternate site.
Mayaguez
The interim site at Mayaguez is not suitable for designation. This site
is over the insular shelf area; consequently, fine sediments from dredged
material disposal are likely to be transported onto coral reefs and into areas
of sport fishing and commercial fishing. It also is located within a few
hundred meters of a shipwreck.
Alternate site 1 at Mayaguez is suitable for designation. This site is
approximately 1.5 nautical miles (nmi) farther from Mayaguez harbor, and from
the nearest shoreline, than the interim site. This location places the site
in deeper water (almost twice as deep), and reduces the chance of dredged
material inadvertently being transported onto coral reefs or into sport or
commercial fishing areas. No adverse effects from the future use of this site
are expected on living resources, mineral resources, or socioeconomic or
cultural aspects of the environment. No problems were encountered during the
baseline monitoring activities at this site and none are expected from future
use of the site.
Ponce
The Ponce interim site is not suitable for designation. Under
appropriate conditions of wind and near-surface currents, dumping of the
predominantly silty clay dredged material at this site would result in a high
probability that fine sediments would be transported to coral reef areas
located approximately 1.5 nmi northwest of the site. Although the dredged
material transport and fate model does not predict this possible impact,
uncertainty over the direction and velocity of currents likely to be
experienced during individual disposal events makes the relocation of the site
environmentally prudent.
S-3

-------
Alternate Site 1, the site recommended to be designated for Ponce, is
1.5 nmi farther than the interim site from the harbor, and 1 nmi farther than
the interim site from the nearest shoreline. However, it has the advantage of
being 2.5 nmi farther than the interim site from the nearest coral reefs,
substantially reducing the possibility of damage to the reefs caused by fines
(particles in the dredged material <0.06 mm in diameter) transported by
currents. In other respects, the site also meets all of the criteria for site
selection specified in the ODR. No adverse effects are expected on living
resources, mineral resources, or socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the
environment from the future use of this site. No problems were encountered
during the baseline monitoring activities at this site and none are expected
during future use of the site.
Yabucoa
The Yabucoa interim site is not suitable for designation. The site is
over shallow areas that may contain coral reefs. Coral reefs are present in
the general area, and a ridge of shallow bottom (depths of only 16 meters)
runs through the site. This sinuous ridge, which is identified on National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) topographic maps of the area
(NOAA 1983), has morphology and biota similar to a coral reef, although direct
observations have not been made on this feature.
Similarly, Alternate Site 1 is not suitable for designation. This site
is essentially contained within the deeper portions of the interim site, but
is sufficiently close to the coral-like feature that dredged material will be
transported to that feature should dumping occur.
Alternate Site 2, which is the next closest alternate site evaluated, is
suitable for designation. This site is approximately 2.6 nmi farther from th«
harbor than the interim site, 1 nmi farther from the nearest coastline than
the interim site, and 2 nmi farther from the coral-like features than the
interim site. Transport of dredged material after dumping would be primarily
in the direction of very deep water, and consequently is expected to have
little impact. The site meets all of the criteria for site selection speci~
fied in the ODR. No adverse effects are expected on living resources, mineral
resources, or socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment. No
S-4

-------
problems were encountered during the baseline monitoring activities at this
site and none are expected from future use of this site.
Land-Based Alternatives
Vhereas the evaluation of land-based disposal alternatives is the
responsibility of the COE as a part of the dredged material disposal permit-
ting process, the EIS development process requires the consideration of a
range of alternatives to the proposed action. Land-based disposal methods
considered in the DEIS included placement of dredged material as hydraulic
fill, use of dredged material to create wetlands, and use of dredged material
as cover in landfills or barren areas.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
On October 17, 1986, a notice of availability of the DEIS for public
review and comment was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 37068). The
public comment period on the DEIS closed December 15, 1986. Nine comment
letters were received on the DEIS. Of these nine letters, two made no
comments, two requested additional copies of the DEIS without comment, and two
agreed with the proposal to relocate three of the disposal sites to alternate
sites.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested additional
existing information on pathogenic organisms that might be in the dredged
material. Testing for pathogenic species is not conducted without some
evidence to support the presence of harmful organisms, but if determined to be
necessary, the COE could require such testing as part of the permit evaluation
process.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources requested
that creation of wetland habitat be considered as an alternative. Land-based
alternatives to ocean dumping are considered by the COE at the time of permit
decisions on ocean dumping. Site designation does not authorize use of the
site, but only provides an environmentally acceptable location for the ocean
dumping of dredged material should the COE issue a dumping permit. Thus,
further evaluations of land-based alternatives are not considered appropriate
in the FEIS.
S-5

-------
The COE made several comments on the purpose and need for an EIS, the
evaluation of land-based alternatives in the EIS, and the technical justifi-
cation and economic aspects of moving the designated sites from the interim
locations to locations farther offshore. The COE input was incorporated into
this FEIS. Discussions on the technical justification for moving the disposal
site locations have resulted in no change in the proposed action to designate
three alternate sites.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the analyses conducted pursuant to the preparation of this
EIS, the EPA proposes to designate four dredged material disposal sites
located offshore of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico for the
disposal of dredged material removed from the Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and
Yabucoa harbors, respectively. This action is necessary to provide acceptable
ocean dumping sites for the current and future disposal of this material.
The analyses conducted for this FEIS indicate that for Arecibo, the
interim site, approximately 1.5 nmi north of the harbor, should be designated
as the ocean site for dredged material disposal. For Mayaguez, Alternate
Site 1, approximately 6 nmi vest of the harbor, should be designated as the
disposal site. For Ponce, Alternate Site 1, about 4.5 nmi south of the
harbor, should be designated as the disposal site. For Yabucoa, Alternate
Site 2, approximately 6 nmi east of the harbor, should be designated as the
disposal site. As a result of the confirmation and refinement of the site
mapping and distance measuring process, the distances given here for the
Mayaguez and Ponce sites are 1 mile less than the distances presented in the
DEIS. These proposed site designations are for an indefinite period of time,
and the sites vill be subject to continuing monitoring and site management by
EPA to ensure that unacceptable adverse environmental impacts do not occur.
It should be emphasized that the designation of a site for ocean dumping
of dredged material does not imply that dumping vill occur at the site.
Decisions on the acceptability of ocean dumping are made on a case-by-case
basis during permitting or reviev of Federal projects. During the decision-
making process on permit issuance, land-based alternatives are also considered
as disposal alternatives. Ocean dumping is chosen only vhen it is the
environmentally preferred alternative.
S-6

-------
TABLE OF CONTENT!

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	S-l
1.	INTRODUCTION	1-1
1.1	BACKGROUND	1-1
1.2	STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION	1-3
1.3	ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES	1-9
2.	ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 		2-1
2.1	ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR ARECIBO	2-2
2.1.1	Alternatives Considered 		2-2
2.1.1.1	Land-Based Disposal Options for Arecibo. . . .	2-2
2.1.1.2	Ocean Disposal Site Options for Arecibo. . . .	2-3
2.1.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative	2-3
2.1.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative.	2-3
2.1.4	Impacts of the Recommended Alternative	2-5
2.2	ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR MAYAGUEZ 		2-8
2.2.1	Alternatives Considered 		2-8
2.2.1.1	Land-Based Disposal Options for Mayaguez . . .	2-8
2.2.1.2	Ocean Disposal Site Options for Mayaguez . . .	2-8
2.2.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative	2-8
2.2.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative.	2-10
2.2.4	Impacts of the Recommended Alternative	2-10
2.3	ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR PONCE	2-13
2.3.1	Alternatives Considered 		2-13
2.3.1.1	Land-Based Disposal Options for Ponce	2-13
2.3.1.2	Ocean Disposal Site Options for Ponce	2-14
2.3.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative	2-14
2.3.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative.	2-14
2.3.4	Impacts of the Recommended Alternative	2-16
2.4	ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR YABUCOA	2-19
2.4.1 Alternatives Considered 		2-19
2.4.1.1	Land-Based Disposal Options for Yabucoa. . . .	2-19
2.4.1.2	Ocean Disposal Site Options for Yabucoa. . . .	2-20
i

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
2.4.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative	2-20
2.4.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative.	2-20
2.4.4	Impacts of the Recommended Alternative	2-22
3.	RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY	3_1
3.1	INTRODUCTION		3_1
3.2	COMMENTS AND RESPONSES		
3.3	OTHER COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE DEIS 		3_8
4.	CONCLUSIONS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 		4_!
4.1	ARECIBO	4-1
4.2	MAYAGUEZ		4-2
4.3	PONCE	4-2
4.4	YABUCOA	4_3
5.	CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT	5_!
6.	COORDINATION	6_1
APPENDIX A. COMMENT LETTERS 		A-l
APPENDIX B. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS	B-l
APPENDIX C. REFERENCES	C-l
APPENDIX D. GLOSSARY	D-l
ii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
1-1 Map of Puerto Rico		1-3
1-2 Base Map for Arecibo Study Area			1-6
1-3 Base Map for Mayuguez Study Area				1-7
1-4 Base Map for Ponce Study Area		1-8
1-5	Base Map for Yabucoa Study Area		1-9
2-1	Zone of Siting Feasibility and Interim and
Alternate Sites for Arecibo 		2-5
2-2 Zone of Siting Feasibility and Interim and
Alternate Sites for Mayaguez		2-10
2-3 Zone of Siting Feasibility and Interim and
Alternate Sites for Ponce 		2-15
2-4 Zone of Siting Feasibility and Interim and
Alternate Sites for Yabucoa 		2-22
iii

-------
1. INTRODUCTION

-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is to
identify and designate four environmentally acceptable dredged material dis-
posal sites located offshore of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto
Rico for the disposal of dredged material removed from the Arecibo, Mayaguez,
Ponce, and Yabucoa harbors, respectively. Figure 1-1 shows the locations of
these four harbors. This action is necessary to provide an acceptable ocean
dumping site for the current and future disposal of dredged material when
ocean disposal is the preferred alternative.
The draft EIS (DEIS) was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on September 3, 1986. It identifies the interim and alternate
ocean disposal sites for each harbor, characterizes the affected environments
and types of materials to be released at the sites, and analyzes potential
consequences of the proposed action. Because the comments received did not
require major changes or additions to the DEIS, this FEIS has been prepared as
a summary document. Unless otherwise noted, the DEIS is incorporated by
reference into this document. Together, the DEIS and this FEIS constitute the
complete EIS.
This section of the FEIS provides background information, states the
purpose and need for the action, and presents the analytical methodology used
to complete the analyses that constitute the findings of this FEIS. Section 2
summarizes information on the analysis of alternatives for each harbor.
Section 3 provides EPA's responses to comments received on the DEIS. Section
4 presents the conclusions of this FEIS. Section 5 lists those parties
contacted by EPA for input to the FEIS development process.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Section 102(c) of the Harine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, (MPRSA) as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the Administrator of
EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean dumping of dredged material
may be permitted. On December 24, 1986, the Administrator delegated the
authority to designate ocean dredged material dumping sites to the Regional
1-1

-------
Administrator of the EPA Region in which the site is located. This site
designation is being made pursuant to that authority.
Section 103 of MPRSA gives authority to the Secretary of the Army to
issue dredged material permits. Such permits are evaluated according to
criteria promulgated in the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations (ODR) (40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter H, Part 227) and are reviewed by EPA for concurrence
before issuance. In all cases, a need for ocean disposal must be established
before issuance of a disposal permit. Section 103 of the Act also requires
the Secretary to use recommended sites designated by EPA to the extent
feasible.
The harbors of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa are periodically
dredged to maintain the authorized depths. In the past, materials from these
dredging operations were disposed of at interim designated ocean disposal
sites and at land-based sites.
The ODR (Section 228.4) state that ocean dumping sites will be designated
by publication in Part 228. A list of "Approved Interim and Final Ocean
Dumping Sites," including the interim sites for Arecibo, Mayaguez, and Ponce,
was published on January 11, 1977 (42 FR 2461 et seq.). The interim site for
Yabucoa was added to the list on May 11, 1979 (44 PR 27662). This EIS
identifies and recommends the interim site at Arecibo and alternate sites at
Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa for designation. The designation of the
recommended sites is being published as a proposed rulemaking in accordance
with Section 228.4(e) of the ODR, which permits the designation of ocean
disposal sites for dredged material. EPA generally is not required to
designate ocean disposal sites for dredged material, but does so when it
believes ocean disposal may be a reasonable disposal alternative.
In 1980, the National Wildlife Federation (NVF) challenged the practice
of using interim ocean disposal sites pending completion of long-term studies
and final designation pursuant to MPRSA. In resolving the lawsuit, the EPA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) entered into a consent decree with
the NWF to take steps to designate final ocean dredged material disposal site*
(DMDSs) for certain sites with interim designation. Although these four
1-2

-------

-------
Puerto Rican interim disposal sites were not covered by the consent decree,
EPA is responding to the need to have designated ocean dredged material
disposal sites in Puerto Rico.
Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires that Federal agencies prepare an EIS on pro-
posals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. The objective of NEPA is to build into the EPA decision-
making process careful consideration of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions. Although actions under MPRSA are specifically exempt from NEPA
compliance, EPA has voluntarily made a commitment to prepare EISs in
connection with ocean dumping site designations (39 FR 16186; May 7, 1974).
Figures 1-2 through 1-5 show the study areas and interim ocean disposal sites
for each harbor.
1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION
The harbors of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa are essential to the
continued commercial and industrial growth of Puerto Rico. Ocean-going ships
require channels, berths, and turning basins that are, at a minimum, about
11 meters (6 fathoms) deep. Each harbor is subject to gradual shoaling and
filling as a result of sediment deposition from rivers and storm-vaves.
Vithout dredging, the harbors would eventually become inaccessible to large
commercial vessels. Periodic maintenance dredging is an ongoing activity and
is essential for the continued use of these harbors. Future dredging may
include both maintenance dredging and harbor channel deepening.
Since 1977, the COE has used ocean dredged material disposal sites in
Puerto Rico that were designated by EPA on an interim basis. Use of these
sites has been an essential element of COE compliance with the requirements of
MPRSA and its ability to carry out its statutory responsibility for
maintaining safe navigation in the harbors of Puerto Rico.
To continue to maintain these waterways, COE considers it essential that
EPA identify, evaluate, and permanently designate environmentally acceptable
1-4

