EPA
United State* Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Strut
Atlanta Georgia 30365
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
the Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Located Offshore
Tampa, Florida
September, 1994
-------
904/R-94-009
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
THE DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE LOCATED OFFSHORE
TAMPA, FLORIDA
Cooperating Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
W. Bowman Crum, Chief
Coastal Programs Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia, 30365
(404)347-3555
APPROVED BY:
tw -/rv
John H. Hankinson, 3k.
Regional Administrator
e-&-94
Date
-------
3
PREFACE
This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV, with assistance from Battelle
Memorial Institute. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District, is a cooperating agency in the preparation
of this document.
The Jacksonville District is responsible for those parts of
the document that address need and alternatives. Region IV is
responsible for all other parts of the document. Both agencies
share responsibility for the Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
-------
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY SHEET i
SUMMARY vii
Purpose and Need for Action viii
Alternatives to the Proposed Action viii
Affected Environment x
Environmental Consequences xi
Organization of EIS xii
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for Action 1
1.2 General Introduction 1
1.3 Proposed Action 2
1.4 Legislation and Regulatory Framework 3
1.4.1 Site Designation 3
1.4.2 Ocean Dumping Evaluation and Permitting
Procedures 4
1.4.3 Permit Enforcement 5
1.4.4 International Considerations 6
CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 9
2.1 History of Ocean Disposal Site Selection in Tampa
Bay 9
2.2 Description of the Alternatives 13
2.2.1 No-Action Alternative ...................... 15
2.2.2 Ocean Disposal Alternatives 16
2.2.3 Non-ocean Alternatives 20
2.3 Discussion of the Alternatives 22
CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 25
3.1 Ocean Disposal Site Characteristics 25
3.1.1 Site Location 25
3.1.2 Proposed Use 25
3.1.3 Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring .. 26
3.1.4 Existence and Effects of Previous
Dumping in the Area 27
-------
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
3.2 Physical Environment 42
3.2.1 Meteorology and Climate 42
3.2.2 Physical Oceanography 44
3.2.3 Hater Column Characteristics 48
3.2.4 Regional Geology and Sediment
Characteristics 54
3.3 Biological Environment 58
3.3.1 Plankton 58
3.3.2 Benthic Algae 62
3.3.3 Benthic Invertebrates 65
3.3.4 Demersal and Pelagic Fish 69
3.3.5 Pelagic Invertebrates 75
3.3.6 Coastal and Sea Birds 77
3.3.7 Marine Mammals 81
3.3.8 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species .... 84
3.3.9 Marine Sanctuaries and Special Biological
Resource Areas 86
3.3.10 Potential for Development or Recruitment
of Nuisance species 87
3.4 Socioeconomic Environment 87
3.4.1 Commercial Fishing 88
3.4.2 Commercial Shipping 90
3.4.3 Recreational Fishing 91
3.4.4 Other Recreational Activities 93
3.4.5 Oil and Gas Exploration Development 94
3.4.6 Historic Sites and Shipwrecks 94
CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 95
4.1 Introduction 95
4.2 No-Action Alternative 95
4.3 Ocean Disposal Alternative 96
4.3.1 General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 98
4.3.2 Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 99
4.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Ill
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 112
4.3.5 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and
Long-Term Impacts 115
4.3.6 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources 1-16
-------
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
4.3.7 Mitigation Measures 117
4.4 Discussion of the Alternatives 118
CHAPTER 5.0 COORDINATION 121
CHAPTER 6.0 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 125
CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES 147
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Nearshore Disposal Alternatives A-l
APPENDIX B. Summary of Video Surveys B-l
APPENDIX C. Site Management and Monitoring Plan C-l
APPENDIX D. Plates, Tampa Bay Channels D-l
APPENDIX E. Upland Sites Study by CE/JAX E-l
APPENDIX F. Survey Report, EPA Video October 1991 F-l
APPENDIX G. Coastal Zone Management Consistency
Evaluation G-l
APPENDIX H. Short-term Transport and Deposition
Evaluation H-l
APPENDIX I. Responses to Comments on the DEIS 1-1
-------
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Tampa Harbor ODMDs and Alternative Disposal
Sites 10
Figure 2-2. Location of Alternative Dredged Material
Disposal Site 4 off Tampa Bay, Florida 24
Figure 3-1. Relationship of Actual Disposal Area to
Site 4 32
Figure 3-2. A. Contour Map of Percent FeaOj at Site 4.
B. Contour Map of Bi-214 Absolute Activity
Levels at Site 4 35
Figure 3-3. Stations Sampled by Mote Marine Laboratory
in August 1987 39
Figure 3-4. Cluster Analysis of Infaunal Data Collected
in August 1987 by Mote Marine Laboratory .... 43
Figure 3-5. Typical Surface Current Patterns Associated
with Loop Current and Detached Cyclonic
Eddies in September 1970 46
Figure 3-6. Temperature Profiles Along 27°30'N for
January and August 1973 49
Figure 3-7. Salinity Profiles Along 27°30'N for January
and August 1973 50
Figure 3-8. A. Percent Light Transmission Profiles at
27°55'N During January and February 1975.
B. Percent Light Transmission Profiles at
27°55'N During September 1975 52
Figure 3-9. Bottom Character of West Florida Shelf 56
Figure 3-10. Grain Size Distribution of Sediments on the
West Florida Shelf 57
Figure 3-11. Tampa Harbor National Wildlife Refuges 79
Figure 3-12. Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserves 80
Figure 3-13. Political Boundaries Within the Tampa Bay
Region 89
-------
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. History of Dredged Material Disposal at
Ocean Sites in the Tampa Area 28
Table 3-2. Summary of Community Parameters for the Seven
Soft-Bottom Benthic Stations in the Vicinity
of the Site 4 Disposal Area 40
Table 3-3. Summary of Community Parameters for the Six
Hard-Bottom Benthic Stations in the Vicinity
of the Site 4 Disposal Area 41
Table 3-4. Taxa Commonly Found in Coastal and Gulf
Water Assemblages in the Gulf of Mexico 59
Table 3-5. Dominant Phytoplankton Species from the Shelf
in the Vicinity of Tampa Bay 60
TABLE 3-6. Zooplankton Collected During the MAFLA
Studies 63
Table 3-7. Zooplankton Species Collected off Tampa Bay in
Depths of 30 m and/or 14 64
Table 3-8. Dominant Infauna at Site 4 (Prior to Dumping
of Dredged Sediments) 67
Table 3-9. Epifauna Observed by Divers at Site 4 or in
the Immediate Vicinity 70
Table 3-10. Demersal and Pelagic Species of Teleost Fish
Reported Offshore of the Tampa Bay Area 71
Table 3-11. Fishes Observed by Divers at Hard-Bottom
Stations During Surveys III through VII 76
Table 3-12. Bird Species Observed Nesting in and Around
Tampa Bay 78
Table 3-13. Species of Marine Mammals in the Gulf of
Mexico 82
Table 3-14. Endangered (E) and Threatened (T) Species in
the Gulf of Mexico 85
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Table 4-1. Summary Table of Environmental Consequences
for Sites 4 and 5 120
-------
17
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page i
SUMMARY SHEET
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
THE DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE LOCATED OFFSHORE
TAMPA, FLORIDA
( ) Draft
(X) Final
( ) Supplement to Draft
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
1. Type of action.
(X) Administrative/Regulatory action
( ) Legislative action
2. Description of the action.
The proposed action is the permanent designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) offshore
Tampa, Florida to be managed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV. The proposed site
(Site 4) is square-shaped, covers 4 nmi2, and its
boundary coordinates are as follows:
NW 27°32'27HN, 83°06'02"W
NE 27°32'27"N/ 83o03'46"W
SW 27°30'27"N, 83°06'02"W
SE 27°30'27,,N/ 83°03'46"W
This site is proposed to receive designation for the
disposal of suitable dredged materials resulting from the
Tampa Harbor Federal Project and from possible other
government or private projects in the greater Tampa Bay
area.
The purpose of the action is to recommend an
environmentally acceptable ocean location for the disposal
of dredged materials that comply with ilie environmental
-------
18
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page ii
impact criteria of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR
Parts 220-229). Ultimately, this process is intended to
result in the final designation of an acceptable ODMDS.