-------
ocean dredged material disposal sites. These sites will be used after revievs
of each project and permit application have established that the proposed
activity is in compliance vith the criteria and requirements of EPA and COE
regulations.
Although the evaluation of land-based disposal alternatives is the
responsibility of the COE as a part of the dredged material disposal
permitting process, the EIS development process allows for the consideration
of a range of alternatives to the proposed action. Land-based disposal
methods considered in the DEIS included placement of dredged material as
hydraulic fill, use of dredged material to create wetlands, and use of dredged
material as cover in landfills or barren areas. Beach nourishment is
generally not feasible for the materials dredged from the harbors considered
in this EIS. Because of their small grain size, the sediments of these
harbors are unsuitable for beach nourishment.
1.3 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The decision to designate an ocean disposal site for dredged material is
based on an evaluation of possible sites using the Criteria (40 CFR 228.5 -
228.6) of the ODR. All candidate sites are evaluated for compliance with the
criteria. Of the sites that are acceptable under the criteria, the site
nearest the point of dredging is selected unless there are significant
environmental advantages in designation of more distant sites. If no site is
found that satisfies the criteria, no site is designated.
Alternate ocean dredged material disposal sites that were evaluated in
the DEIS were selected using a map overlay screening methodology developed by
EPA and the COE (EPA/COE 1983). The interim and two alternate sites for
Arecibo and the interim and three alternate sites each for Mayaguez, Ponce,
and Yabucoa were identified using this methodology. A brief description of
the EPA/COE recommended site-designation process follows!
• Phase 1: Establish Zones of Siting Feasibility (ZSFs)
- A preliminary screening of environmental factors, based on the nin*
evaluation factors specified in MPRSA Section 102a and the criteria
specified in the ODR (Part 228), to eliminate conflicts with areas
having protected resources and with existing uses of the ocean.
1-5

-------
66°30'
* Depths in. fachnu
FIGURE 1-2. BASE MAP FOR ARECIBO STUDY AREA

-------
66°30'
66°00'
* Depths In fathoms
FIGURE 1-3. BASE MAP FOR MAYAGUEZ STUDY AREA

-------
Oft
I
w . V'
* Depths In fmChotu
FIGURE 1-4. BASE MAP FOR PONCE STUDY AREA
1-8

-------
FIGURE 1-5. BASE MAP FOR YABUCOA STUDY AREA

-------
•	Phase II: Select Alternate Sites
-	Evaluate interim dredged material disposal sites, and identify
other possible ocean disposal sites believed to be in accordance
with the ocean dumping criteria.
•	Phase III: Evaluate Interim and Alternate Sites
-	Evaluate the suitability of each of the sites and select, based on
ODR criteria, a site for designation as the Dredged Material
Disposal Site (DMDS) for continuing use.
Normally, EPA selects ocean disposal sites in such a way that dumped
dredged material is contained within the site after disposal. This is
generally feasible in shallov vater environments where valuable natural
resources vill not be placed at risk. In Puerto Rico, shallov vater
environments typically are inhabited by corals. To avoid direct disposal on
coral resources, deeper vater sites are selected. As a consequence of
selecting deeper vater sites, some dredged material will be transported
outside site boundaries. Hovever, the effects of transport vill be small.
To supplement the site identification process, sediment transport and
fate modeling vas conducted to simulate sediment deposition characteristics
for dump events at each of the interim and alternate sites. Because Puerto
Rico has vell-developed coral reef areas, and a substantial portion of local
fish populations depends on the reef ecosystems for food and habitat,
particular ecological concern vas paid to identifying potential adverse
impacts of the dumping of dredged spoil materials on live corals. The model
results indicated that, for the four harbors studied, bottom topography and
subsurface currents are critical factors in determining dispersion of the
dredged material and the pattern of its deposition on the sea floor. Using
the model results, sites vere evaluated, and recommendations vere made based
on the ability to predict the transport of dumped dredged material to deeper
vater and its dispersion to negligible concentrations.
To further support an evaluation of existing environments offshore of the
four harbors, a survey of the ocean floor vas conducted using the OSV P.W.
Anderson. The.results of this cruise also vere Incorporated into the analyses
of interim and alternate sites.
1-10

-------
2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

-------
2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This section of this final environmental impact statement (FEIS)
addresses the alternatives considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for the disposal of dredged material from Arecibo, Mayaguez,
Ponce, and Yabucoa harbors, Puerto Rico. The proposed action addressed in
this FEIS is the permanent designation of ocean dredged material disposal
sites for these four harbors.
Alternatives to the proposed action were considered and evaluated under
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). All
alternative disposal methods must be evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) during the consideration of permit applications for dredged
material disposal projects. The selection and permanent designation of
environmentally acceptable ocean dredged material disposal sites for the four
harbors is independent of individual project requirements. Consequently, the
non-ocean disposal alternatives presented in this section provide a general
overview of the potential availability of land-based disposal methods rather
than a definitive assessment of each method. The alternatives considered in
the draft EIS (DEIS) for each harbor vere:
•	No-Action: The no-action alternative to final designation is to
refrain from designating ocean disposal sites to continue disposal
activities at the interim ocean disposal sites until their interim
status expires.
•	Land-Based Disposal: The land-based disposal alternatives considered
in the DEIS included placement of dredged material as hydraulic fill,
use of dredged material to create vetlands, and use of dredged
material as cover in landfills or barren areas.
•	Designation of the interim ocean disposal site as the site for
continuing use.
•	Designation of an alternate ocean disposal site as the site for
continuing use.
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative to the proposed action vould be to refrain from
designating permanent ocean sites for the disposal of dredged material from
2-1

-------
the harbors and nearby areas of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa. This
would result in the termination of the use of the interim sites vhen their
interim designations expire. The net result of the no-action alternative
would be that the COE would not have EPA-approved, final designated ocean
sites for disposal of the operation and maintenance material from these
harbors. Therefore, the COE would be required to either: (1) justify an
acceptable alternate disposal method (e.g., land-based), (2) develop
information sufficient to select an acceptable ocean site for disposal, or (3)
modify or cancel operation and maintenance dredging projects that depend on
ocean disposal as the only feasible method for disposal of the dredged
material. Adoption of the no-action alternative was not considered to be an
acceptable alternative because such an approach would be counter to the intent
of the consent decree entered into by EPA and COE with the National Vildlife
Federation (NWF) in 1980, to take steps to designate final ocean dredged
material disposal sites for sites with Interim designations, even though these
particular sites are not affected by that consent decree.
The following subsections summarize the disposal alternatives considered
for each harbor and address land-based disposal, use of the interim ocean
disposal site, and use of an alternate ocean disposal site. A summary is
presented addressing the basis for the selection of the recommended
alternative and the expected impacts.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR ARECIBO
2.1.1 Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the disposal of dredged material from
Arecibo harbor included the use of ocean disposal sites and land-based
disposal alternatives.
2.1.1.1 Land-Based Disposal Options for Arecibo
The locations of landfills and barren areas near Arecibo were identified
and evaluated in the DEIS as potential dredged material disposal sites, taking
into account the location of each site relative to Arecibo and sensitive
resources such as mangroves, its distance from the coast, its elevation, its
2-2

-------
geohydrology, and other factors. There are significant disadvantages
associated vith all of the possible land-based disposal options. Fill
locations, if any suitable sites can be located and acquired, are likely to be
limited in size and very expensive. Construction of viable wetlands is
considered infeasible due to ocean conditions (high vave energies) and a lack
of suitable sites. The only option that might be technically, environ-
mentally, and economically feasible vould be use of one of the barren areas
because one area appears to contain a series of abandoned sand pits.
Environmental studies vould have to be conducted to determine whether such a
barren area would have the capacity to receive Arecibo dredged material.
2.1.1.2 Ocean Disposal Site Options for Arecibo
Using the EPA/COE approved ocean disposal site selection methodology
discussed previously, the interim site and two alternate sites were selected
for evaluation as candidate sites for designation. Figure 2-1 presents the
zone of siting feasibility (ZSF) for Arecibo and the locations of the interim
site and alternate sites 1 and 2. These sites were evaluated and compared in
the DEIS, using the criteria of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (ODR) to
determine their environmental suitability as ocean disposal sites.
2.1.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative
The proposed action for Arecibo is to designate the interim site as the
ocean disposal site for continuing use. This site is located approximately
1.5 nautical miles (nmi) north of the Arecibo harbor, and occupies an area of
approximately 1 square nmi. Water depths within the site range from 101 to
417 meters (55 to 228 fathoms). The corner coordinates of the site are as
follows:
18°30'00" N, 66°42'45" V
18#30'00" N, 66°43'47" V
18°31'00" N, 66°43'47" V
18°31'00" N, 66°42'45" V.
2.1.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative
At Arecibo, the interim site is suitable for designation as the site
suitable for continuing use. The site meets all criteria of the ODR. Dredged
2-3

-------
material is not expected to be transported by ocean currents any significant
distance outside of the proposed site because of the depth of the water at the
site and because the dredged material to be disposed of is primarily sand.
Very little transport of materials away from the proposed DMDS is expected.
Materials released at this site will tend to be deposited on the sea floor,
rather than dispersed, because currents are weak and the sea floor is not
sufficiently deep for prolonged transport of sinking materials to occur.
The two alternate sites shown in Figure 2-1 also were considered for
designation. All of the sites met all the criteria of the ODR. However, the
interim site was 1 nmi closer to Arecibo harbor than Alternate Site 1 and
2 nmi closer than Alternate Site 2. Because the interim site had been used
previously, its use should result in less of a change in the ecology of the
site than that which would result from use of either of the alternate sites.
2.1.4 Impacts of the Recommended Alternative
No adverse effects are expected on biotic and mineral resources, or on
socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment, from the continuing use
of this site. There have been no operational problems encountered during
surveillance or monitoring activities at this site, and none would be expected
in the future.
Approximately 150,000 cubic yards (cu yds) of fine-grained, predominantly
sandy dredged material expected to be disposed of at the Arecibo site once
every 3 to 5 years. The material will be generated in the maintenance of
navigational channels and berthing areas in Arecibo harbor. The dumping would
occur from hopper dredges or barges, depending on the availability of
equipment when dredging occurs.
The site is at least 1 to 2 nmi from the nearest significant breeding,
spawning, or nursery area of nearshore organisms. There is no evidence to
suggest that the proposed site has any unique importance to feeding or passage
areas of marine fauna because it is typical of nearby well-flushed open ocean
locations. However, the 1984 survey cruise detected an increase in the
percentage of silty sand at the proposed Arecibo site compared with nearby
2-4

-------
K>
I
U»
66°M»
66°40'
66°30«
•n
M
o
M
I
to N
M O
h s.
M PI
01
O
g"1
pd (A
fc9 te!
O O
Cfl
O
B
~-3
Hj
m
H
W
J#
45'
1
1#"
45*
18"
18"
35*
18"
30'
Nautical Mile*
rmm
$
M
66°50'
66 40'
66°30'

-------
sediments. A total of 584,477 cu yds of dredged material has been disposed of
previously at the Arecibo interim site. Because the proposed site historical-
ly has been used for dumping, it is presumed that the differences in sediment
types are due to previous dumping. Except for previous dredged material
disposal at this site, there are no other current or previous dischargers at
or near the site. Historical use at the existing Arecibo site has not
resulted in substantial adverse effects to living resources of the ocean or to
other uses of the marine environment.
Dredged material disposed of at the proposed Arecibo site will be
deposited on the sea floor and vill bury benthic organisms. The types of
benthic organisms that were collected at the site reflect the increased sand
content of the site (due to previous disposal operations) over that of the
surrounding area. Among polychaete worms and crustaceans, the percentage of
species and individuals of ecological types suited to sandy environments was
found to be higher at the proposed site than at nearby locations. Therefore,
the fauna at the proposed site are well-adapted for recolonizing the type of
materials expected to be deposited during future disposal operations. Since
only part of the site vill be affected during any particular disposal opera-
tion, organisms from surrounding, unaffected portions of the site are expected
to be able to rapidly recolonize the affected area. Impacts of dredged
materials will be limited primarily to the sea floor, and disposal is not
likely to interfere with other uses of the ocean.
Endangered sea turtles and the brown pelican inhabit coastal Puerto Rico.
Available information indicates that these species are most active in the
nearshore coastal environment and are only transients in oceanic environments.
Consequently, oceanic dredged material disposal is not expected to adversely
affect these species.
Previous disposal at the proposed Arecibo site has not caused any
development of nuisance species at the site. In the unlikely event that
pathogens were contained in the dredged material, it is considered unlikely
that they could survive and reproduce in the cold, deep-water environment of
the sea floor at the site.
2-6

-------
The waters near the site are characterized by weak (3 to 5 cm/s)
subsurface currents moving in a westerly direction. Dispersal and horizontal
mixing of the water column are weak because of the low current speeds. The
dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the
site are such that dumped dredged material is nearly all confined at the site.
Because of the decreasing water depth in the westerly direction, dumped
materials are expected to be deposited within the dump site or a short
distance west of the dump site within a short time after disposal.
Water quality at the Arecibo site is good, typical of the well-flushed
open ocean conditions in Puerto Rican coastal areas. The water is optically
clear with little suspended material, and there is no evidence of organic
enrichment or eutrophication. Oxygen concentrations are high and nutrient
concentrations are low.
The Arecibo site is about 6 nmi from the nearest recreational beach.
Since virtually all dredged material will settle to the bottom near the
release point, it is not anticipated that any released material would
adversely affect the nearby shoreline. No dredged material is expected to be
transported to beaches by ocean currents should the site be used for disposal.
Similarly, little impact is expected on other uses of the ocean. Ships
from Arecibo do not traverse specified shipping lanes. Fishing areas are
located to the east and south (inshore) of the proposed site. The weak
prevailing currents would tend to transport any dredged material away from
these areas. No mineral extraction or fish and shellfish culture exist or are
planned near the dumpsite. Desalination does not occur near the site. No
dredged materials are expected to be transported toward shore-based recrea-
tional areas. There are no known cultural or historical features in the
vicinity of the site that could be affected by dredged material disposal.
Dumping activities at the proposed Arecibo site will not effect any areas of
special scientific importance or impact any recreational activities.
U.S. Coast Guard surveillance by shipriders, separate vessels, or
helicopter overflights would not be difficult at the proposed Arecibo site
because of its proximity to shore. Vater depths are not sufficient to impede
either water quality sampling or benthic sampling during monitoring
activities.
2-7

-------
2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR MAYAGUEZ
2.2.1	Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the disposal of dredged material from
Mayaguez included the use of ocean disposal sites and land-based disposal
alternatives.
2.2.1.1	Land-Based Disposal Options for Mayaguez
The locations of landfills and barren areas near Mayaguez vere identified
and evaluated in the DEIS as potential dredged material disposal sites. The
use of land-based disposal alternatives near Mayaguez may be technically
feasible. No potential sites for hydraulic filling vere identified. However,
one potential marsh construction site, two possible landfills, and one
possible barren area (quarry) site vere identified. Prior to the use of any
of these sites as dredged material disposal sites, site-specific field studies
would be required. In addition, site-specific evaluations of dredged material
disposal and monitoring costs would be necessary to determine the economic
feasibility of each potential location as a dredged material disposal site.
2.2.1.2	Ocean Disposal Site Options for Mayaguez
Using the EPA/COE approved ocean disposal site selection methodology
discussed previously, the interim site and three alternate sites vere selected
for evaluation as candidate sites for designation. Figure 2-2 presents the
zone of siting feasibility for Mayaguez and the locations of the interim site
and Alternate Sites 1, 2, and 3. In the DEIS, these sites were evaluated and
compared using the ODR criteria to determine their environmental suitability
as ocean disposal sites.
2.2.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative
The proposed action for Mayaguez is to designate Alternate Site 1 as the
ocean disposal site for continuing use. This site is located approximately
6 nmi vest of the Mayaguez harbor, and occupies an area of approximately
2-8

-------
1 square nmi. Vater depths within the site range from 351 to 384 meters (192
to 210 fathoms). The corner coordinates of the site are as follovs:
18o15'30w N, 67°16'13" W
18°15'30" N, 67°15'11" V
18°14'30" N, 67°15'11" V
18°14'30" N, 67°16'13" W.
2.2.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative
The site proposed for designation at Mayaguez is Alternate Site 1. This
site is between 1 and 2 nmi farther from the Mayaguez harbor, and from the
nearest shoreline, than the interim site. This location places the site in
deeper water (almost twice as deep as the interim site), and reduces the
chance of dredged material inadvertently being transported onto coral reefs or
into sport or commercial fishing areas. No operational problems were
encountered during the baseline monitoring activities at this site and none
are expected from future use of the site.
The interim site was eliminated from consideration because it is in
relatively shallow water close to shore, where released dredged materials are
likely to be transported into a coral reef area, and into sport and commercial
fishing areas. Also, it is located within a few hundred meters of a
shipwreck. Use of the interim site could potentially expose coral reef areas
that begin 1 to 2 km southeast of the site to sedimentation rates sufficient
to damage living corals and consequently decrease reef productivity.
The other two alternate sites shown in Figure 2-2 also were considered
for designation. Alternate Sites 2 and 3 met all the criteria of the ODR.
However, Alternate Site 2 was eliminated because it is farther from Mayaguez
harbor than the proposed site, and Alternate Site 3 was eliminated because
dredged material dumped at that site would be deposited in shallower water,
and prevailing currents could transport the dumped material closer to the
shelf break than at the proposed site.
2.2.4	Impacts of the Recommended Alternative
No adverse effects from the future use of this site are expected on
biotic resources such as corals, fisheries, or on nursery grounds. Alternate
2-9

-------
6 7° 30'	67°20'	67°IO'
67°30'	67°20*	67°10'
FIGURE 2-2. ZONE OF SITING FEASIBILITY AND INTERIM AND ALTERNATE
SITES FOR MAYAGUEZ
2-10

-------
site 1 has no unique ecological or environmental characteristics, being
similar in sediment type and benthic biological community to most other sites
in the Mayaguez study area. No effects are expected on any mineral resources
or socioeconomic and cultural aspects of the environment from use of the
proposed site. There should be no problems conducting surveillance
activities.
Approximately 53,500 cu yds of mixed sand, silt, and clay dredged
material are expected to be disposed of at the Mayaguez site once every 2
years. The material is generated in the maintenance of navigational channels
and berthing areas in Mayaguez harbor. The dumping would occur primarily from
hopper dredges.
The proposed Mayaguez site is at least 3 nmi from the nearest significant
breeding, spawning, or nursery area of nearshore living resources. The site
is located approximately 3.5 nmi west of the nearest coastline. There is no
evidence to suggest that the proposed site has any unique importance to
feeding or passage areas of marine or avian biota since it is typical of
nearby well-flushed open ocean locations.
Benthic organisms at the proposed site are primarily deposit feeders, an
ecological type well-adapted to living in the high turbidity that might be
caused by dredged material disposal. It is not likely that use of the
proposed site will have a detrimental effect on benthic communities outside of
the immediate mound caused by disposal.
Endangered sea turtles and the brown pelican inhabit coastal Puerto Rico.
Available information indicates that these species are most active in the
nearshore coastal environment and are only transients in oceanic environments.
Consequently, oceanic dredged material disposal is not expected to adversely
affect these species.
There has been no known dumping of dredged material at the proposed
Mayaguez site. Previous dredged material disposal has occurred at the nearby
interim site. There are no other current or previous discharges at or near
the proposed site. The 1984 survey cruise detected no difference in species
2-11

-------
composition of bottom fauna between the proposed site and nearby areas.
Dredged material disposal at the proposed Mayaguez site primarily will be
deposited on the sea floor at and near the site. This deposition will bury
benthic organisms. Because of the relatively fine nature of the dredged
material, burial is not expected to have long-term impacts because the dumped
material can be recolonized easily by nearby communities. Impacts of dredged
material will be limited primarily to the sea floor.
Because the proposed Mayaguez site is in deep ocean waters well-flushed
by currents, nuisance species of plants, animals, or pathogens are unlikely to
survive or reproduce at the disposal site. The dredged material to be
disposed of would be similar in type to that existing at the site and would
result in a similar fauna at the site.
The waters near the proposed Mayaguez site are characterized by moderate
(15 cm/s) generally southwesterly subsurface currents. Dispersal and
horizontal mixing of the water column are weak because of the slow current
speeds. Silt and clay would be carried the farthest. The dumped dredged
materials are expected to be deposited within the dump site or within 1.5 nml
southwest of the dumpsite within a short time of disposal.
Vater quality at the proposed Mayaguez site is good, typical of the
well-flushed open water conditions in Puerto Rican coastal areas. The water
is optically clear with little suspended material, and there is no evidence of
organic enrichment or eutrophication. Oxygen concentrations are high and
nutrient concentrations are low.
The proposed Mayaguez site is about 4 nmi from the nearest recreational
beach. Modeling of the fate of dumped material at the proposed Mayaguez site
indicated that dredged material would not be transported to the shoreline and,
consequently, there would be no impacts at the shoreline. No dredged material
is expected to be transported to this area by ocean currents should the site
be used for disposal.
There are no fish or shellfish culture operations or desalination plants
near the proposed Mayaguez site. It is not expected that disposal of dredged
2-12

-------
materials at the proposed site would damage coral reefs or their associated
fish or shellfish assemblages, on vhich local fisheries are based. There will
be no interference with shipping lanes because there are no designated
shipping lanes in Puerto Rican waters. Dumping activities at the proposed
Mayaguez site are not expected to effect any areas of special scientific
importance, or impact any recreational activities.
There is a shipwreck within 1 nmi of the proposed Mayaguez site, but
predominant currents are expected to carry dumped dredged material away from
this location. Other known shipwrecks in the area are very unlikely to be
affected by dredged material disposal.
U.S. Coast Guard surveillance by shipriders, separate vessels, or
helicopter overflights would not be difficult at the proposed Mayaguez site
because of its proximity to shore. Water depths are not sufficient to impede
either water quality sampling or benthic sampling during monitoring
activities.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR PONCE
2.3.1 Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the disposal of dredged material from
Ponce included the use of ocean disposal sites and land-based disposal
alternatives.
2.3.1.1 Land-Based Disposal Options for Ponce
The locations of landfills and barren areas near Ponce were identified
and evaluated in the DEIS as potential dredged material disposal sites. The
use of land-based disposal alternatives near Ponce may be technically
feasible. One potential diked containment area site for hydraulic fill and
one potential wetland formation area were identified. No existing landfills
were found suitable, though four small sand-mining pits could be suitable if
they were permanently inactive. Prior to the use of any of these sites as
dredged material disposal sites, an extensive, site-specific field study would
be required.
2-13

-------
2.3.1.2 Ocean Disposal Site Options for Ponce
Using the EPA/COE approved ocean disposal site selection methodology
discussed previously, the interim site and three alternate sites were selected
for evaluation as candidate sites for designation. Figure 2-3 presents the
zone of siting feasibility for Ponce and the locations of the interim site and
Alternate Sites 1, 2, and 3. In the DEIS, these sites were evaluated and
compared in the DEIS using the ODR criteria to determine their environmental
suitability as ocean disposal sites.
Figure 2-3 indicates both an original and an extended zone of siting
feasibility for Ponce. The original zone of siting feasibility was conserva-
tively placed over 8 nmi offshore vhen preliminary feasibility studies raised
concern over possible sediment transport into sensitive fishing areas east of
the interim site. The subsequent availability of additional data to
characterize physical transport conditions permitted an improved estimation of
expected transport conditions in the area. The results of this analysis
indicated that some locations inshore from the original zone of siting
feasibility would not necessarily result in sediment transport into these
fishing areas and an extended zone of siting feasibility was added to include
areas farther inshore than originally mapped.
2.3.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative
The proposed action for Ponce is to designate Alternate Site 1 as the
ocean disposal site for continuing use. This site is located approximately
4.5 nmi south of the Ponce harbor, and occupies an area of approximately 1
square nmi. Vater depths within the site range from 329 to 457 meters (180 to
250 fathoms). The corner coordinates of the site are as follows:
17°54'00" N, 66°37'43" W
17°54'00n N, 66°36'41" W
17°53'00n N, 66°36'41" V
17°53'00" N, 66°37'43w W.
2.3.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative
The site proposed for designation at Ponce is Alternate Site 1, which is
located 4.5 nmi south of the harbor. This site is 1.5 nmi farther than the
2-14

-------
66°50'
66°AO"
66°30'
•*1
M
a
M
I
U>
CO N
H O
H Z
M W
CO
O
3 "J
o
pa co
*o H
§ 3
8°
w
M
f
a
M
M
pa
18
00'
17
55'
17
50*
17
45'
i
Zone of Siting
Feasibility
18"
00'
17"
55'
100 fa
17°
50'
17
45'
H
M
5
PI
17
40'
66°40'
66°30'
Nautical Miles
n~TT71
17"
40'

-------
interim site from the harbor, and 1 nmi farther than the interim site from the
nearest shoreline. However, it has the advantage of being 2.5 nmi farther
than the interim site from the nearest coral reefs, substantially reducing the
possibility of damage to the reef caused by fine sediments transported by
currents. The site also meets all of the criteria for site selection
specified in the ODR. The sediment transport and fate model predicts that all
sediment deposition would occur in deep water for alternate site 1 after
accounting for bottom topography and currents, a result not predicted for the
interim site and the other alternate sites studied for Ponce.
The interim site at Ponce is not suitable for designation. Dumping of
the predominantly silty-clay dredged material at the interim site would have
the greatest potential among the sites considered for the transport of fine
sediments to coral reef areas (located approximately 1.5 nmi northwest of the
site) under the influence of random variations in the conditions of wind and
near-surface currents. Although the dredged material transport and fate model
does not predict this possible impact, uncertainty over the direction and
velocity of currents likely to be experienced during an individual disposal
event makes the relocation of the site environmentally prudent.
The other two alternate sites shown in Figure 2-3 also were considered
for designation. Alternate Sites 2 and 3 met all the criteria of the ODR.
However, these sites were not recommended for designation over Alternate
Site 1 because they required an additional 1.5 nmi travel to the sites without
gaining any significant environmental advantages.
2.3.4 Impacts of the Recommended Alternative
No adverse effects are expected on living resources, mineral resources,
or socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment from the future use of
this site. The site has no unique ecological or environmental character-
istics, being similar in sediment type and benthic biological community to
most other sites in the Ponce study area. Benthic sampling at deep water
sites presents difficulties; however, these difficulties have been overcome at
previous sampling activities at the site.
2-16