3. Environmental effects of the proposed action.
Adverse environmental effects of the proposed action may
include (1) mounding, (2) smothering of the benthos, (3)
possible habitat alteration of the site, and (4) temporary
water quality perturbations. Adverse impacts within the
site are unavoidable, but the disposal operations will be
regulated to prevent unacceptable adverse, impacts outside
site boundaries.
4. Alternatives to the proposed action.
The alternatives to the proposed action are (1) no action,
which would require the Corps of Engineers (CE) to use an
acceptable non-ocean alternative disposal site, not to
dredge, or designate their own site under Section 103 of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, of
1972 as amended or (2) designate one or more ocean disposal
sites other than the one recommended.
5. Federal, State, public, and private organizations from whom
comments have been requested.
Federal Agencies and Offices
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Marine Fisheries Service
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Defense and All Services
Environmental Government Affairs
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Power Commission
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Honorable Bob Graham (U.S. Senate)
Honorable Connie Mack (U.S. Senate)
Honorable Dan Miller (U.S. House of Representatives)
Honorable Sam Gibbons (U.S. House of Representatives)
Honorable Michael Bilarakis (U.S. House of Representatives)
Honorable C.W. "Bill" Young (U.S. House of Representatives)
Minerals Management Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Survey
National Park Service
National Science Foundation
Office of Coastal Zone Management
-------
19
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Pageiii
Pentagon
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Health and Htiman Services
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Navy
State and Local Agencies
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service
Apalachee Regional Planning Council
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
Bureau of Marine Research
Charlotte County Conservation Council
City of Clearwater Public Works Engineering
City of St. Petersburg Planning Office
City of St. Petersburg Port Authority
Department of Archives, History, and Records Management
Department of Environmental Resources Management
Department of General Services
Department of Legal Affairs
Department of State
Division of Forestry
Environmental Regulation Commission
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Florida Historic Preservation Office
Florida House of Representatives
Honorable Lesley J. Miller, Jr. (59th District)
Honorable Mary Figg (60th District)
Honorable Chris Corr (62nd District)
Honorable James T. Hargrett, Jr. (63rd District)
Honorable Helen Gordon Davis (64th District)
Honorable Elvin L. Martinez (65th District)
Honorable John Laurent (66th District)
-------
20
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page iv
Florida Inland Navigation District
Florida Marine Fisheries Commission
Florida Senate
Honorable James Hargrett (21st District)
Honorable Donald C. Sullivan (22nd District)
Honorable Malcolm E. Beard (23rd District)
Florida Soil and Water Conservation Council
Florida State UAW-CAP Council
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
Health Program Office
Hillsborough County Commissioners Office
Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
Honorable Lawton Chiles (Governor, State of Florida)
Honorable Sandra W. Freedman (Mayor, City of Tampa)
Honorable Patricia Glass (Manatee County Commissioner)
Manatee County Commission
Manatee County Pollution Control Director
Manatee Port Authority
Miami River Coordinating Committee
North Brevard Environmental Action Committee
Office of Environmental Coordination
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners
Pinellas County Environment Management
Polk County Coalition for the Environment
Research Hydrologist - Everglades National Park
Sarasota Board of Commissioners
Secretary of State's Office
South Florida Water Management District
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
Southwest Florida Water Management District
State Planning and Development Clearinghouse
State Treasurer's Office
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
West Florida Regional Planning Council
Private Organizations
Action
AGC - Florida Westcoast Chapter
Alert Citizens Tri-City Alliance
Apalachee Audubon Society
Citizens Committee 100
Clean Ocean Action
Coalition to Cease Ocean Dumping
Collier County Conservancy, Inc.
Committee on Pollution, City of Boca Raton, Inc.
Conservation Consultants
Continental Shelf Associates
The Council of Clean Air
Environmental Engineering Consultants
-------
21
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page v
Environmental Information Center of the Florida
Conservation Foundation, Inc.
Envisions, Inc.
Florida Audubon Society
Florida Bass Chapter
Florida Coalition for Clean Water
Florida Conservation Foundation, Inc.
Florida League of Anglers
Florida Local Environmental Regulation Association
Florida Wildlife Federation
Friends of the Everglades
Gulf Coast Lung Association
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc.
Hillsborough Environmental Coalition
Information
International Women's Fishing Association
Isaak Walton League of America, Inc.
IWLA - Florida Division
Lemon Bay Conservancy
ManaSota - 88
Manatee County Audubon Society
Mote Marine Laboratory
National Audubon Society
National Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Nature Conservancy
Oceanic Society
Organized Fishermen of Florida
RACAL Survey, Inc.
Save Our Bays Association, Inc.
Sierra Club - Florida Chapter
Sierra Club - Sarasota Manatee Commission
Sierra Club - Tallahassee Group
Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc.
Submariners Sports
Survive
Tampa Audubon Society
Tampa Port Authority
Tropical Audubon Society
Ybor City Civitan Club
Universities and Other Sources
D. Odell, University of Miami
Florida Presbyterian College
Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
Florida State University
J. Culter, Mote Marine Laboratory
JRB Associates, Inc. (now Scientific Applications
International Corporation)
Manatee Junior College
-------
22
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page vi
Miami-Dade Community College
R. Culp, CAIS, University of Georgia
T. Hopkins, University of South Florida
University of Florida
University of Georgia, Center for Applied Isotope Studies
University of Miami - RSMAS
University of South Florida
University of Tampa
6. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been
officially filed with the Office of Federal Activities.
EPA, Washington, DC Headquarters Office.
7. Comments on the FEIS are due to EPA, Region IV, by the end
of the 30-day review period, on . Verification
of the review period dates is possible through review of
the Friday issues of the Federal Register during the time
of the start of the review period for the FEIS Notice of
Availability. These dates can also be confirmed by calling
EPA, Region IV in Atlanta, Georgia (404/347-1740) or EPA
Headquarters in Washington DC (202/ 260-5075).
Comments should be addressed to:
Mr. W. Bowman Crum, Chief
Coastal Programs Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
-------
23
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page vii
SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) considers the
permanent designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS) offshore Tampa, Florida. The purpose of the action is to
provide the most environmentally and economically acceptable
ocean location for the disposal of material dredged from greater
Tampa Bay, Florida.
Based on the need to continue dredging projects in the Tampa
Bay area, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
originally designated two ODMDSs offshore Tampa Bay. These sites
included Site A, approximately 13 nautical miles (nmi) from
Egmont Key, and Site B, 9 nmi from Egmont Key. In December 1980,
the initial designation was extended to February 1983. In May
1982, action was brought in Federal District Court by Manatee
County to halt disposal of dredged material at Site A (Manatee
vs. Gorsuch, 82-248-T-GC (M.D. FLA. 1982)). By order dated
December 21, 1982, the court filed for the plaintiffs and halted
all disposal of dredged material at Site A as of December 24,
1982. Between 1982 and 1983, EPA conducted surveys of
alternative disposal sites. In 1983, EPA recommended a site (Site
4), located 18 nmi from Egmont Key, for dredged material disposal
on an interim basis. During the period of interim designation,
additional information was compiled at other potential sites 25
to 35 nmi from shore (i.e., Site 5, including alternative Sites
5A, 5B, and 5MS-C). The suitability of permanent designation of
Site 4 and a site within Site 5 is evaluated in this EIS. The
Draft EIS was circulated for public comment in June 1993. In the
interim, EPA and the Corps of Engineers has been working with the
State of Florida to resolve outstanding issues. Unless this
action is taken by EPA, an EPA-designated ODMDS will not be
available for the disposal of suitable dredged material from the
Tampa Bay area.
-------
24
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page viii
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
An ocean disposal site would provide an ocean alternative
that could receive suitable material dredged from greater Tampa
Bay. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) has determined that
operation and maintenance dredging of the Channel System will be
necessary to maintain the channel depths and that without
dredging, economically important ship traffic would be reduced at
the ports of Tampa, Old Tampa, and Hillsborough Bays. The CE has
indicated that there is a need for an ocean disposal site to
accept material not suitable for beach nourishment and for which
there is no other suitable disposal option.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The EPA and the CE are responsible for evaluating the need
for and alternatives to ocean dumping according to the Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228). The Jacksonville District of
the CE has agreed to be a cooperating agency in the preparation
of this EIS responsible for the information contained in this EIS
regarding the need for and alternatives to ocean disposal. Where
the need for ocean dumping has been established, potential sites
for the disposal of dredged material are evaluated. The Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6) specify 5 general
and 11 specific criteria that constitute "an environmental
assessment of the impact of the use of the site for disposal."
These criteria were used to compare Site 4 and the alternative
sites within Site 5. General criteria for site selection
include:
o Potential interferences by disposal operations
with other marine activities and resources,
o Potential perturbations of water quality,
-------
25
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page ix
o Impacts on beaches and other amenity areas,
o Previous use of an area for dredged material
disposal,
o Geographic location.
Two ocean areas seaward of Tampa were evaluated for
suitability for final or permanent designation as ocean dredged
material disposal sites. The evaluation was conducted on the
basis of general and specific criteria of the Ocean Dumping
Regulations (40 CFR Part 228) promulgated by the EPA under the
authority established by the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 as amended. The alternative
sites evaluated included the interim-designated Site 4 and an
offshore site not previously used for ocean disposal, Site 5,
which includes alternative Sites 5A, 5B, and 5MS-C. The
no-action alternative, namely, not designating a site, was also
evaluated.
Site 4 was designated for a period of three years (US EPA,
1983) and was used from May 1984 to November 1985 for disposal
of dredged material. Site 4 is 4 nmi2 in area and 18 nmi from
shore. Both pre- and post-disposal surveys have been conducted
at Site 4 by Continental Shelf Associates (CSA, 1986a, b, c),
the University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies
(CAIS, 1988), and Mote Marine Laboratory (MML, 1988) in
cooperation with EPA, Environmental Services Division (ESD).
Supplemental surveys on Site 4 and the surrounding areas have
been done by EPA, Region IV. The alternative sites within Site
5 are located 30 nmi off Egmont Key. No dredged material
disposal has occurred at Site 5.
Nearshore open water Gulf alternative disposal sites are
discussed in Appendix A. These nearshore alternatives are also
reviewed in project-specific EISs and are regulated under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
-------
28*00
27*50*
27*<0
27*30
SprVigl
tfil '•
~ B
83*30'
83*20*
83*10*
83*00*
82*50*
jy
U3
>
M
*1
f
O
*
¦ *
r—i
o
>
o
n
w
§
o
L_J
Ui
*x)
o
en
p»
H
V)
W
M
M
cn
82*40'
82*30*
82*20*
TAMPA HARBOR ODKDS AMD ALTERNATIVR DISPOSAL SITES.
NJ
CT>
-------
27
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page xi
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The west Florida continental shelf extends seaward about
200 km from Tampa Bay to a depth of 200 m. The shelf gradient
averages 0.5 m per km. The shoreward zone off Tampa Bay
contains sediments composed of quartz'sand, with varying amounts
of shell (Gould and Stewart, 1956). Bard substratum is often
limited to the shells of large molluscs. Sediments at both
Sites 4 and 5 (including the three alternative Sites 5A, 5B, and
5MS-C) are characterized as coarse to fine sands with varying
but minor amounts of silt and gravel-sized particles (US EPA,
1983) .
Phytoplankton assemblages in this area of the eastern Gulf
are dominated by diatoms and dinoflagellates. Periodically,
uncontrolled blooms of the dinoflagellate Ptvchodiscus brevis
cause a condition known as red tide. Red tides usually occur in
late summer and throughout autumn. Zooplankton population
densities and distributions are affected by the Gulf Loop
Current.
Scattered limestone rock outcrops occur on the shallow
shelf and in deeper water and are inhabited by sponges, corals,
bryozoans, tunicates, and a diverse motile fauna of crustaceans,
polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms, and fishes. Fifty-nine
species of fishes have been reported offshore of the Tampa Bay
(Moe and Martin, 1965; US EPA/IEC, 1981). Commercially
important invertebrates off Tampa Bay include the pink shrimp
(Penaeus duorarum) and the rock shrimp (Sicvonia brevirostris1.
Benthic algal species are sometimes associated with sandy
substrata; however, most species are limited to hard substrata
and limestone outcrops.
Recreational diving and fishing are popular activities in
central and western Florida. In the Tampa Bay area, the total
value of finfish and shellfish landings averages $20 million per
year. Five major species of finfish are caught in Tampa Bay:
-------
28
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page xii
drum, flounder, mullet, sea trout, and sheepshead.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Site 4 was used from May 1984 to November 1985 for disposal
of dredged material. The effects of dredged material disposal at
Site 4 have been addressed previously by EPA (US EPA, 1983).
Effects of dredged material disposal on the physical, chemical,
and biological environment at Site 4 have also' been monitored
(CSA 1986a, b, c; 1987; CAIS, 1988; MML, 1988; US EPA, 1991).
Effects of dredged material disposal at Site 4 may be
limited to increases in suspended sediment concentrations,
mounding, and smothering of benthic infauna. Because nearshore
waters are characteristically turbid, temporary increases in
suspended particulate concentrations due to disposal operations
are considered insignificant. No cumulative impacts on the
chemical environment have been observed or are anticipated at
Site 4.
Monitoring studies at Site 4 did not detect any clear
relationships between the presence of dredged material
constituents and measured changes in the epifaunal or infaunal
communities (CSA, 1987; MML, 1988). Infaunal sampling did not
reveal any effects of disposal of dredged material at Site 4
monitoring stations. There was no indication that stations with
dredged material in surficial sediments developed an unusual or
distinctive infauna. Divers in the disposal area, however,
observed that the disposal mound had been colonized heavily by
algae (Codium and Gracilaria) and epifauna (hydroids, bryozoans,
ascidians, sea urchins, and arrow crabs). A variety of fishes
were also observed near dredged material on the seafloor (CSA,
1987). A recent survey by EPA divers showed that boulders on
the disposal mound were encrusted by calcareous algae, sponges,
ascidians, and tube coral to nearly 100% coverage, creating new
habitat (see Appendix F). While the creation of this new
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page xiii
habitat was not the intent of past disposal, it represents a
resource that EPA will try to protect through appropriate site
management.
No dumping has occurred at the alternative sites within
Site 5. Therefore, any discussion of effects of dredged
material disposal on the environment is speculative. No
persistent changes in water quality would be expected; however,
disposal of dredged material may alter the existing sediment
texture. Adverse impacts of dumping on biota would include
smothering of infauna and alterations in the composition of
benthic assemblages. Impacts would be expected to be similar to
those at Site 4.
ORGANIZATION OF THE EIS
This EIS is organized as follows:
o Chapter 1 specifies the purpose and need for the
proposed action, presents the initial background
information relevant to the dredging and disposal
sites, and discusses the legal framework guiding
EPA's selection and designation of disposal sites
and the COE's responsibilities in ocean disposal of
dredged material.
o Chapter 2 discusses the no-action alternative and
the alternative locations for the disposal of
dredged material in the ocean, and the non-ocean
alternatives.
o Chapter 3 describes the affected environment of the
alternative sites.
o Chapter 4 analyzes the environmental consequences
of dredged material disposal at the alternative
areas by applying the five general criteria in CFR
228.5 and the 11 site-selection criteria contained
in 40 CFR 228.6.
o Chapter 5 lists the authors of the EIS.
o
Chapter 6 contains a glossary atid a list of
-------
30
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page xiv
abbreviations used in the text.
o Appendix A presents an evaluation of the nearshore
disposal alternatives.
o Appendix B presents a narrative summary of the
video surveys conducted by Mote Marine Laboratory
and JRB Associates, Inc.
o Appendix C presents the Site Management and
Monitoring Plan.
o Appendix D presents plates showing the Tampa Bay
channels.
o Appendix E presents a 1993 study of upland disposal
sites by the Jacksonville District.
o Appendix F presents the October 1991 EPA Video
Survey Report.
o Appendix G presents the Coastal Zone Management Act
Consistency Determination Statement.
o Appendix H presents the results of short-term
transport and deposition evaluations.
o Appendix I presents comment letters received for
the Draft EIS, and responses to those comments.
-------
32
-------
33
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 1
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
Tampa, Old Tampa, and Hillsborough Bays are among the nation's
leading ports in shipping traffic and cargo tonnage (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1983). Ship access to the
harbors depends on periodic maintenance dredging of navigation
channels and berthing areas. It is estimated that maintenance
dredging will produce approximately 276,000 yd3 of predominantly
sand material and 82,000 yd3 of predominantly silt material per
year. Material produced during such dredging must be disposed in
an environmentally and economically acceptable manner.