-------
Betveen 250,000 and 290,000 cubic yards of silty dredged material would
be disposed of at the Ponce site once every 2 years. The material is
generated in the maintenance dredging of navigational channels and berthing
areas in Ponce harbor. The dumping would occur primarily from clamshell
unloading of scows, but hopper dredges might be used if available.
The proposed Ponce site is at least 4 nmi from the nearest coastline and
significant breeding, spawning, or nursery area of nearshore living resources.
There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed site has any unique
importance to feeding or passage areas of biota because it is typical of
nearby well-flushed open ocean locations.
There has been no known dumping of dredged material at the proposed Ponce
site. Previous dredged material disposal has occurred at a nearby interim
disposal site. There are no other current or previous discharges at or near
the site. The 1984 survey cruise detected no difference in bottom fauna or
sediments between the proposed site and nearby areas. Dredged material
disposal at the proposed Ponce site will be widely distributed over the sea
floor. Because it is widely distributed, only thin layers of dredged material
will be deposited at a given sea floor location. The effects of deposition of
this material on the benthic biota and the physical environment are expected
to be negligible. Impacts of dredged material will be primarily limited to
the sea floor.
Benthic organisms at the proposed site are primarily deposit feeders, an
ecological type well-adapted to living in the high turbidity that might be
caused by dredged material disposal. The wide dispersal of the material makes
it unlikely that use of the proposed site will have a detrimental effect on
benthic communities.
Endangered sea turtles and the brown pelican inhabit coastal Puerto Rico.
Available information indicates that these species are most active in the
nearshore coastal environment and are only transients in oceanic environments.
Consequently, oceanic dredged material disposal is not expected to adversely
affect these species.
2-17

-------
Because the proposed Ponce site is in deep ocean waters vell-flushed by
currents, nuisance species of plants, animals, or pathogens are unlikely to
survive or reproduce at the disposal site or any area nearby on the perimeter
of the disposal site where dredged material may settle. The dredged material
to be disposed of would be similar in type to that existing at the site and at
nearby areas, and would result in a similar fauna at the site and at nearby
areas.
The waters near the proposed Ponce site are characterized by weak
(5 to 10 cm/sec) deep water (i.e., 100 to 300 meters) west-northwesterly
currents. Because of the fine nature of the dredged material, it is expected
to be transported over considerable distances (potentially up to 10 nmi)
before settling to the bottom. Transport in the direction of the coastline
would be limited because significant transport only occurs at depths in excess
of 300 meters. Dredged material would settle on the bottom as shallower
depths are encountered if transport toward the shore occurs. The proposed
site has the least potential for dispersion affecting nearshore areas that may
contain coral reefs. Over the distances traveled, dispersion would be
extensive even though the general nature of the water column is not
dispersive.
Vater quality at the Ponce proposed site is good, typical of the
well-flushed open water conditions in Puerto Rican coastal areas. The water
is optically clear with little suspended material, and there is no evidence of
organic enrichment or eutrophication. Oxygen concentrations are high and
nutrient concentrations are low.
The proposed Ponce site is several nautical miles from the nearest
recreational beach. Modeling of the fate of dumped material at the proposed
Ponce site indicated that dredged material would not be transported to the
shoreline and, consequently, there would be no impacts at the shoreline. No
dredged material is expected to be transported to this area by ocean currents
should the site be used for disposal.
There are no fish or shellfish culture operations or desalination plants
near the proposed Ponce site. Even though dumped dredged material will be
dispersed over a wide area, it is not expected that disposal of dredged
2-18

-------
materials at the proposed site would damage coral reefs or their associated
fish or shellfish assemblages, on which local fisheries are based. There will
be no interference with shipping lanes because there are no designated
shipping lanes in Puerto Rican waters. There are no features of cultural or
historical significance near the site that may be affected by dredged material
disposal. Dumping activities at the proposed Ponce site are not expected to
effect any areas of special scientific importance, or impact any recreational
activities.
U.S. Coast Guard surveillance by shipriders, separate vessels, or
helicopter overflights would not be difficult at the proposed Ponce site
because of its proximity to shore. Water depths are not sufficient to impede
either water quality sampling or benthic sampling during monitoring
activities. Benthic sampling at deep water sites presents difficulties;
however, these difficulties have been overcome at previous sampling activities
at the site.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR YABUCOA
2.4.1 Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the disposal of dredged material from
Yabucoa included the use of ocean disposal sites and land-based disposal
alternatives.
2.4.1.1 Land-Based Disposal Options for Yabucoa
The locations of landfills near Yabucoa were identified and evaluated in
the DEIS as potential dredged material disposal sites. No sand or gravel
pits, or quarries, were identified in this area. The use of land-based
dredged material disposal alternatives at Yabucoa may be technically feasible.
Sites suitable for hydraulic fill may be available, although no specific sites
for diked containment areas were identified. There is sufficient land of
suitable topography for diked containment areas near the coast in the Yabucoa
Valley. However, this use of these low-lying coastal locations would compete
with the use of undeveloped areas as farmland. No sites suitable for wetland
formation, landfill cover material application, or barren area cover material
application were identified near Yabucoa.
2-19

-------
2.4.1.2 Ocean Disposal Site Options for Yabucoa
Using the EPA/COE approved ocean disposal site selection methodology
discussed previously, the interim site and three alternate sites vere selected
for evaluation as candidate sites for designation. Figure 2-4 presents the
zone of siting feasibility for Yabucoa and the relative locations of the
interim site and Alternate Sites 1, 2, and 3. For Yabucoa, rather than using
the 100-fathoms line as the shoreward side of zone of siting feasibility, the
boundary was extended farther offshore to a point where a true shelf break was
identified and much deeper waters could be obtained. In the DEIS, these sites
were evaluated and compared using the Criteria of the ODR to determine their
environmental suitability as ocean disposal sites.
2.4.2	Description of the Recommended Alternative
The proposed action for Yabucoa is to designate Alternate Site 2 as the
ocean disposal site for continuing use. This site is located approximately
6 nmi east of the Yabucoa harbor, Puerto Rico, and occupies an area of
approximately 1 square nmi. Water depths within the site range from 549 to
914 meters (300 to 500 fathoms). The corner coordinates of the site are as
follows:
18tf03'42" N, 65°42'49" W
18°03'42" N, 65°41'47" W
18°02'42" N, 65°41'47" V
18°02'42" N, 65°42'49H V.
2.4.3	Basis for the Selection of the Recommended Alternative
The interim site at Yabucoa is not suitable for designation. The site is
over shallow areas that may contain coral reefs. Coral reefs are present in
the general area, and a ridge of shallow bottom runs through the site with
depths of only 16 meters (9 fathoms). This sinuous ridge, vhich is identified
on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) topographic charts
of the area (NOAA 1980), has morphology apparently similar to a coral reef,
though no direct observations have been made on this feature. Because it
includes these areas of quite shallow water, the site does not meet the ODR
criterion of being off the shelf.
2-20

-------
Alternate Site 1 is not suitable for designation for the same reasons as
the interim site. A portion of this site is contained vithin the deeper
portions of the interim site, and is sufficiently close to the coral-like
feature that dredged material may be transported to that feature should
dumping occur. Transport and fate modeling results have predicted that
disposal at either the interim site or Alternate Site 1 would likely result in
transport of suspended sediments into the very narrov nearshore shelf areas to
the southwest, and thus adversely impact an important nearshore commercial
fishing area.
Alternate Site 2, which is 6 nmi east of the harbor, was selected as the
proposed site. The site is approximately 2.6 nmi farther from the harbor than
the interim site, 1 nmi farther from the nearest coastline than the interim
site, and 2 nmi farther from the coral-like features present at the interim
site. Transport of dredged material after dumping will be primarily in the
direction of very deep water, and consequently is expected to have little
impact. The site meets all of the criteria for site selection specified in
the ODR. No problems were encountered during the baseline monitoring
activities at this site and none are expected from future use of this site.
Alternate Site 3 also was considered for designation. This site met all
the criteria of the ODR. However, because Alternate Site 3 required an addi-
tional 3 miles farther travel to the site, without providing any significant
environmental advantage, it was not recommended for designation over Alternate
Site 2.
2.4.4 Impacts of the Recommended Alternative
No adverse effects are expected on biota, including corals, and
fisheries and nursery grounds, from use of the proposed DMDS. No effects are
expected on any mineral resources or socioeconomic and cultural aspects of the
environment from future use of the proposed site.
Approximately 150,000 cu yds of predominantly silty dredged material
mixed with some sand are expected to be disposed of at the Yabucoa site once
every 3 to 5 years. The material will be generated in the maintenance of
2-21

-------
65°50
65°50
65°40'
65°30*

-------
navigational channels and berthing areas in Yabucoa harbor. The dumping would
occur primarily from clamshell unloading of scows, but hopper dredges might be
used if available.
The proposed site is located approximately 4.5 nmi east of the nearest
coastline. Modeling of the fate of dumped material at the proposed Yabucoa
site indicated that dredged material would not be transported to the shoreline
and, consequently, there would be no impacts at the shoreline. The bottom of
the site slopes sharply from 549 to 914 meters.
The proposed Yabucoa site is at least 4 nmi from the nearest significant
breeding, spawning, or nursery area of nearshore living resources. There is
no evidence to suggest that the proposed site has any unique importance to
feeding or passage areas of biota, because it is typical of nearby
well-flushed open ocean locations.
There has been no known dumping of dredged material at the proposed
Yabucoa site. Previous dredged material disposal has occurred at a nearby
interim disposal site. There are no other current or previous discharges at
or near the site. The 1984 survey cruise detected no difference in bottom
fauna or sediments between the proposed site and nearby areas. Dredged
material disposed of at the proposed Yabucoa site will be widely distributed
over the sea floor. Because it is widely distributed, only thin layers of
dredged material will be deposited at a given sea floor location. The effects
of deposition of this material on the benthic biota and the physical environ-
ment are expected to be negligible. Impacts of dredged material will be
primarily limited to the sea floor.
Benthic organisms at the proposed site are primarily deposit feeders, an
ecological type well-adapted to living in the high turbidity that might be
caused by dredged material disposal. The wide dispersal of the material makes
it unlikely that use of the proposed site will have a detrimental effect on
benthic communities.
Because the proposed Yabucoa site is in deep ocean waters well-flushed by
currents, nuisance species of plants, animals, or pathogens are unlikely to
2-23

-------
survive or reproduce at the disposal site or any area where dredged material
may settle. The dredged material to be disposed of vould be similar in type
to that existing at the site and at nearby areas, and vould result in a
similar fauna at the site and at nearby areas.
Endangered sea turtles and the brown pelican inhabit coastal Puerto Rico.
Available information indicates that these species are most active in the
nearshore coastal environment and are only transients in oceanic environments.
Consequently, oceanic dredged material disposal is not expected to adversely
affect these species.
The waters near the proposed Yabucoa site are characterized by moderate
(15 cm/s) deep water (100 to 500 meters) west-southwesterly currents. Because
of the fine nature of the dredged material, it is expected to be transported
over considerable distances (potentially up to 10 nmi) before settling to the
bottom. Transport in the direction of the coastline would be limited because
significant transport only occurs at depths in excess of 300 meters. Dredged
material would settle on the bottom as shallower water is encountered if
transport toward the shore occurs. Over the distances traveled, dispersion
would be extensive even though the general nature of the water column is not
dispersive. Because of the wide dispersion of the material, and the limiting
effect of depth on shoreward sediment transport, impacts to the benthic
habitat are expected to be insignificant.
Water quality at the proposed Yabucoa site is good, typical of the
well-flushed open water conditions in Puerto Rican coastal areas. The water
is optically clear with little suspended material, and there is no evidence of
organic enrichment or eutrophication. Oxygen concentrations are high and
nutrient concentrations are low.
The proposed Yabucoa site is between 4 and 5 nmi from the nearest
recreational beach. No dredged material from dumping at the proposed site is
expected to be transported to this area by ocean currents.
There are no fish or shellfish culture operations or desalination plants
near the proposed site. Even though dumped dredged material will be dispersed
2-24

-------
over a vide area, it is not expected that disposal of dredged materials at the
proposed site would damage nearshore shallow water coral reefs or their
associated fish or shellfish assemblages, on which local fisheries are based.
There will be no interference with shipping lanes because there are no
designated shipping lanes in Puerto Rican waters. Dumping activities at the
proposed Yabucoa site are not expected to effect any areas of special
scientific importance, or impact any recreational activities.
One shipwreck has been identified near the interim site for Yabucoa. Use
of the proposed site will have no effect on this feature because Alternate
Site 1 is 1 nmi from the shipwreck and prevailing currents are directly away
from the feature.
U.S. Coast Guard surveillance by shipriders, separate vessels, or
helicopter overflights would not be difficult at the proposed Yabucoa site
because of its proximity to shore. Water depths are not sufficent to impede
either water quality sampling or benthic sampling during monitoring
activities. Benthic sampling at deepwater sites presents difficulties;
however, these difficulties have been overcome during previous sampling
activities at the site.
2-25

-------
3. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
3. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
3.1	INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to address comments received in response
to the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The DEIS was made avail-
able for public review on September 3, 1986, and the comment period was open
for a period of 60 days. The comment period for the Environmental Quality
Board of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was extended through January 31,
1987.
Discussions were conducted with several commentors, including the govern-
ment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
3.2	COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Letters that included written comments on the DEIS for which responses
are provided in this section were received from various federal, state, and
local organizations. Complete copies of these letters are presented in
Appendix A. Letters also are included in Appendix A from other commentors
that do not address technical issues. Since these letters did not address
technical issues, responses have not been prepared for this FEIS.
Substantive comments for which responses have been prepared are presented
in the following listing, and the relevant paragraph(s) in each of these
letters are marked and numbered in Appendix A to identify the source of each
comment. The individual and/or organization making particular comments is
identified in this section before the comment listed.
3.2.1 Ruth D. Carreras, Assistant Secretary for Permits Area
Department of Natural Resources
Puerto Rico
(November 24, 1986)
Comment 1: Regulation No. 13 of the Planning Board classifies the site at
Santa Isabel as Zone I (floodable), in which the disposal of
fill material is not permitted unless a hydrologic-hydraulic
study supports it.
Response 1: Since fill material is not planned to be disposed of at the land
site, the concern expressed by this comment is not applicable to
the actions addressed in the DEIS.
3-1