Designation of a local ocean site would provide an ocean disposal
alternative for suitable dredged material.
The ocean disposal alternative has been determined by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (CE) as essential to meeting their
obligations to maintain safe navigation. While some materials
are suitable for beach nourishment, and upland sites do exist,
nonsuitable materials and the economic feasibility of transport
drive the need for a suitable ocean site. The possibility of an
emergency dredging situation in order to keep the Port facilities
open also supports the need for an ocean site.
1.2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The action addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is the final designation of an Ocean Dredged Material
-------
34
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 2
Disposal Site (ODMDS) offshore Tampa Bay, Florida. The purpose
of the action is to provide the most environmentally and
economically acceptable location for the ocean disposal option
for suitable materials dredged from the greater Tampa Bay area.
This EIS presents the information needed to evaluate the
suitability of offshore ocean disposal areas for final
designation and is based on a series of environmental studies of
potential disposal sites. The environmental studies and final
designation process were conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) of 1972 as amended (33 U.S.C. 1401 et sea.) and EPA's
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229).
The designation of an ODMDS by EPA does not by itself
authorize the disposal of dredged material at that site. All
disposals must be authorized by the CE, subject to its public
participation procedures (cf. 33 CFR 209.145), and subject to
possible disapproval by EPA pursuant to the Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria. All dredged materials proposed for
ocean disposal must be determined to meet the criteria and found
to be suitable for ocean disposal by EPA (see Section 1.4.2).
Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is also
needed from the State if the ODMDS is located within State
waters. The preferred disposal site is located outside State of
Florida waters.
1.3 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the final designation of an ODMDS.
The proposed action does not exempt any specific project
proposing to use the site from additional environmental review,
nor does it exempt the dredged materials from compliance with the
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria prior to disposal at a
designated site.
-------
35
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 3
1.4 LEGISLATION AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research# and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), which regulates transportation for the
purpose of dumping and the ultimate dumping of materials into
ocean waters. In general, the Act prohibits ocean dumping except
in accordance with permits issued by EPA, or, in the case of
dredged materials, the CE. Permits issued by the CE are subject
to EPA approval under Sections 103(c) and (d) of' the Act.
Pursuant to Section 102(a) of the MPRSA, EPA has promulgated
regulations establishing criteria for evaluating ocean dumping
permit applications (cf. 40 CFR Part 227) (see Chapter 4).
Section 103(b) of the MPRSA requires the CE to apply those
criteria in determining whether to issue permits for the ocean
disposal of dredged material.
Section 102(c) authorizes EPA to designate recommended sites
for dumping. This EIS is prepared in connection with such a site
designation. In issuing permits for the ocean disposal of
dredged materials, the CE is required by Section 103(b) of the
Act to utilize EPA-designated sites, to the extent feasible.
The CE is authorized by Section 103(e) of the Act to issue
regulations for federal projects based on the same criteria and
procedures used in permitting.
Thus, authorization for ocean disposal of dredged material is
a two-step process. First, a recommended disposal site must be
designated by EPA. Second, the CE, applying the regulatory
criteria promulgated by EPA, must issue a permit, or follow
equivalent administrative procedures. Applicants can be either
governmental or private entities.
1.4.1 Site Designation
Pursuant to Section 102(c) of MPRSA, EPA has promulgated
regulations governing the designation of ocear^disposal sites (40
-------
36
TAMPA, FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 4
CFR Part 228). The regulations provide that designation will be
based on environmental studies of the site and adjacent regions,
and historical knowledge of disposal in areas similar to the site
(40 CFR Part 228.4). EPA has also established general and
specific criteria to be considered in the site designation
process (40 CFR Parts 228.5 and 228.6).
Because the CE needed to proceed with dredging in the Tampa
Bay area, EPA designated two sites (Sites A and B) on an interim
basis. The interim designations of Sites A and B expired in
February 1983 (US EPA, 1983).
As part of a Final EIS (1983), EPA then considered the
following sites for designation as ODMDSs: previously designated
interim Sites A and B; Shallow Water Alternative Sites 1, 2, 3,
and 4; a mid-shelf alternative site; and a deep-water alternative
site. The Final EIS recommended the designation of Shallow Water
Alternative Site 4 as the Tampa Harbor ODMDS for three years (US
EPA, 1983). Interim designation of Site 4 became effective
November 1983 and expired November 1986. Currently no dredged
material is being disposed in Tampa Bay.
In response to public comments on the interim designation of
Site 4, EPA began a series of environmental studies to evaluate
potential ocean disposal sites in the vicinity of 30 nmi off
Egmont Key. Site 4 is evaluated as an ODMDS in this EIS.
1.4.2 Ocean Dumping Evaluation and Permitting Procedures
Section 103(a) of MPRSA allows the ocean dumping of dredged
material only after a determination that "the dumping will not
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, or economic
potentialities." In determining this, the CE must apply the
environmental criteria promulgated by EPA (40 CFR Part 227).
Those criteria include (1) an evaluation of the chemical and
physical impacts of the proposed dumping on marine life (Subpart
-------
37
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 5
B) , (2) a determination that there is a demonstrated need for
ocean disposal (Subpart C), (3) an evaluation of the impact of
the proposed dumping on aesthetic, recreational, and economic
values (Subpart D), and (4) an evaluation of the impact of the
proposed dumping on other uses of the ocean. As noted earlier,
an EPA-designated disposal site must be, used where feasible.
Prior to issuing a dredged material permit or authorizing a
federal project involving the ocean disposal of dredged material,
the CE must notify EPA, who may disapprove the proposed disposal.
Under certain limited circumstances set forth in Section 103(d)
of the MPRSA, the CE may reguest a waiver from EPA. The waiver
should be granted, unless EPA "finds that the dumping of the
material will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, wildlife, fisheries
(including spawning and breeding areas), or recreational
areas...."
1.4.3 Permit Enforcement
Under MPRSA, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is
assigned responsibility by the Secretary of Transportation to
conduct surveillance of disposal operations to ensure compliance
with the permit conditions and to discourage unauthorized
disposal. Alleged violations are referred to EPA for appropriate
enforcement. Civil penalties include a maximum fine of $50,000;
criminal penalties involve a maximum fine of $50,000 and/or a
one-year jail term. Where administrative enforcement is not
appropriate, EPA may request the Department of Justice to
initiate relief actions in court for violations of the terms of
MPRSA. Surveillance includes spot checks of disposal vessels for
valid permits, interception or escorting of dump vessels, and use
of shipriders and aircraft during dumping.
The Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has published
guidelines for surveillance and enforcement of ocean dumping in
-------
38
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 6
Commandant Instruction 16470.2B, dated 29 September 1976. An
enclosure to the instruction is an Interagency Agreement between
the CE and the USCG regarding surveillance and enforcement
responsibilities over federally contracted ocean dumping
activities associated with federal navigation projects. Under
the agreement, the CE "recognizes that it has the primary
surveillance and enforcement responsibility over these
activities." The CE directs and conducts surveillance over
contract dumpers engaged in ocean disposal activities, except in
Hew York and San Francisco; the USCG retains primary
responsibility for surveillance in these two areas. In all other
areas, the USCG will respond to specific requests from the CE for
surveillance missions. The USCG retains responsibility for
surveillance of all dredged material ocean dumping activities not
associated with federal navigation projects.
The Act authorizes a maximum criminal fine of $50,000 and jail
sentence of up to one year for every unauthorized dump or
violation of permit requirements, or a maximum civil fine of
$50,000. Any individual may seek an injunction against an
unauthorized dumper with possible recovery of all costs of
litigation.
1.4.4 International Considerations
The principal international agreement covering ocean dumping
is the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention),
which became effective in August 1975, upon ratification by 15
contracting countries including the United States (26 UST 2403:
TIAS 8165). There are now 47 contracting parties. Designed to
control dumping of wastes in the ocean, the Convention specifies
that contracting nations will regulate disposal in the marine
environment within their jurisdiction and prohibit disposal
without permits. Certain hazardous materials are prohibited
-------
39
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 7
(e.g., radiological, biological, and chemical warfare agents, and
high-level radioactive matter). Certain other materials (e.g.,
cadmium, mercury, organohalogens and their compounds, oil and its
wastes, and refined petroleum products; and persistent plastics
and other synthetic or natural materials which float or remain in
suspension in the sea) are also prohibited except if present as
trace contaminants, or if rapidly rendered harmless. Other
materials (e.g., arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, cyanides,
fluorides, organosilicon, and pesticides and their by-products)
are not prohibited from ocean disposal, but require special care.