-------
Comment 2: The creation of wetland habitats for wildlife should be evalu-
ated as a desirable alternative. This kind of dredged material
is adequate in the formation of wetlands.
Response 2: Whereas the DEIS development process allows for the
consideration of a broad range of alternatives to the proposed
action, the detailed analyses of specific land-based disposal
options is a responsibility of the COE under its authority to
issue permits for the ocean dumping of dredged material.
Consequently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
considers such a comprehensive analysis of the creation of
wetland habitats from dredged material to be outside the scope
of the DEIS.
3.2.2 Santos Rohena, Jr., Chairman
Environmental Quality Board
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Office of the Governor
(November 24, 1986)
Comment 3- The EIS should be translated into the Spanish language (accord-
ing to the Environmental Public Policy Act).
Resnonse 3: Section 1.4 of the regulations cited in Mr. Rohena's letter
Response j. J	that thege regulations apply to departments, agencies,
government corporations, municipalities, and instrumentalities
of the Commonwealth. Thus, these regulations do not apply to
Federal agencies. Federal agencies are subject to the
environmental review requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA does not require translation of
environmental review documents into Spanish. However, EPA has
done so in certain cases where EPA believed that participation
and review by individual citizens was necessary (e.g., EIS on
Culebra Wastewater Facilities). In other cases (e.g., San Juan
Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Site EIS), the level of
interest expressed by the general public did not justify the
expenditure of time and public funds necessary to publish a
translated version; consequently, the EPA did not prepare a
Spanish-language version. The level of public interest
concerning the DEIS has not been substantial enough to justify
the publication of a Spanish version.
3.2.3 James H. Lee, Regional Environmental Officer
United States Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review
(December 2, 1986)
Comment 4: Some of the present interim sites for ocean dumping could have
detrimental effects on near-shore wildlife habitats. The pro-
posed alternate sites for Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa are
farther away from shore, in much deeper water, and are more
likely to avoid harmful impacts to coastal wildlife habitats.
We agree with the document's proposal to keep the Arecibo site
at its present (interim site) location.
3-2

-------
Response 4: The EPA agrees with Mr. Lee. The site selection process used
for this DEIS involved the development of a zone of siting
feasibility for each harbor. An EPA/COE approved map overlay
methodology (EPA/COE 1983) was used to identify areas in which
candidate disposal sites could be located. By design, these
sites vere to be located in areas free from conflicts with
sensitive resources or incompatible uses of the ocean. Once the
candidate sites for each harbor vere identified, various
analyses vere conducted, including computer modeling of the
sediment deposition characteristics for each site. As a result
of these analyses, alternate sites for Mayaguez, Ponce, and
Yabacoa vere recommended over continued use of the interim sites
for those harbors.
3.2.4 Vernon N. Houk, M.D., Assistant Surgeon General
Director
Center for Environmental Health
(December 11, 1986)
Comment 5: Section 2.4.2(8), page 2-31, of the DEIS states that beaches (at
Arecibo) vill not be reached by any sediments released at the
disposal sites and, therefore, there vill be no effects on
recreational svimming, diving, or fishing at the shore. Hov was
this determined? Vas the Dredged Material Transport and Fate
Model used?
Response 5: The transport and fate model described in the DEIS vas used to
assess sediment deposition characteristics at all candidate
sites, including Arecibo. Due to the depth of the vater and the
density of the material dumped, the neutral buoyancy point vas
not achieved at the proposed Arecibo site. Consequently, unlike
the other three harbors, dredged material dumped at Arecibo is
expected to remain vithin the boundaries of the dump site, and
adverse impacts on recreational svimming, diving, and fishing at
the shore are not expected to occur.
Comment 6: Additional information should be provided on the statement in
Section 2.4.2(10), page 2-32, of the DEIS that any human disease
organisms that may be present in the dumped materials are
unlikely to survive and reproduce in the cold, high-pressure
environment of the sea floor at the site because of vell-flushed
currents. Information should be provided regarding the iden-
tification of the suspected organisms. If the organisms have
not been identified, analyses of the dredged materials should
include identification of the organisms.
Response 6: The DEIS did not identify any human disease organism as being
found in the dredged material. As a matter of practice, tests
for human disease organisms are not conducted on dredged
materials to be transported to ocean disposal sites vhen
pathogens are not expected in the dredged material. Without
evidence that suggests the presence of harmful organisms
3-3

-------
(e.g., proximity to sewage outfalls), the expense of such
testing is not justified. In any case, such testing, if
determined to be necessary, normally would be conducted as a
part of the permit evaluation process under Section 103 of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA), as amended.
3.2.5 George R. Kleb, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Commander and Director
(December 17, 1986)
Comment 7: The EPA's purpose and mandate is to locate and designate
environmentally acceptable and economically feasible ocean
disposal sites for each coastal project area where a continuing
need for ocean disposal has been defined by the COE. Each such
site is considered on a case-by-case basis by the Corps, along
with land-based options in the Corps' project NEPA documents.
The stated purpose of paragraph 1 of the report abstract is not
correct. The purpose, as presently stated, is a COE responsi-
bility, through a separate NEPA action.
Response 7t The EPA agrees with Colonel Kleb. The DEIS states incorrectly
in the abstract that "the purpose of the action is to provide
environmentally acceptable alternatives for the disposal of
dredged material..." The purpose of the action addressed in the
EIS, as correctly expressed in the executive summary, is to
identify and designate environmentally acceptable ocean disposal
sites for dredged material from the four harbors. The respon-
sibility to address alternatives to ocean disposal is a COE
responsibility as a part of the COE permitting process,
specified in Section 103 of MPRSA.
Comment 8: As a followup to Comment 7, alternatives addressed in the EIS
must be confined exclusively to alternative ocean disposal site
locations and the no-action alternative. An evaluation of
land-based alternatives is a COE responsibility and has been
discussed separately in a Corps NEPA document. All such dis-
cussions of land-based alternatives should be deleted from
consideration as specific alternatives addressed by this docu-
ment and should be discussed instead under the appropriate
sections that address purpose and need.
Response 8: The EPA agrees with the COE that the evaluation of land-based
alternatives is a COE responsibility as a part of the dredged
material permitting process. However, it is the responsibility
of EPA to inform the public of its rationale for identifying and
designating environmentally acceptable ocean disposal sites.
The presentation of an analysis of land-based disposal options
as given in Appendix C is not inconsistent with NEPA. Vhereas
the DEIS development process allows for a consideration of a
broad range of alternatives to the proposed action of desig-
nating ocean disposal sites, the detailed analyses addressed by
3-4

-------
the DEIS are focused on assessments of environmental impacts
associated with dredged material disposal at various candidate
ocean disposal sites. Consequently, EPA believes that the
existing discussions of alternatives are appropriate.
Comment 9: The EIS recommends that three of the four interim sites be
abandoned for environmentally preferred alternatives. From
figures in the report, each of these alternative sites appears
to be about 2 miles farther into the ocean than its associated
interim site. The level of economic impact on dredging costs
resulting from these changes should be discussed in the EIS.
The Jacksonville District office of the Corps should assist in
evaluating these impacts.
Response 9: The EIS does recommend relocation of the dredged material
disposal sites from the interim site to an alternate site for
Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa. Continued use of the interim site
is recommended for Arecibo. The additional distances (beyond
the interim sites) required to reach the recommended alternate
site are 1.5, 1.5, and 2.75 nautical miles, respectively, for
Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa. Such distances cannot be
considered as cost prohibitive. Information was supplied by the
COE for costs associated with the typical Island Class hopper
barge historically used for these dredging applications. The
cost per additional 1-mile round trip would be $.32 per cu yd,
or approximately $316 per 1,000 cu yds full (effective) barge
load (Hanson 1988). EPA considers the incremental cost
associated with transport of dredged material to an environ-
mentally preferred alternate site to be acceptable and consis-
tent with the intent of the site designation process.
Comment 10: The evaluation of environmental consequences in the EIS does not
indicate any documented evidence of negative impacts from past
use of the interim sites. If available, this information would
provide a stronger basis for making a determination to select
alternate sites in lieu of the interim sites at three locations.
This would be particularly helpful in light of some of the
questionable predictions of adverse impacts discussed in the
document.
Response 10: Candidate ocean disposal sites were selected based on an EPA/C0E
approved map overlay methodology (EPA/C0E 1983) that focused on
the identification of environmentally preferable site locations
rather than the evaluation of one existing site. EPA generally
selects an interim site as one of three or more alternate sites
to be evaluated for designation unless previous use of the
interim site has caused unacceptable impacts. Vhen the interim
site is considered as one of the possible alternatives, it is
usually the prime candidate for designation unless environmental
advantages would be attained through designation of an alternate
site.
3-5

-------
The site selection methodology used for the DEIS was designed to
emphasize the mitigation of future environmental impacts rather
than looking primarily at past activities. If information from
past activities had been available, it would have been used to
assist in the evaluation process. Unfortunately, such evalua-
tions of impacts due to past activities usually require, except
where impacts have been determined to be severe or catastrophic
in nature, extensive analysis and verification beyond what is'
normally justified for the designation process. Since such data
are often difficult to obtain, decisions must be based primarily
on a comparative analysis of the potential for future impacts.
The interim sites for all four locations (Arecibo, Mayaguez,
Ponce, and Yabucoa) were evaluated as part of the DEIS for
possible selection. Alternate sites were designated for
Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa because EPA believes that the
designation of alternate sites at these locations will achieve
environmental advantages over the interim sites at only small
additional operational cost.
Commont 11» Fiaure 2-11, page 2-43, of the DEIS shows the interim site and
Comment 11.	»0 PonM t0 ^ 0utsid« th« ion. of siting
feasibility (ZSF). Although the reasons for this are explained
on page 2-3, paragraph 2.3.1.3, Figure 2-11 can nonetheless be
confusing. Figure 2-11 should be footnoted with a reference to
paragraph 2.3.1.3 to ensure the reader's understanding as to why
the sites are located outside the depicted ZSF.
Resnonse lis A map showing the extended ZSF for Ponce is presented on
Response £*3-66 of the DEIS, and the explanation of the reason it was
extended is given on page 2-23 of the DEIS. The extended ZSF
shown on page 3-66 of the DEIS is discussed and illustrated on
pages 2-14 and 2-15, respectively, of this FEIS.
Comment 12: Based on the DEIS, the Corps is not convinced that several of
the actions proposed are adequately justified from a technical
point of view, nor do they necessarily reflect the most cost-
effective, environmentally acceptable solutions.
Response 12: The EPA believes that the existing analyses in the DEIS
adequately support the recommendations made from a technical
point of view. Recommendations for all sites were based on the
most environmentally acceptable option available to decision-
makers. The recommendations were based, at least in part, on
the results of model predictions. In each case where a site was
relocated, however, the decision to relocate was not based
solely on model predictions. The model is based on average
currents that predominate over long periods of time. With
significant short-term variations in current directions and
velocities, the probability that dredged material would be
carried to shallow coral reefs was considered to be high for
some of the sites studied. When this was possible for an
interim site, the interim site was not selected in order to
minimize adverse impacts.
3-6

-------
3.2.6 Santos Rohena, Jr.t Chairman
Environmental Quality Board
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Office of the Governor
(January 29, 1987)
Comment 13: The EIS must be prepared in Spanish and in such a way as to be
objective, analytical, concise, and in terms that can be easily
understood by the community, but vith enough information to
orient specialists on particular problems in their fields of
specialized knovledge.
Response 13: The DEIS is not available in a Spanish language version. See
response to Comment 3.
Comment 14: Section 5.5.2.2 (Processing Requirements) of Article 4(c) of the
Environmental Public Policy Act states that vhen the Preliminary
EIS is circulated for comments, the lead agency shall notify the
public about its availability for inspection, as veil as of its
right to comment on the same. This notification shall be made
by means of an environmental notice in a nevspaper of general
circulation for one day. This notice shall be published vithin
ten (10) calendar days from the date that Preliminary EIS was
submitted to the Board. The lead agency shall pay the cost of
such notice and shall submit copy of the payment voucher to the
Board. The Board will not issue comments on the Preliminary EIS
until it has received evidence that the cost of said notice has
been paid.
Response 14:
Section 1.4 of the regulations cited in Mr. Rohena's letter
indicates that these regulations apply to departments, agencies,
government corporations, municipalities and instrumentalities of
the Commonwealth. Thus, these regulations do not apply to
federal agencies. Federal agencies are subject to the environ-
mental review requirements of NEPA. All requirements for public
notices under NEPA have been met by EPA.
3.2.7 Jose S. Rodriguez Mercado, Director
Land Use Planning Bureau
Puerto Rico Planning Board
(April 3, 1987)
Comment 15: Draft Environmental Impact Statements should be submitted to the
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board for their evaluation and
determination of compliance with procedures established by Act
No. 9 of June 1970, as amended.
Response 15: Nr. Rodriguez was contacted by telephone on several occasions
and an understanding was reached that a coastal zone management
program determination by the Puerto Rico coastal zone management
authority is not required for site designation. However, vhen a
dredging permit is issued it will have to be certified by the
3-7