Permits are required for ocean disposal of materials not
specifically prohibited. The nature and quantities of all
ocean-dumped material, and the circumstances of disposal, must be
periodically reported to the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization (IMCO) which is responsible for
administration of the Convention.
EPA's ocean dumping criteria are based on the provisions of
the London Dumping Convention and include all the considerations
listed in Annexes I, II, and III of the Convention. Thus, when a
material is found to be acceptable for ocean dumping under the
EPA ocean dumping criteria, it is also acceptable under the
London Dumping Convention.
-------
42
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 9
CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 HISTORY OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION IN TAMPA BAY
Over the past decade, an effort has been made to locate an
environmentally and economically acceptable ocean disposal site
for the Tampa Bay area. This effort involved the collection and
analysis of both historical records and field survey data. A
discussion and summary of the results of this effort are
presented below. The results of these studies led to the
elimination of a number of alternative sites from further
consideration (US EPA, 1983).
Sites A and B, located 13 and 9 nmi from shore (Figure 2-1),
respectively, were designated on an interim basis in January 1977
(42 FR 2462, 40 CFR 228.12). In December 1980, the interim
designation was extended to February 1983.
EPA entered into a contract with Interstate Electronics
Corporation (IEC) in 1977 for the evaluation of interim-
designated sites and the preparation of EISs. The CE joined this
effort in 1978 by providing financial support, reviews, and
consultation. The Tampa Bay interim-designated sites were
included in the contract effort along with a number of other
interim-designated ODMDSs.
IEC initiated studies of the environment near Tampa Bay in
1979. Initial screening of historical data and other available
information indicated that three general areas should be
considered for the location of a permanently designated ODMDS:
shallow water, mid-shelf, and deep water. The previously
designated Sites A and B are both located in shallow water. It
was determined during the initial screening that areas within
three miles immediately north and west of the previously
designated sites should be eliminated from consideration because
-------
28'00* -
27*50' -
27*40' -
27*30' -
Dull ol M«xteo
<7sms-c
OA
»; *
L** •
o
o
32
po
H
o
i
a
M
en
s
CO
[w
H
ra
w
CO
83*30*
03*20*
83*10'
83*00'
82*50*
82* 40*
82*30*
82*20'
PIGURR 2-1, TAHPA HARBOR OORDS AMD ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES.
-------
45
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Pagell
of the presence of hard-bottom areas and artificial reefs.
Waters less than 10 m deep also were eliminated because of
potential shoaling. Subsequent field surveys conducted by EPA in
September and October 1979 and January 1980 revealed that these
sites might not be the most environmentally acceptable locations
for dredged material disposal. IEC recommended that further
studies be conducted on potential alternative sites.
In April 1981, Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) of Sarasota,
Florida, at the request of the Manatee County Board of
Commissioners, began a study to evaluate the effects of offshore
disposal of sediments dredged from Bayborough Harbor, St.
Petersburg, FL (US EPA/MML, 1981). MML concluded that partially
buried hard-bottom habitats were present at the boundaries of
Site A and recommended that dredged material disposal at Site A
be discontinued and efforts be directed toward locating an
alternative site(s).
Subsequently, EPA performed a reconnaissance survey of
Alternative Shallow Water Sites 1, 2, and 3 in October 1981.
Diver observations and photographs indicated that Alternative
Site 1 contained hard-bottom outcrops and numerous animal and
plant communities (US EPA, 1983). For this reason, Alternative
Site 1 was eliminated from detailed evaluation. Alternative Site
2 was determined to be only marginally acceptable, due to a
finger of hard-bottom communities extending into the site from
the eastern boundary. The western and southern portions of the
site consisted of sandy bottoms. Alternative Site 3 appeared to
consist of sandy bottom over the entire area.
In April 1982, the CE surveyed Alternative Sites 2 and 2A (an
area southwest of Alternative Site 2) and found that Alternative
Site 2A was environmentally unacceptable due to extensive areas
of exposed rock. Based on this finding and on EPA's findings
during the reconnaissance survey, Sites 2 and 2A were eliminated
from further detailed consideration (US EPA, 1983). In the same
year (May 1982), EPA implemented an in-depth survey that included
-------
46
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 12
video surveillance and taping of the bottom at Site A, a transect
of the ocean floor between Site A and Shallow Water Alternative
Site 3, and a transect of the ocean floor in a southwest
direction from Alternative Site 2A (US EPA, 1983). Videotapes of
Alternative Site 3 revealed much more hard-bottom area than had
been revealed in October 1981 and led to the elimination of
Alternative Site 3 from further consideration. During the
videotaping, an extensive sandy-bottom area (later designated
Alternative Site 4) southwest of Alternative Site 2 was
discovered and included in the survey.
EPA then implemented another survey during February, March,
and April 1983. This survey consisted of extensive videotaping
and side-scan sonar mapping of the bottom of Alternative Site 4
and a control site located five miles southeast of Alternative
Site 4. Three other sites, identified as State Sites X, Y, and
Z, at approximately 27, 28, and 30 nmi, respectively, west of
Egmont Key, were also examined in brief detail. Only videotapes
were made at these three sites.
The Final EIS for Ocean Disposal Site Designation (US EPA,
1983) recommended Site 4, an area located approximately 18 nmi
from Egmont Key and containing extensive sand-bottom area, for
dredged material disposal on an interim basis. Disposal of
materials at Site 4 was initiated in May 1984 and continued until
November 1985 when dumping was terminated. 3.44 million cubic
yards of dredged material were dumped at the site. During the
interim designation period, monitoring surveys were conducted at
Site 4 both before and after disposal operations (CSA, 1987).
Additional information was compiled, and surveys conducted
(MML, 1983; JRB, 1984) at other potential sites 25 to 35 nmi from
shore. In particular, information obtained by Mote Marine
Laboratory (MML, 1983) from commercial and recreational fishermen
and from recreational SCUBA divers was used to delineate possible
alternative sites that did not contain known fishing reefs or
shipwrecks.
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page13
Seven such possible sites were located in the vicinity of 30
nmi off Egmont Key. These are State Sites X, Y, Z (discussed in
the 1983 Final EIS), Sites A, B, and C as surveyed and identified
by Mote Marine Laboratory (MML, 1983), and Site 30MS-C as
surveyed and identified by EPA and reported by JRB (1984) [Sites
A and B are identical to Sites 30MS-1 and 30MS-2 reported by JRBf
1984.] Of the seven sites, three have been both sampled for
infauna and surveyed by video: Sites A, B, and 30MS-C. They
were chosen as the alternative locations for Site 5 (Chapter 3).
To avoid confusion with other previously designated and
considered sites, these sites are referred to as Sites 5A, 5B,
and 5MS-C, respectively (Figure 2-1).
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The possible alternatives considered in designating an ODMDS
are discussed in this chapter. Possible alternatives include the
proposed action, designation of other ocean disposal sites, non-
ocean alternatives, and the no-action alternative.
In general, the feasibility of land disposal of dredged
materials for beach nourishment, fill for upland areas, or
creation of diked disposal islands (i.e., bay islands) depends on
the capacity of existing land disposal sites, location of the
dredging projects, and characteristics of the dredged materials.
Inland water and Gulf nearshore disposal alternatives (see
Appendices A and E) are regulated by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and do not require the designation of an ocean disposal
site. These alternatives are considered in project- specific
EISs, as appropriate.
The CE's need for a permanent ocean site for disposal of
materials from maintenance and new dredging operations was
discussed generically in the "Final Environmental Impact
Statement Tampa Harbor Project" (CE, 1975) and "Supplement to the
-------
48
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 14
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Tampa Harbor Project" (CE,
1977) and summarized in the "Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Tampa Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation" (US EPA, 1983). The possibility of upland disposal
or other feasible alternatives is not eliminated through the
ocean site designation process. The need for ocean dumping must
be demonstrated with each permit application for ocean disposal.