-------
appropriate Puerto Rico authority as consistent with the Puerto
Rico Coastal Zone Management Program.
3.3 OTHER COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE DEIS
3.3.1 Telephone Questions
One commentor telephoned the EPA Regional Office to question the date of
a reference in the DEIS concerning shipwrecks and statements in the DEIS on
the number of shipwrecks adjacent to candidate ocean disposal sites. The
following pages in the DEIS should be modified to reflect EPA's response to
this comment:
•	Page 3-55> Paragraph 3.2.8 is changed to read as follows:
"There are two shipwrecks located near the Mayaguez interim site
(Figure 3-25, University of Puerto Rico 1976). One shipwreck is 1 nmi
east of the interim site. The other wreck is immediately adjacent to
the northwest corner of the interim site and is also 1 nmi east of
Alternate Site 1. No other wrecks have been identified at or near any
of the other alternate sites. No other features of historical or
cultural importance have been identified in the Mayaguez ZSF."
•	Page 3-108. Paragraph 3.4.8 is changed to read as follows:
"There is one shipwreck 2 nmi south of the southern corner of the
Yabucoa interim site and 1.5 nmi southeast of Alternate Site 1 (Figure
3-53). All other shipwrecks reported in this area are two or more
nautical miles from the ZSF (University of Puerto Rico 1976). No
other features of historical or cultural importance have been identi-
fied in the Yabucoa ZSF."
•	Page 7-19r Reference for University of Puerto Rico
University of Puerto Rico. 1976. A Marine Atlas of Puerto Rico,
Department of Marine Sciences Contributions, Mayaguez, PR:
University of Puerto Rico.
3.3.2 Endangered Species Act
In accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, and 50 CFR Part 402, the EPA initiated informal consultation with
the Protected Species Management Branch of the Marine Fisheries Service to
ensure compliance with all relevant endangered species laws. Their response
is presented on page A-18 of Appendix A and concurs with the EPA conclusion
that no populations of endangered or threatened species would be adversely
affected by the proposed action.
3-8

-------
4 CONCLUSIONS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

-------
4. CONCLUSIONS OP THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The purpose of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is to
identify and designate environmentally acceptable ocean disposal sites for
dredged material from the harbors of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce and Guayanilla,
and Yabucoa, Guayana and Roosevelt Roads harbors, Puerto Rico. This section
summarizes the conclusions of the FEIS for each of these harbors.
The decision to designate an ocean disposal site for dredged material is
based on an evaluation of possible sites using the Criteria (40 CFR 228.5 -
228.6) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (ODR). In this evaluation, any
interim site (listed in 40 CFR 228.12) is evaluted first. If the interim site
does not satisfy the criteria, a comparative evaluation of the alternate site
is carried out to determine which site is the most acceptable with respect to
the criteria. This becomes the preferred site for final designation. If no
site is found that satisfies the criteria, no site is designated.
The following subsections summarize the important information used in
determining which site to designate for each harbor.
4.1 ARECIBO
At Arecibo, the interim site is suitable for designation. The site meets
all criteria of the ODR. Dredged material is not expected to be transported
far from the site by ocean currents because the site is in relatively shallow
water and the dredged material to be disposed of is primarily fine-grained
sand. No long-term adverse effects are expected on biota, mineral resources,
or socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment from the continuing
use of this site. There have been no problems encountered during surveillance
or monitoring activities at this site.
Previous use of this site has resulted in more sand in the sediments on
the site than is found in surrounding areas. This has caused an increase in
the number of animals that are adapted to live in coarser sediments at the
site. The designation of the interim site will therefore result in less
change in the species composition of the local environment than would result
from the use of any alternate site.
4-1

-------
4.2	MAYAGUEZ
The interim site at Mayaguez is not suitable for designation. Fine
sediment from dredged material disposal are likely to be transported onto
coral reefs and into areas of sport fishing and commercial fishing. It is
also located vithin a few hundred meters of a shipwreck.
Alternate Site 1 at Mayaguez is suitable for designation. This site is
approximately 1.5 nautical miles (nmi) farther from the Mayaguez harbor, and
from the nearest shoreline, than the interim site. This location places the
site in water almost twice as deep as the interim site, and reduces the chance
of dredged material inadvertently being transported onto coral reefs or into
sport or commercial fishing areas. No long-term adverse effects from the
future use of this site are expected on biota, mineral resources, or
socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment. No problems were
encountered during the baseline monitoring activities at this site and none
are expected from future use of the site.
4.3	PONCE
The interim site at Ponce is not suitable for designation. Under
appropriate conditions of wind and near-surface currents, there is a high
probability that dumping of the predominantly silty-clay dredged materials at
the site would result in the transport of fine sediments to the coral reef
areas located approximately 1.5 nmi northwest of the site. Although the
dredged material transport and fate model does not predict this possible
impact, uncertainty over the direction and velocity of currents likely to be
experienced during individual disposal events makes the relocation of the site
environmentally prudent. The potential for navigational error or of short
dumps during inclement weather also indicates that relocation of the site vilx
be environmentally beneficial.
Alternate Site 1, the site to be designated for Ponce, is 1.5 nmi farther
than the interim site from the harbor, and 1 nmi farther than the interim site
from the nearest shoreline. However, it has the advantage of being 2.5 nmi
farther than the interim site from the nearest coral reefs, substantially
reducing the possibility of damage to the reefs caused by fine sediments
4-2

-------
transported by currents. In other respects, the site also meets all of the
criteria £or site selection specified in the ODR. No adverse effects are
expected on living resources, mineral resources, or socioeconomic or cultural
aspects of the environment from the future use of this site. No problems were
encountered during the baseline monitoring activities at this site and none
are expected from future use of the site.
4.4 YABUCOA
The interim site at Tabucoa is not suitable for designation. Coral reefs
are present in the general area, and a ridge of shallow bottom (depths of only
16 meters) runs through the site. This sinuous ridge, which is identified on
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) topographic maps of the
area (NOAA 1983), has morphology and biota similar to a coral reef, though no
direct observations have been made on this feature.
Similarly, Alternate Site 1 is not suitable for designation. A portion
of this site is contained within the deeper portions of the interim site, but
is sufficiently close to the coral-like feature that dredged material could be
transported to that feature should dumping occur.
Alternate Site 2, which is the next closest alternate site evaluated, is
suitable for designation. This site is approximately 2.6 nmi farther from the
harbor than the interim site, 1 nmi farther from the nearest coastline than
the interim site, and 2 nmi farther from the coral-like features than the
interim site. Transport of dredged material after dumping primarily will be
in the direction of very deep water and consequently is expected to have
little impact. The site meets all of the criteria for site selection speci-
fied in the ODR. No adverse effects are expected on biota, mineral resources,
or socioeconomic or cultural aspects of the environment. No problems were
encountered during the baseline monitoring activities at this site and none
are expected from use of this site.
4-3

-------
5. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

-------
5.0 CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This section summarizes the backgrounds and qualifications of the primary
contributors to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Project
direction was provided by the Environmental Impacts Branch of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region II.
This FEIS was prepared with the assistance of the technical and scientific
staff of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of McLean,
Virginia through EPA's contract with Battelle New England (Contract
No. 68-03-3319).
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Barbara Pastalove	Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch (EIB)
Villiam Lawler, P.E.	Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, EIB
Robert Vitte	Work Assignment Manager, EIB
Frank Csulak	Environmental Scientist, Marine and Wetlands
Protection Branch
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Jeffrey Weiler
Mr. Veiler was the Work Assignment Leader and Technical Coordinator for
the EIS. He holds an M.S. in Resource Economics/Environmental Management from
the University of Maryland. As Vork Assignment Manager and Technical
Coordinator, Mr. Veiler directed the technical staff in the organization and
writing of the FEIS. Mr. Veiler has been involved with the preparation of the
EIS and the site designation rulemaking since 1983.
Robert Kelly
Dr. Kelly provided technical imput to the project in the areas of assess-
ments of aquatic pollution and ocean dumping site designation and permitting.
He holds a Ph.D. in Zoology/Biology from Hobart College. Dr. Kelly is the
author of EPA's Ocean Dumping Permit Writers' Guide and Ocean Dumping Site
Designation Delegation Handbook for Dredged Material.
5-1

-------
6. COORDINATION

-------
6. COORDINATION
Public participation is an integral part of the EPA decision-making
process for permitting ocean disposal activities, EIS preparation, and the
ocean disposal site designation process. During the data-gathering efforts
performed in preparation of this FEIS, numerous government agencies,
non-government organizations, and individuals were provided with copies of the
DEIS. These parties are listed below.
Federal
Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC, 20515
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mr. David Mathis, Water Resources Support
Center, Kingman Building, Port Belvoir, Virginia, 22060
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, District Engineer, Jacksonville District, 400
West Bay Street, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida, 32232
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division Engineer, 510 Title Building, 30 Pryor
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Juan Area Office, Deputy District Engineer,
P.O. Box 4970, 400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00901
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Lloyd Saunders, Ph.D.,
P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida, 32232
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Juan Area Office, Puerto Rico Planning
Branch, Chief, 400 Fernandez Juncos Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00901
U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Ports, Harine Safety Office, P.O. Box S-3666,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00904
U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impacts Branch, GWEP/62, 400 7th Street, NW,
Washington, DC, 20590
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Institute of Tropical Forestry, University of
Puerto Rico, Agricultural Experiment Station, Box AQ, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, 00928
U.S. Department of Commerce, Administrator, Maritime Administration,
Washington, DC, 20230
U.S. Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Washington, DC,
20230
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Regional Environmental Officer,
26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, 10278
6-1

-------
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC,
20240
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Project Review,
18th and C Streets, NW - Room 4239, Washington, DC, 20240
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia,
22092
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mr. Michael Chivinski, Chief,
Disaster Assistance Programs Division, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, Nev
York, 10278
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Paul E. Gertler, Field Supervisor,
Caribbean Field Office, P.O. Box 491, Boqueron, Puerto Rico, 00622
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region IV Director, Mr. Richard B. Russell,
Federal Building, 25 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303	'
U.S. Geological Survey, District Chief, Puerto Rico District Office, GPO
Box 4424, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00936
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Chief, Protected Species Management
Branch, Southeast Regional Office, 9450 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg
Florida, 33702
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Assessment Branch,
3500 Delvood Beach Road, Panama City, Florida, 32407
U.S. National Park Service, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,
440 G Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20243
U.S. Naval Station, Commanding Officer, Roosevelt Roads, Fleet Post Office
Miami, Florida, 34051	'
U.S. Public Health Service, Chief, Center for Environmental Health, Centers
for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, 30333
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Director, Caribbean Area Office, Federal
Office Building, Hato Rey, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00917
Commonwealth
Autoridad de los Puertos, GPO Apartado 2829, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00936
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, Executive Director, Suite 1108-Banco Da
Ponce Building, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, 00918
Department of Physical Planning, Engineer Adelberto Colon, Puerto Rico
Planning Board, Minillas Government Center, P.O. Box 4119, Santurce
Puerto Rico, 00940
Estacion Environmental, Sociedad de Historica Natural, Apartado AQ, Rio
Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00928
6-2

-------
Federal Assistance Programs, Director, Puerto Rico Planning Board, P.O.
Box 4119, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00940
Institute de Cultura Puertoriquena, Mr. Luis M. Morales,. GPO Box 4184, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, 00905
Puerto Rico Administrator de Parques y Recro, Administrator, GPO Apartado
3207, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00904
Puerto Rico de Fomento Economico, Administrator, GPO Apartado 2350, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, 00936
Puerto Rico Department of Health, Secretary, P.O. Box 9342, Santurce, Puerto
Rico, 00908
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, Centro Comercial Oficina A,
2 Alturas de Mayaguez Carr., Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, 00708
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, Centro Gubernamental Oficina 204,
Avenida Rotarios, Arecibo, Puerto Rico, 00612
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, Hospital Sub-Regional, Ponce,
Puerto Rico, 00731
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, Secretary, P.O. Box 5887, Puerto
de Tierra, Puerto Rico, 00906
Puerto Rico Department of Social Services, 1633 Ponce de Leon Avenue,
Stop 24 1/2 - Bdificio Saldana, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00910
Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Vorks, Torre Sur Building,
De Deigo Avenue, Stop 22, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00904
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, Chairman, P.O. Box 11488, Santurce,
Puerto Rico, 00910
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, Water Quality Area, Director,
P.O. Box 11488, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00910
Puerto Rico Natural History Society, P.O. Box 1393, Hato Rey, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, 00919
Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of the Governor, P.O.
Box 82-La Fortaleza, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00901
Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority, Executive Director, P.O. Box 4267,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00905
University of Puerto Rico, Director, Planning Office, Recinto Ciencas Medicas,
Centro Medio, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00928
Water Resources Institute, Director, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico, 00708
6-3

-------
Other
American Littoral Society, Building ZZ, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, 07732
Colorado State University, Ms. Beverly Rauch, The Library, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80523
Council on Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC, 20206
Environmental Defense Fund, 1525 18th Street NV, Washington, DC, 20036
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Mr. Andy Johnson, 2122 York Road,
Oakbrook, Illinois, 60521
National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC,
20037
National Audubon Society, 1511 K Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20005
National Ocean Services, Ocean Assessment Division, Acting Chief, N0AA-N/M0S
33, Rockwall Building - Room 652, Rockville, Maryland, 20850
National Science Foundation, Committee on Environmental Affairs, Room 641,
1800 G Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20550
National Wildlife Federation, Assistant Director for Pollution and Toxic
Substances, 1421 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036
Resources for the Future, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20036
Science Applications International Corporation, Mr. Jeffrey Weiler, 8400
Westpark Drive, McLean, Virginia, 22102
Sierra Club, 330 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, 20003
Sun Refining and Marketing Company, Mr. Tom Zale, 1801 Market Street - 15th
Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103
Water Pollution Control Federation, 2626 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington
DC, 20037	'
Water Resources Research Center, Mr. Henry Smith, Caribbean Research
Institute, College of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands,
00801
Yabucoa Sun Oil Company, Mr. Bruce Hawthorne, P.O. Box 186, Yabucoa, Puerto
Rico, 00767
6-4

-------
APPENDICES

-------
APPENDIX A
COMMENT LETTERS

-------
DEPARTMENT OF HE. A Lit. \ HLMaN ICES
October 31, 1986
Ms. Barbara Pastalove
Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation
of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Aricebo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and
Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. We are responding on behalf of the U.S. Public Health
Service.
We have reviewed this Draft EIS on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service and
believe that this document adequately addresses these issues. Therefore, we
have no comments to offer at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this EIS. Please send us a copy of the
Final EIS when it becomes available.
Sincerely yours,
, i . -i	"• y
r	• "
vJeffreyA. Lybarger, M.D.
Acting Chief
Environmental Affairs Group
Center for Environmental Health