In 1993, the CE performed a study of upland sites in the
vicinity of Tampa Harbor for disposal of dredged material (see
Appendix E). The purpose of the study was to determine the
availability and feasibility of using upland sites in comparison
to an ODMDS for Tampa Harbor. Upland sites underwent an analysis
of environmental engineering and economic criteria. The
economic assessments included the cost to purchase the required
land, construct the necessary features, and transport the dredged
material to the site. The analysis involved environmental and
economic impacts of offshore and upland disposal to obtain a cost
comparison which would indicate the most feasible method of
disposal. The analysis and evaluation presented in the study
include information and conditions existing at the end of 1992
and the beginning of 1993. A more detailed study would be
required to implement any upland site recommended in this report.
The primary focus of this study was the Tampa Harbor Federal
Navigation channel. Any material dredged from local access
channels and berthing areas was not a consideration at that time.
The Manatee Harbor channel, which has its own upland site for
future construction and maintenance work, and the St. Petersburg
Harbor channel were excluded from this study.
The initial analysis involved 77 potential upland disposal
sites located in three counties. Environmental evaluations
determined that ten sites were unsuitable for disposal. A field
trip revealed development on four sites, making them unsuitable
for further consideration. Additionally, three sites were
inaccessible by pipeline due to Interstate 275. Pipeline access
-------
49
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Pagel5
problems to one site resulted in unacceptable environmental
impacts, making it unsuitable for further study. The initial
cost comparison between ocean and upland alternatives indicated
26 upland sites were more costly than the ocean alternatives.
The final cost evaluation was a real estate analysis on the
property values of the remaining sites. During this phase,
future development plans eliminated another site. The combined
costs of real estate, dredging and site preparation eliminated
two additional sites. Table 21 of Appendix E coiitains the final
30 sites considered suitable along with the cuts and dredge types
in making the final feasibility determination. Disposal islands
2D and 3D are also included in the table for comparison purposes.
The results presented in Table 21 (Appendix E) demonstrate
the need for an ODMDS for the Tampa Harbor Federal Project. No
upland sites were found to be feasible from the environmental,
engineering and economic aspects for 26.5 miles of the federal
channel stretching from the Egmont Bar Channel through Tampa Bay
Cut B (see Figure 5, Appendix E).
2.2.1 No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would result in no permanent
designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site.
Consequently, the CE would be required to use an acceptable
alternative disposal method (e.g., land disposal) or modify or
cancel the existing dredging and disposal program.
Alternatively, the CE could request a permit for dumping dredged
materials at an ocean site that would be subject to the
provisions in Section 103 of the MPRSA. The permit request
would be evaluated according to criteria specified in Section 102
of MPRSA to determine whether dumping would unreasonably degrade
or endanger human health, welfare, or the marine environment.
These ocean disposal sites would be used after a review of each
project has established that the proposed ocea^ disposal of
-------
50
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 16
dredged material is in compliance with the criteria and
requirements of CE and EPA regulations. These same criteria
apply to assessments of impacts associated with permanent site
designation as discussed in this EIS.
2.2.2 Ocean Disposal Alternatives
Selection of an appropriate site requires identifying and
evaluating suitable areas for receiving the dredged materials.
Identification of these areas relies on available information
obtained from previous site-specific and synoptic oceanographic
studies. Specific alternative (or candidate) sites may be
identified within these areas based on historic and current use
of the area, the existence of previously used disposal sites, and
recommendations from state and federal resource agencies and the
district and division offices of the CE.
The potentially suitable alternative sites for dredged
material disposal are the previously designated Site 4, located
18 nmi west of Egmont Key and Site 5 (i.e., either Sites 5A, 5B,
or 5MS-C), located approximately 30 nmi from shore (Figure 2-1).
In general, other previously used and candidate alternative
sites, nearshore areas within three miles of the previously used
sites, and areas in water depths less than 10 m were eliminated
from further consideration because of the presence of live
bottoms or reef areas, or due to concerns about potential
shoaling problems in shallow water areas (US EPA, 1983). The
possible disposal of dredged materials at mid-shelf or deep-water
alternative sites was discussed by EPA (1983). Mo previous
disposal has occurred within either area, the environmental
impacts resulting from disposal operations are poorly known, and
the economic costs associated with the extended transport
distances are prohibitive. Consequently, EPA eliminated
potential mid-shelf and deep water alternative sites from further
consideration.
-------
51
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Pagel7
2.2.2.1 Site 4
The Final EIS for the Tampa Harbor ODMDS recommended
designation of Site 4 for three years (US EPA, 1983). The site
was used from May 1984 to November 1985 for disposal of materials
from a project to deepen the channel. The site has an area of 4
nmi2 and is located approximately 18 nmi west-southwest of the
entrance to Tampa Bay (Figure 2-1). The average water depth at
Site 4 is 22 m. The bottom topography is primarily flat sand
with occasional ripples and shell hash. A small area of hard and
soft coral is located in the northwest quadrant of the site, and
a very small area of coral is located at the extreme northeast
corner of the site (US EPA, 1983). Prior to the onset of
disposal of dredged material, the sediments at Site 4 were
characterized as fine-grained sands and coarse silts with varying
but minor amounts of gravel.
Several surveys have been conducted at Site 4, including a
pre-disposal survey in April 1984, a series of post-disposal
surveys from August 1984 through July 1985, a sediment mapping
and biological survey in 1987 and an EPA diver survey in October
1991. The objective of these surveys was to determine whether
materials dumped at Site 4 were transported in quantities
sufficient to cause significant adverse environmental effects to
the environment around the site. Data collected from the
1984-1985 surveys have been published in a series of monitoring
survey reports and are summarized in CSA (1987). Separate
reports on the sediment mapping results and the biological survey
were prepared by the University of Georgia Center for Applied
Isotope Studies (CAIS, 1988) and MML (1988), respectively. In
the Site 4 monitoring plan, the presence of disposed dredged
material, serious warning, and significant adverse environmental
effects were defined to provide a decision point for potentially
halting disposal operations. A serious warning, for example,
would necessitate an increased monitoring frequency from every 45
-------
52
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 18
days to monthly. Significant adverse environmental effects, in
contrast, would stop disposal operations entirely until analyses
confirmed the significant effects.
The 1984-1985 monitoring surveys provided visual evidence of
scattered lumps of dredged materials within Site 4. These lumps
were attributed to small amounts of debris falling from the
disposal barge after the majority of the material had been
released. There was no visual indication that these materials
were transported out of the disposal site. Results from
geochemical analyses of the bottom sediments provided evidence
for the presence of dredged materials within the site and at the
site boundary. Dredged materials were also detected in areas of
hard bottom within the site. However, both the infaunal data and
photography of a live-bottom area provided limited information to
evaluate the biological effects from the dredged materials (CSA,
1986c). The data did not indicate that criteria for "serious
warning" or "significant adverse environmental effects" had been
achieved, although the extent of possible biological effects was
still poorly known.
The 1987 sediment mapping technique (CAIS, 1988) indicated the
presence of sediments with properties indicative of dredged
material in the vicinity of the disposal area and beyond the
north, northwest, and southeast boundaries of the site. These
results suggest that transport of dredged material to areas
outside the site boundary may be occurring. However, additional
evaluation of both soft- and hard-bottom communities by EPA,
Region IV, Environmental Services Division (ESD) in cooperation
with Mote Marine Lab provided no evidence of an adverse impact on
the fauna in the vicinity of Site 4 (MML, 1988).
The 1991 EPA diver survey revealed that large boulders on the
disposal mound were nearly 100% colonized by calcareous algae,
sponges, ascidians, and tube coral. Visually, fish were abundant
and included butterfly fish, wrasse, damselfish, angelfish,
highhats, grunts, snapper, jacks, needlefish, barracuda, and
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page19
grouper, with the latter being the most abundant sport/commercial
fish observed (Appendix F).
2.2.2.2 Site 5 tSites 5A. 5B. and 5MS-CM
Sites 5A, 5B, and 5MS-C within Site 5 are located
approximately 30 nmi off Egmont Key in water depths ranging from
29 to 35 m (Figure 2-1). The bottom topography of these sites is
primarily flat sand with some relief from scattered algal patches
or low relief corals (JRB, 1984). No disposal of dredged
material has occurred at these sites. These three sites were
sampled by MML and EPA using a combination of remote (e.g., video
and side-scan sonar) and discrete sampling methods (MML, 1983;
JRB, 1984). The MML (1983) video survey covered the entire area
of each of the three sites; the EPA survey (JRB, 1984) covered
only part of each site. These surveys are discussed in Appendix
B.