-------
commoNMtiuM o» mmo aoo
November 14, 1986
Ms. Barbara Pastalove
Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N, Y. 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
Reference is made to the draft of the Environmental
Impact Statement for the designation of ocean dredge material
disposal sites for Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa
harbors in Puerto Rico, submitted with circular letter dated
September % 1986.
We want to inform that no objections are interposed to
the selection of the proposed sites in the indicated ports.
Executive Director
A-2
qj.o. box am. san juan, pucrto moo aora

-------
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
November 24, 1986
Ms. Barbara Pastalove
Chief, Environmental Impact Branch
Room 702
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
Reference is made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
mentioned above.
The Department of Natural Resources has no objection to the*
proposed disposal sites. Nevertheless* the Regulation #13 of _ j
the Planning Board classify the site at Santa Isabel as Zone I
(floodable) in which the disposal of fill material is not permmited
unless a Hydrologic-Hydraulic study support it.
Also, we	understand that the creation of wetland habitats'
for wildlife	should be evaluated as a desirable alternative. -
This kind of	dredged material is adecuate in the formation of
wetlands.
Subject: Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the
Designation of Ocean Oreugeti
Material Disposal Sites for
Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce and
Yabucoa, Puerto Rico
DIA 1086-011 EPA
Assistant Secretary
for Permits Area
A-3
MuAoi	Av»., Stop 3. #•" Ju«n, Box SM7, Pta. <*• Ttorr*. *.«. 0090C

-------
V1630/86
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO / OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Environmental
Quality Board
November 24, 1986
Ms. Barbara Pastalove
Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Mew York N.Y. 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
Hie Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a copy of the above
mentioned document. In order to evaluate the overal inpact of the project,
the applicant must sukmit to our Agency six (6) more copies of the E.I.s.
as required by Article 4c of the Environmental Public Policy Act (law number
9 approved on June 18th 1970 as amended).
Subject: Draft E.I.S. for the Designation
of Ocean Dredged Mat.
Disposal Sites for Arecibo,
Mayaguez, Ponce and Yabucoa, P.r.
At least two (2) of the
Spanish language.
A-4
OfTKTE Of THE BOARD; 204 DEL PARQIIE ST. CORNER OF PUMARADA / MAIUNG ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 11468.
«ANTMO<-F Of IFPTO RICO fWlin / TFI POWANF- Tmun

-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
Southeast Region / Suite 1380.
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W. / Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Telephone 404/221-4524 ¦ FTS: 242-4524
DEC 2 2966
ER-86/1290
Ms. Barbara Pastalove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 702
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement (DEIS), Designation
of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce,
and Yaboucoa, Puerto Rico, and have the following comments.
The DEIS is well written and informative. Some of the present interim
sites for ocean dumping could have detrimental effects on near>shore
wildlife habitats. The proposed alternate sites for Mayaguez, Ponce,
and Yabucoa are further away from shore, 1n much deeper water, and are
more likely to avoid harmful Impacts to coastal wildlife habitats.
We agree with the document's proposal to keep the Arecibo site at its
present location. The site does not pose a problem to near-shore
habitat.
We do not foresee any adverse effects to threatened or endangered
species nor designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service is
responsible for assessing potential offshore Impacts on oceanic
species such as sea turtles and whales.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS.
Sincerely yours
A-5

-------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20550
December 9, 1986
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
FOR GEOSCIENCES
Ms. Barbara Pastalove
Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
The National Science Foundation has no comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites for Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. We believe
that the offshore disposal of dredged material will in no way affect the
operation of the NSF-sponsored National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center
in Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS.
Sincerely
Adair F. Montgomery
Staff Associate for Budget and
Environmental Policy
A-6

-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Centers for Oiseise Control
Atlanta GA 30333
December 11, 1986
Ms. Barbara Pastalove
Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites
for Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. We are responding
on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service*
In general, we are in agreement with the actions proposed in this document
to designate an environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site for dredged
material from the four harbors listed above. Since the harbors will
require dredging every three or four years _ to permit continuing access to
freight traffic and large ocean-going commercial vessels, it seems prudent
to select an environmentally acceptable site rather than continue using
Interim disposal sites.
We were pleased to note the criteria for designating these permanent sites
will be consistent with the London Dumping Convention (LDC) of 1975 and
the U.S. Ocean Dumping Regulations of 1977.
Some specific questions we have are as follows: In Section 2.4.2 (8),
page 2-31, it states beaches will not be reached by any sediment released
at the disposal sites and therefore there will be no effects on	f- 5
recreational swimming, diving, or fishing at the shore. How was this
determined? Was the Dredged Material Transport and Fate Model used?
Also, we would like additional information on the statement in Section
2.4.2 (10), page 2-32, that any human disease organisms that may be
present in the dumped materials are very unlikely to survive and reproduce |_ g
In the cold, highpressure environment of the sea floor at the site because
of well flushed currents. If the suspected organisms have been
identified, we would like to know what they are. If not, analyses of the
dredged materials should include identification of the organisms.
•A—7

-------
Page 2 - Ms. Barbara Pastalove
We appreciate Che opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us
one copy of the final document when it becomes available*
Sincerely yours,
Vernon N. Houk, M.D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Director
Center for Environmental Health
A-8

-------
Ill ILIII 1^5^^ COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
PUERTO RICO PLANNING BOARD
Mlnilla* Governmental Center, North Bldg.
Oe Oiego Ave, stop 22
P.O. Box 41119, Sen Juan, P. R, 000940 - 9969
December 11, 1986
Mr. Robert Witte
Environmental Analysis Section
Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702
26 Federal Plaza
New York, 10278
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Designation
of Ocean Dredge Material
Disposal Sites for Arecibo,
Mayaguez, Ponce and Yabucoa
Puerto Rico
Dear Sir:
According with the standard procedure for the Coastal
Zone Management Program Consistency determination, we
circulate the documents sent by the applicants to different
agencies.
In order to comply with this procedure, we are
requesting seven (7) additional copies of the referred
document.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Cordially yours,
si	—•
£?r /'?ki
Jos6 /sr. / RbdrteugC-'
Dire/ctpr
Land Use Planning Bureau
Enclosure: Application for Certification of Consistency with
the Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program

-------
J?-833
Sept. 84
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
PUERTO RICO PUNNING BOARD
PHYSICAL PLANNING AREA
LAND USE PLANNING BUREAU
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE
PUERTO RICO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
General Instructions:
A.	Attach a 1:20.000 scale, U.S. Geological Survey topographic
quadrangular base map of the site.
B.	Attach a reasonably scaled plan or schematic design of the
proposed project, Indicating the following:
1.	Peripheral areas
2.	Bodies of water, tidal limit and natural systems
C.	You nay attach any further information you consider necessary
for proper eveluation of the proposal.
D.	If any information requested in the questlonalre does not apply
in your case, indicate by writing "N/A" (not applicable).
E.	Submit a minimum of seven (7) copies of this application.

DO NOT WRITE IN THIS BOX
Type of application:
Application number:
Data received:
Date of certification:
Evaluation result: / /
objection / / acceptance / / negotiation
Technician:
Supervisor:
Comments:

1.	Name of Federal Agency:
2.	Federal Program Catalog Number:
3.	Tvoe of Action:
L	/ Pederal Activity /	/ License or permit /	/ Federal assistance
A. Name of Applicant:
Postal Address:
Telephone:
3. Project Name:
6. Physical Description of Prolect Location:
(area, facilities such at vehicular access, drainage* atom and sanitary
sewer placement, etc.)
A-10

-------
• 2 -
7. Ttp« of construction or other wort. proposed;
( ) dwuiiHai ( ) landfill f ) sand extraction ( ) pier ()
( ) resldentiel( ) tourist ( )
Othar (specify aad explain)
Construction of a eea wall and 3 pisra 3f * «0« dredge of fmrm araa to depth of
S fact.
Dsscrlotion of proposed work;
•. Watural. artificial, historic or cultural svst— ilkeW to ho effects rt.f
arolact
Ylaee an Z opposite any of tha aysttas indicated below that are in tha
project araa or lta surroundings which ara likely eo be affactad by tha activity.
Sndlcete tha distance ftoa tha proJact to any outside aystea that would likely
be effected.
System
Within
Outside
Distance
fMtBTl)
Local name of
beech, dunes
marshes
coral, reefs
river, estuary
bird sanctuary
pond, lake, lagooa
agricultural unit
forest, wood
cliff, breakwater
cultural or tourist aree
other (explein




Describe the likely impact •( the project on the identified system (a) •
Positive / /	Negative I /
Cxplalni lattar tha fiscal aspect of the area
9* Indicate permits, approvals and endorsementa of the proposal^by Federal end
Puerto Mean government agencies* Evidence of Such support should be stteched
to the proposal.
Application
lit	£&	Tfwjfa» Wunb«*
A-il
a.	Planning Board < )	< >	( > _>-(
b.	Regulation and Perwits Administration ( )	( )	( >

-------
3 -
Environment*1 Quality Board
Department of Natural Resources
Scata Hlatorlc Preservation 0£flca
U. S. Amy Corpa of Engineers
U. S. Coaat Guard
h. Othar (•) (specify)
Mo Pending
Application
Number
CERTIFICATE: I eartify that (project nana)	_
la conslatent with tha Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program,
and that to tha best of my knowledge the above Information la true.
(Signed) _
(Position)
DATE:
A-12

-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WATER RESOURCES SUPPORT CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CASEY BUILOINO
FORT BELVOIR VA. 22040
17 DEI 1986
Ms. Barbara Pasta I ova, Chisf
EnvironmantaI Impacts Branch (Room 702)
U. S. EnvIronmantaI Protaction Agancy
26 Fadaral Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Oaar Ms. Pasta I ova:
This rasponds to your offiea's Draft EnvIronmantaI
Impact Statemant for tha Das I gnat ion of Ocaan Dredged
Matarial Disposal Sitas for Aracibo, Mayaguaz, Ponca,
and Yabucoa, Puarto Rico.
Tha U. S. Army Corps of Enginasrs offars tha
following ganaral comments on this document:
a.	Purposa of Documant; EPA's purposs and mandate
is to locata and dasignate onvlronmentally acceptable
and economically feasible ocean disposal sites for each
coastal project area where a continuing need for ocean
disposal has been defined by the Corps of Engineers.
Each such site is considered on a caae-by-caae basis by
the Corpa, along with land->baaed options in our project
NEPA documents. The stated purpose of paragraph 1 of
tha report abstract is not correct. The purpose, as
presently stated, is a Corpa of Engineers
responsibility, through s separata NEPA action.
b.	EIS AltarnatIves; As a follow-up to point (a)
above, alternatives addressed In this document must be
confined exclueively to alternative ocean disposal site
locations and the no action alternative. An evaluation
of land-baaed alternatives is a Corps of Engineers
responsibiI Ity which has been covered separately in a
Corpa NEPA documant. We request that all such
diacusaiona of land-based altarnatIves (e.g., S2-S3 and
Chapter 2) be deleted from consideration as specific
alternatives addressed by this document and discussed
instead under the appropriate sections which address
purpose and need.
A-13

-------
-2-
17 0E£ 1956
c. The EIS recommends that three of the four
interim sites be abandoned for environmentally preferred
alternatives. From figures in the report, each of these
alternative sites appears to be about two miles further
into the ocean than its associated interim site. The
level of economic impact on dredging costs resulting
from these changes should be discussed in the EIS. Your
staff should contact our Jacksonville District office
for assistance in evaluating these impacts
(Lloyd Saunders, FTS 946-2202).
\- 9
d. The evaluation of environmental consequences
does not indicate any documented evidence of negative
impacts from past use of the interim sites. This
information, if available, would provide a stranger
basis for making a determination to select alternate
sites in lieu of the interim sites at three locations.
This would bs particularly helpful in light of some of
the questionable predictions of adverse impacts
discussed in the document (e.g., adverse impacts to
beaches some 10 miles distant from the point of
d i sposaI).
10
e. Figure 2-11, page 2-43, shows the interim site
and all alternates to Ponce to bs outside the Zone of
Siting Feasibility (2SF). While the reasons for this
ara explained on page 2-3, paragraph 2.3.1.3.,
Figure 2-11 can nonetheless convey in itarn If a confusing
picture to the reader. We recommend that Figure 2-11 be
footnoted with a reference to paragraph 2.3.1.3. to
ensure the reader's undsrstanding as to why ths sites
are outside the depicted ZSF.
h 11
We fully recognize ths unique environmental
attributes that must be considered in the management of
dredged material disposal activities at these Puerto
Rico harbors. However, based on the present document,
we are not convinced at this time that several of the
actions proposed in this EIS ars adequately justlfisd
from a technical point of view, nor do they necessarily
reflect the most cost-effective, environmentally
acceptable solutions.
Plsase contact Mr. David Math is of my staff
(FTS 385-3099) if you require additional clarification
of our review comments. We would encourage your staff
to meet with our Jacksonville District Office at your
earliest convenience to discuss these concerns in
dsta i I .
S i ncereIy,
..George R. Kleb
Colonel. Corps of Engineers
Commander and Director

-------
^Environmental
Quality Board
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO / OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DADA/108/87
January 29, 1987
Mrs. Barbara Pastalove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Room 702, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10278
Dear Mrs. Pastalone:
This acknowledges receipt of your comments of our letter of November 24,
1986 requesting six additional copies of the Spanish version of the DEIS for
the project referred to above.
According to the submitted information six (6) additional copies of the
engllsh version for the aforementioned project were enclosed as the Spanish
version was not available.
The Regulation for the Environmental Impact Statement of June 4, 1984
has been promulgated to establish the content requirements and administrative
procedures to comply with the process of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
established by Article 4 (c) of the Environmental Public Policy Act. (Law
No. 9, approved on June 18th, 1970, as amended) Section 5.3.1 (Content Require-
ments) of the Regulation for the Environmental Impact Statement read as follows:
-"The EIS must be prepared 1n Spanish and 1n such a ways
as to be objective, analytical, concise, and 1n terms
that can be easily understood by the community, but
with enough Information to orient specialists on par-
ticular problems on their fields of specialized know-
ledge".
RE: Draft EIS for the Designation
of Ocean
Dredge Material Disposal Sites
for Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce
and Yabucoa, P.R.
- 13
A-15