Video transects of Site 5A revealed that 79 percent of the
surface area consists of flat, sandy bottom with scattered
patches of algae (Caulerpa). Twenty-one percent of the area
consists of scattered hard bottom, but no extensive hard-bottom
areas exist (MML, 1983). Sediments are moderately heterogeneous,
ranging from very coarse sands to very fine sands (JRB, 1984).
Video transects of Site 5B revealed that 90 percent of the
area consists of flat, sandy bottom, and 10 percent consists of
scattered hard bottom. No extensive hard bottom was observed
(MML, 1983). Sediments at Site 5B generally are comparable to
those at Site 5A, and consist of coarse to very fine sands (JRB,
1984) .
Based on video data (MML, 1983), Site 5MS-C is part of an area
containing scattered and extensive hard bottom. Sediments at Site
5MS-C are the most heterogeneous and contain the greatest
percentage of fine sediments.
-------
54
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 20
2.2.3 Kon-ocean Alternatives
Between 1950 and 1990 the CE dredged approximately 104,500,000
cubic yards (cy) of material from the federal navigation channel
in Tampa Harbor. Of that quantity, 4,800,000 cy were disposed on
upland sites; 5,000,000 cy were placed on diked Bay disposal
Bites; and 94,700,000 cy were disposed in open water Gulf of
Mexico sites. Eighty-seven percent of the material disposed in
the ocean was from new work; the rest was largely from
maintenance of channels in Hillsborough Bay and the outer Bay
channels.
Diked disposal area locations for the Tampa Harbor Deepening
Project are shown on plates 1-6 from the final supplement to the
project EIS (the final EIS was filed August 8, 1975; a final
supplement to the EIS was filed June 3, 1977; and a supplementary
information report was filed August 1, 1980). Sites designated
as submerged maintenance disposal areas have never been used.
Although placement of dredged material in open water for habitat
development is a frequently mentioned alternative, federal and
State resource protection agencies as well as local environmental
action groups have consistently opposed additional filling of the
Bay bottom with maintenance-dredged material, except for such
purposes as filling old channels to natural Bay bottom levels.
Candidate channels for filling, such as Seddon Channel (the
Hillsborough River outlet) and Garrison Channel (connecting
Seddon and Sparkman Channels) have been considered for clean
material disposal. Garrison Channel is no longer a federal
navigation channel, having been deauthorized by Congress, and it
could be used for disposal. Its capacity would be determined by
survey of the extent of sedimentation now present. Seddon and
Sparkman Channels are authorized navigation channels, and
deauthorization would be necessary before they could be filled.
Disposal of dredged material in old phosphate mining pits
located in eastern Hillsborough County and in Polk County has
been considered. This would involve hauling material over public
-------
55
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page21
roads and would risk ground water contamination with salt from
the dredged material.
The Tampa Port Authority's disposal plan is to use the
disposal islands (D/A 2D and D/A 3D) in the northeastern part of
the project for disposal of material from the Hillsborough Bay
area; the sites afford capacity for disposal of as much as 30
year8 of maintenance material. However, recent information from
the CE indicates that both disposal areas are near or at
capacity. Material from all other channels is projected for
disposal in a designated Gulf of Mexico ocean disposal site.
Lacking an ocean disposal site and faced with critical
conditions in Cut G, the Port has found it necessary to make an
exception to the Tampa Bay disposal plan. The Tampa Bay Bar
Pilots have limited the draft of vessels using Cut G. This has
resulted in shippers loading vessels to less than capacity. The
Tampa Port Authority has therefore granted permission, for one
time only, to dispose of maintenance dredged material from Cut G
material in the diked disposal area, D/A 3D. Long term disposal
of Cut G material on the diked disposal areas is not feasible
since this would shorten the disposal areas' period of
availability for disposal of material from Hillsborough Bay.
The ocean disposal option for material of all types has been
determined by the CE to be essential to carry out its mission of
maintaining safe navigation. Sand dredged from the entrance
channel may be placed on adjacent beaches; however, material from
the entrance channel and upper channels (Cut G and Port Tampa
channel) is typically silt unsuitable for beach nourishment. The
CE desires to place this material in the ocean because they have
determined that no alternative sites are available within a
feasible transport distance. The CE also believes that an ocean
disposal site must also be available for disposal in the event of
an emergency, when time constraints do not permit beach disposal.
The CE has recently completed a new survey of upland disposal
options for material dredged from the Tampa Harbor Federal
-------
56
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 22
Project (see Appendix E). This study concludes that no upland
sites are environmentally, engineeringly, or economically
feasible for a 26.5 mile portion of the Federal channel from the
Egmont Bar Channel through Tampa Bay Cut B. An ocean pite is
needed for any material from these areas that is not suitable for
beach nourishment.
The CE will submit a dredged material disposal plan (DMDP) to
the State with each water quality certification application that
includes disposal of materials dredged from state waters or
sovereignty lands into the ODMDS. The State will concur with, or
object to, such plan in accordance with the federal consistency
procedures of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Florida
Coastal Management Program. The DMDP will be reviewed prior to
each dredging event to allow for alternative disposal designs ro
cost-sharing mechanisms. The DMDP will include a detailed
evaluation of disposal options according to the following
hierarchy of preferences: beach disposal of beach quality
material (>10% fines); nearshore disposal of beach compatible
material (meets NTU standards approved by the State); other
beneficial uses; upland disposal; or ocean disposal. The State
of Florida and/or the local sponsor will pay increased costs,
according to appropriate cost-sharing ratios, for choosing a
disposal option determined by the CE not to be the least costly
alternative.
2.3 DISCUSSION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
As noted in Section 2.2.2, the potentially suitable
alternatives for a dredged material disposal site are previously
designated Site 4, located 18 nmi west-southwest of the entrance
to Tampa Bay, and Site 5 (i.e., Site 5A, 5B, or 5MS-C), located
approximately 30 nmi off Egmont Key. Surveys designed to monitor
the disposal of dredged material at Site 4 did not indicate that
criteria for "serious warning" or "significant adverse
-------
57
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page23
environmental effects" have been exceeded.
With respect to the designation of an area at Site 5, Site
5MS-C is part of an area containing mainly scattered and
extensive hard bottom (MML, 1983). Sites in that area were not
considered as candidate sites by MML (1983). Also, according to
information mapped in Beccasio et al. (1982), Site 5MS-C lies
partly within a general habitat boundary for red snapper, red
grouper, grunts, dolphin, gag, and sea bass. Based on these
ecological considerations, Site 5MS-C was eliminated from
consideration as a dredged material disposal site.
In choosing between Sites 5A and 5B, data collected by both
MML (1983) and EPA (JRB, 1984) were considered. Video data
indicate that Site 5B contains a higher percentage of sand and a
lower percentage of scattered hard bottom than does Site 5A (90
percent sand at 5B vs. 79 percent sand at 5A) (MML, 1983).
Within Site 5A, JRB (1984) identified three habitat areas ranging
from coarse and medium sands with gravel, to fine and very fine
sands, and coarse silts. At Site 5B, however, only two habitat
categories were represented (three of the four stations fell into
one category—coarse and medium sands with gravel). Because many
taxa in the JRB (1984) study were consistently representative of
particular habitats, Site 5A may be considered more biologically
diverse than Site 5B. However, average species diversity (H') at
Sites 5A and 5B is comparable (3.43 and 3.33, respectively). In
addition, the average total taxa at Sites 5A and 5B are also very
similar (63 vs. 68, respectively).
Further consideration of designating either Site 5A or 5B has
been discontinued due to the distance offshore. The CE has
stated that they would never use a site at these distances.
Further evaluation and subsequent designation of a site that
would not be used are not efficient uses of federal money.
In summary, the alternative that will be considered in detail
in this EIS for the disposal of dredged material from the Tampa
Bay area is Site 4 (Figure 2-2).