-------
Page #2
Mrs. Barbara Pasta!one
...as for Section 5.5.2.2 (Processing Requirements) read as follows:
-"When the Preliminary EIS is circulated for comments,
the lead agency shall notify the public about its
availability for inspection, as well as of its right
to comment on the same. This notification shall be
made by means of an evironmental notice in a news-
paper of general circulation for one day. This no-
tice shall be published within ten (10) calendar
days from the date that Preliminary EIS was submit-
ted to the Board. The lead agency shall pay the cost
of such notice and shall submit copy of the payment
voucher to the Board. The Board will not issue com-
ments on the Preliminary EIS until it has received
evidence that the cost of said notice has been paid."
We understand that the DEIS should be also translated into Spanish in
order to give the public a better chance to understand it. Furthermore we
esteemed your agency should fully comply with section 5.5.2.2 of the afore-
mentioned regulation.
SantoOohena, Jr.
Chai ranan
A-16

-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
PUERTO RICO PLANNING BOARD
Mlnlllat Govarnmantal Cantar, North Bldg.
Da Oiago Ava, Stop 22
P.O. Box 41119, San Juan, P.R. 000940 • 998S
April 3, 1987
Mr. Robert Witte
Environmental Analysis Section
Environmental Inspect Branch
Room 702
26 Federal Plaza
New York, 10278
Re: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Designation
of Ocean Dudge Material Disposal
Sites for Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce
and Yabucoa
Dear Mister Witte:
As you recall it was agreed in our telephone conversation of
March, 1987 that you are not presently requesting a Coastal
Zone Management Program (CZMP) determination of consistency for
the documents in reference. A determination of consistency, as
previously indicated, will not be entertain until such a time as
specific projects for particular areas are submitted to this
Planning Board for evaluation.
As a rule, Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) should be
submitted to the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board for their
evaluation and determination of compliance with procedures esta-
blish by Act No. 9 of June 1970, as amended.
Based on the above, we are not presently, commenting on the
different alternatives for interim ocean disposal sites included
in the DEIS.
Please, contact us if we can be of further assistance.
A-17

-------
^-,o'f0v.
/ V \
*^ri$ a> ^
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmoapharic Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
January 22, 1988 F/SER23:TAH:td
Barbara Pastalove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, 26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Pastalove:
This responds to your December 22, 1987, letter regarding the
proposed designation of sites for disposal of maintenance
dredging materials from the harbors of Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce
and Guayanilla, and Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. An Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) was transmitted pursuant to Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
We have reviewed the EIS and concur with your determination that
populations of endangered/threatened species under our purview
would not be adversely affected by the proposed action.
This concludes consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of
the ESA. However, consultation should be reinitiated if new
information reveals impacts of the identified activity that may
affect listed species or their critical habitat, a new species is
listed, the identified activity is subsequently modified or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the proposed
activity.
If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Terry Henwood,
Fishery Biologist at FTS 826-3366.
Sincerely yours,
Charles A. Oravetz, Chief
Protected Species Management Branch
cc: F/PR2
F/SER1
A-18
A
A

-------
APPENDIX B
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
COE	-	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
cm/s	-	centimeter per second
cu yds	-	cubic yards
CZM	-	Coastal Zone Management
DEIS	-	Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DMDS	-	Dredged Material Disposal Sites
EPA	-	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
£	-	fathom
FEIS	-	Final Environmental Impact Statement
FR	-	Federal Register
km	-	kilometer
LDC	-	London Dumping Convention
m	-	meter
MPRSA	-	Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
NEPA	-	National Environmental Policy Act
nmi	-	nautical mile
NOAA	-	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NVF	-	National Wildlife Federation
ODMDS	-	Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
ODR	-	Ocean Dumping Regulations (EPA)
OMEP	-	Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (EPA)
PL	-	Public Lav
RA	-	Regional Administrator (EPA)
USC	-	United States Code
USCG	-	U.S. Coast Guard
ZSF	-	Zone of Siting Feasibility
B-l

-------
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES

-------
REFERENCES
Hanson, P. 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, FL.
2/2/88. Personal communication.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1980. Virgin Passage and
Sonda De Viequez, Vest Indies, National Ocean Survey Map No. 25650.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Vashington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(EPA/COE). 1983. Draft Technical Guidance for the Designation of Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites. Vashington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Draft Report.
University of Puerto Rico. 1976. A Marine Atlas of Puerto Rico, Department
of Marine Sciences Contributions, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico: University of
Puerto Rico.
C-l

-------
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY

-------
GLOSSARY
ABUNDANCE
ADSORB
AMBIENT
The number of individuals of a species inhabiting a given
area. Normally, a community of several species will be
present. Measuring the abundance of each species is one
vay of estinating the comparative importance of each
species.
To adhere in an extremely thin layer of molecules to the
surface of a solid or liquid.
Pertaining to the undisturbed or unaffected conditions of
an environment.
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE
BENTHIC MARINE
ORGANISMS
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE
MARINE
ORGANISMS
ASSEMBLAGE
BACKGROUND LEVEL
BASELINE
CONDITIONS
BASELINE SURVEYS,
BASELINE DATA
BENTHOS
Pertaining to bioassays required for ocean dumping
permits, "at least one species each representing filter-
feeding, deposit-feeding, and burrowing species chosen
from among the most sensitive species accepted by EPA as
being reliable test organisms to determine the anticipated
impact on the site" (40 CFR § 227.27).
Pertaining to bioassays required for ocean dumping
permits, "at least one species each representative of
phytoplankton or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk, and
fish species chosen from among the most sensitive species
documented in the scientific literature or accepted by EPA
as being reliable test organisms to determine the
anticipated impact of the vastes on the ecosystem at the
disposal site" (40 CFR § 227.27).
A group of organisms sharing a common habitat.
The naturally occurring concentration of a substance
vithin an environment that has not been affected by
unnatural additions of that substance.
The characteristics of an environment before the onset of
an action that can alter that environment; any data
serving as a basis for measurement of other data.
Surveys and data collected prior to the initiation of
actions that may alter an existing environment.
All marine organisms (plant or animal) living on or in the
bottom of the sea.
BIOACCUMULATION
The uptake of substances (e.g., heavy metals) leading to
elevated concentrations of those substances vithin plant
or animal tissue.
BIOTA
Plants and animals inhabiting a given region.
D-l

-------
CONTINENTAL SHELF
CONTINENTAL SLOPE
CONTOUR LINE
CONTROLLING DEPTH
DIFFUSION
DISCHARGE PLUME
DISPERSION
That part of the Continental Margin adjacent to a
continent extending from the lov vater line to vhere the
Continental Slope begins.
That part of the Continental Margin consisting of the
declivity from the edge of the Continental Shelf down to
the Continental Rise.
A line on a chart connecting points of equal elevation
above or belov a reference plane, usually mean sea level.
The least depth in the approach or channel to an area that
determines the maximum draft of vessels that can obtain
passage.
Transfer of material (e.g., salt) or a property (e.g.,
temperature) under the influence of a concentration
gradient; the net movement is from an area of higher
concentration to an area of lover concentration.
A region of vater that can be distinguished from the
surrounding vater due to a discharge of vaste.
The dissemination of discharged matter over large areas by
natural processes (e.g., currents).
DIVERSITY (species) A statistical measurement that generally combines a
measure of the total number of species in a given
environment vith the number of individuals of each
species. Species diversity is high vhen there are many
species vith a similar number of individuals; lov vhen
there are fever species and vhen one or tvo species
dominate.
DOMINANT SPECIES
EBB CURRENT,
EBB TIDE
ECONOMIC
RESOURCE ZONE
ECOSYSTEM
ENDEMIC
ESTUARY
A species or group of species vhich, because of their
abundance, size, or control, strongly affect a community.
The tidal current moving avay from land or dovn a tidal
stream.
The oceanic area vithin 200 nmi from shore; coastal states
possess exlusive rights to living and non-living marine
resources in this zone.
The organisms in a community together vith their physical
and chemical environments.
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region; found at a
locality.
A semi-enclosed coastal body of vater that has a free
connection to the sea vithin vhich the mixing of saline
and fresh vater occurs.
D-2

-------
FAUNA
FINFISH
HALOCLINE
HOPPER DREDGE
HYDROGRAPHY
INDIGENOUS
INFAUNA
INITIAL MIXING
IN SITU
INTERIM DISPOSAL
SITES
INVERTEBRATES
ISOBATH
ISOTHERMAL
LITTORAL
LONGSHORE CURRENT
MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
MAINTENANCE
DREDGING
MESOPELAGIC
MIXED LAYER
MONITORING
The animal life of any location, region, or period.
Term used to distinguish true fish from shellfish.
A level in the vater column vhere a salinity gradient is
stronger than in the waters above or below that level.
A self-propelled vessel with capabilities to dredge,
store, transport, and dispose of dredged materials.
That part of science that deals with the measurement of
the physical features of waters and their marginal land
areas.
Having originated in or living naturally in a particular
region or environment; native.
Animals that live in the bottom sediment.
Dispersion of liquid, suspended particulate, and solid
phases of a waste material that occurs within 4 hours of
dumping.
(Latin) in the original or natural setting (in the
environment).
Ocean disposal sites tentatively approved for use by the
EPA.
Animals that lack a backbone.
A line on a chart connecting points of equal depth.
Of the same temperature.
Of or pertaining to the seashore, especially the regions
between tide lines.
A current that flows parallel to a coastline.
The designated shipping corridor leading into a harbor.
Periodic dredging of a waterway necessary to maintain
depth for ship passage.
Pertaining to free-living organisms found at depths of
200 to 1,000 meters below the open ocean surface.
The upper layer of the ocean, which is normally well-mixed
by wind and wave activity; the deepest extent of the mixed
layer is usually a halocline or thermocline.
As used herein, observation of environmental effects of
disposal operations through biological and chemical data
collection and analysis.
D-3

-------
NUISANCE SPECIES
PARAMETER
PATHOGEN
PELAGIC
PERTURBATION
PLUME
PRECIPITATE
PRIMARY
PRODUCTIVITY
QUALITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
RECRUITMENT
RELEASE ZONE
RUNOFF
SALINITY
SEA STATE
SHELF VATER
SHELLFISH
Organisms of no commercial value, which, because of
predation or competition, may be harmful to commercially
important organisms; pathogens; pollution tolerant
organisms present in large numbers that are not normally
considered dominant in the area.
Values or physical properties that describe the
characteristics or behavior of a set of variables.
An entity producing or capable of producing disease.
Pertaining to free-living organisms of the open ocean
beyond the Continental Shelf.
A disturbance of a natural or regular system; any
departures from the usual state of a system.
A region of water that can be distinguished from
surrounding water because of its characteristics; usually
turbid.
A dissolved substance that becomes solid through chemical
or physical change and separates from a solution or
suspension.
The amount of organic matter synthesized by organisms
(primarily plants) from inorganic substances per unit time
and volume of water.
Pertaining to the non-numerical assessment of a parameter.
Pertaining to the numerical assessment of a parameter.
Addition to a population of organisms by reproduction or
immigration of new individuals.
An area defined by the locus of points 100 meters from a
vessel engaged in dumping activities.
That portion of precipitation upon land that ultimately
reaches streams, rivers, lakes, or oceans.
The amount of salts dissolved in water; expressed in parts
per thousand.
The description of wind-generated waves on the surface of
the sea; ranges from 1 (smooth) to 8 (mountainous).
Water that occurs at, or can be traced to, the Continental
Shelf; identified by characteristic temperatures and
salinities.
An invertebrate having a rigid outer covering, such as a
shell or exoskeleton; includes some molluscs and
anthropods; term is the counterpart of finfish.
D-4

-------
SHIPRIDER
SHORT DUMPING
SLOPE WATER
SPECIES
STANDING STOCK
SUBSTRATE
SURVEILLANCE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
THERMOCLINE
TRACE METAL
TRANSMITTANCE
TREND ASSESSMENT
SURVEYS
TURBIDITY
VECTOR
WATER MASS
ZOOPLANKTON
A shipboard observer who ensures that a waste-laden vessel
is dumping in accordance with permit specifications.
The discharge o£ waste from a vessel anywhere outside
designated disposal sites.
Water that occurs at, or can be traced to, the Continental
Slope; identified by characteristic temperatures and
salinities.
A group of morphologically similar organisms capable of
interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
The biomass or abundance of living organisms per unit
volume of water or area of sea-bottom.
The solid material upon which an organism lives or to
which it is attached (e.g., rocks, sand).
Systematic observation of an area by visual, electronic,
photographic, or other means for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
Finely divided particles of a solid temporarily suspended
in a liquid (e.g., soil particles in water).
A temperature gradient in a layer of a body of water that
is appreciably greater than the gradients above or below
it; a layer in which such a gradient occurs.
An element found in the environment in extremely small
quantities; usually bioaccumulative or toxic.
A measure of water clarity, measured by an instrument that
transmits a known quality of light to a collector. The
percentage of the beam's energy that reaches the collector
is the water's transmittance.
Surveys conducted over long periods of time to detect
shifts in environmental conditions within a region.
Cloudy or hazy appearance in a naturally clear liquid
caused by a suspension of colloidal liquid droplets, fine
solids, or small organisms.
A straight or curved line representing both direction and
magni tude.
A body of water, identified by its temperature-salinity
values or chemical composition.
Weakly swimming animals whose distribution in the ocean is
ultimately determined by current movements.
D-5

-------
4. CONCLUSIONS OF THE PINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

-------