-------
28*00'
^•so-
27*40"
27*30' -
83*30-
Ci> Sp*1ngl
»•
HAI
(|*Ml KftJ
N
-------
60
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page25
CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1.1 Site Location
In November 1983, EPA designated Site 4 for a 3-year period as
the Tampa Bay offshore site for disposal of dredged materials
(Figure 2.2). Site 4 is 18 nmi (33 Jan) west-southwest of the
mouth of Tampa Bay in water depths of about 22 m. The boundary
coordinates of Site 4 are
NW 27°32'27"N, 83°06'02"W
NE 27°32 '27 "N, 83°03'46"W
SW 27°30'27"N, 83°06'02"W
SE 27°30 '27"N, 83°03'46"W
The site configuration is square with an area of 4 nmi2. The
bottom topography of Site 4 is primarily flat sand with
occasional sand ripples and shell hash. A small area of hard and
soft coral is located in the northwest quadrant of the site, and
a very small area of coral is located at the extreme northeast
corner of the site (US EPA 1983). Dredged material was disposed
at the site from May 1984 to November 1985 (CSA, 1986c). The
area and a nearby control site (Site 4C) were monitored regularly
from April 1984 to July 1986 (CSA, 1987). Continued disposal at
Site 4 is the alternative evaluated in this EIS.
3.1.2 Proposed Use
It is anticipated that operation and maintenance dredging in
Tampa Bay will generate an approximate annual average of 1.1
million yd3 of sediments; however, maintenance dredging
-------
62
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 26
historically has been conducted on an as-needed, rather than an
annual, basis. Although additional volumes of sediment may be
generated by as yet unidentified navigational improvement
projects (e.g., creation of new channels or enlargement of
existing channels), the amount of material or period of disposal
cannot presently be estimated.
The specific characteristics of the dredged material will
depend on where it is obtained. Sediments throughout the Tampa
Bay area typically are sands and shelly sands (CE, 1975). The
percentage of shell fragments tends to increase with proximity to
the mouth of the Bay. Localized deposits of silts and clays are
found in some areas (e.g., Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, upper
Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay) (Taylor and Saloman, 1969). The
silt and clay content of material dredged from Tampa Bay
generally is greater than that found at all alternative and
previously considered disposal sites (Battelle, 1986c; JRB, 1983,
1984). All dredged material intended for disposal at the
designated offshore site must comply with specifications of the
Ocean Dumping Regulations (42 FR 2482, Jan. 11, 1979; 40 CFR
220), including acceptable performance test procedures
established jointly by EPA and the CE.
Dredged material will be transported to the disposal site in
hoppers, barges, or scows. The material is released at the
designated disposal site through the bottom of the vessel while
underway.
3.1.3 FeasiVii 1 i i-y of Surveillance and Monitoring
Site 4 is sufficiently close to shore (18 nmi) to be readily
accessible for monitoring. Discrete sampling and remote
monitoring (e.g., grab sampling, towed cameras, and continuous
seafloor sediment sampling) have been conducted at the site.
Although scattered hard bottom occupies a small portion of the
-------
63
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page27
site, there are no extensive areas of unique hard bottom that
would complicate quantitative sampling of infaunal organisms and
bottom sediments. In fact, pre- and post-di6posal monitoring
surveys were conducted routinely at Site 4 from 1984 through
1985. Monitoring surveys included continuous recording of
current speed and direction, collection and analysis of
sediments, photographic monitoring of hard-bottom epibiota, and
visual observations by SCUBA divers (CSA, 1984; CSA, 1986a,b, c).
Continuous seafloor sediment sampling for selected trace metals
and gamma-ray-emmitting isotopes was performed in 1987 by the
University of Georgia Center for Applied isotope Studies (CAIS,
1988) which permitted discrete positioning of stations for
infaunal sampling in dredged material.
Dredged material from Tampa Bay has been shown to have
characteristic concentrations of strontium and phosphorous (CSA,
1987). These concentrations are sufficiently different from
concentrations in ambient sediments in Site 4 that they can be
used to trace the movement of the dredged material. Continuous
sampling of seafloor sediments for selected trace metals and
gamma-ray-emitting isotopes was performed in 1987 by the
University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS)
(CAIS, 1988).
Monitoring of further disposal activities is discussed in a
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) (see Appendix C).
3.1.4 Existence and Effects of Previous Piimpinq
3.1.4.1 PHYSICAL AND CHRMTPAT. ENVIRONMENT
Between 1951 and 1985, 101.6 million cubic yards of dredged
material were removed from Tampa Bay (Table 3-1). Prior to 1984,
-------
TABLE 3-1. HISTORY OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL AT OCEAN SITES IN THE TAMPA AREA.
Data
Clut
Contractor
Cnta
goaatlty
(oft*
*TP* of
Material
location of
Dlaposal Area
1951
Maintenance
Oovernaent
Igaont and
Mullet Kay
197,406
a
7
11/55 to J/56
Raw Work
Oovernaent
Kgaont and
Mullet Kay
869,324
a
2 ml
1956
New Work
Standard
faapa Bay
Channel
6,369,625
a
7
11/56 to 1/51
Haw Work
Oovernaent
Sflaont and
Mullet Kay
2,760,810
a
7
1957
Hew Work
Standard
HUlaboroagh Bay
Channela
7,118,998
a
7
11/57 to 12/57
Haw Work
Oovernaent
Kgaont and
Mnllat Kay
416,448
a
3.02 Bl
1958
Haw Work
Standard
Sparkaan and
Tbor
1,367,738
a
7
6/56 to 10/58
Haw Work
Oovernaent
1
796,642
a
2.04 Bl
1959
Raw Work
Standard
ft. Taapa channel
and Turning Baaln
3,369,631
a
7
1959
Haw Work
Aaarloan
Alafla Alver and
Turning Baaln
3,707,279
a
7
12/60 to 1/61
Maintenance
Oovernaent
Saddon and
Oarrleon
84,624
a
2.8 Bl UHB
6/61 to 11/61
Maintenance
Hoffman
HUlaborough Bay
and Alafla Rlvar
1,269,199
a
7
7/61
Maintenance
Oovernaent
Bgaont
390,428
a
2.2 nl Ocean
7/66 to 12/66
Haintananoa
Bntfaan
Pt. Butto, Xlafla,
Oadedan Cat D
1,992,940
a
7
11/67 to 12/67
Maintenance
Oovernaent
Bgaont
199,303
a
0.6 nl Ocaan
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued).
Data
Contractor
Cots
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued).
Data
Clara
Ocotraotor
Cnta
Quantity
(on. yd.)
Tn» of
Ritarlal
loaatioo of
Disposal tm
11/81 to 3/82
Malntaaanea
Oraat Lak*a
Cut 0, Port Taapa
840,236
a
Sit* A (7)
1/82 to 11/82
Malntaaaac*
Or*at Uku
Igaont
1,142,250
a
Sit* A (?)
8/82 to 7/83
Raw Work
¦orfolk
Turning Baaln,
nr
3,781,222
a
Sit* (7)
6/83 to 11/83
Halntanano*
C-*ay
Klafla Blvar and
Turning Baaln
516,190
a
Sit* (7)
5/84 to 12/85
¦m Work
Croat Lakaa
Sao 2C-3B
3,141,272
a
Sit* 4
Total
101,569,907
a
Typa of material not raadlly aooaaalbla fro* COM r*eord.
-------
67
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page31
most disposal activity occurred within 9 nmi of the harbor mouth.
However, actual locations of all dredged material disposal
activities are not available.
Between May 1984 and November 1985, Site 4 received 3.44
million cubic yards of dredged material from a harbor deepening
project in Tampa Bay (CSA, 1987). This material was deposited in
a rectangular disposal area centered approximately 0.15 nmi south
of the center of Site 4 (Figure 3-1). The disposal area was
located with the long axis in the east-west direction and had
dimensions of approximately 0.15 nmi by 0.9 nmi.
The location of the dredged material within the disposal area
was confirmed by diver observation, chemical analysis for
phosphate and strontium, and bathymetric profiling; these
activities were conducted during disposal and approximately seven
months after completion of disposal activities (CSA, 1987). In
their study, CSA found that the dumping activity had resulted in
the sediments in the central and southern portions of the
disposal area having higher phosphate and lower strontium
concentrations relative to background conentrations. Phosphate
concentrations at some locations were twice the average
background concentration (CSA, 1987). Deposition of dredged
material, which has lower strontium and organic carbon
concentrations in the fine sediment than does natural offshore
sediment, had reduced the concentrations of these parameters in
sediments of the central and southern portions of Site 4.
Consolidated clumps of dredged material outside of the
project's disposal corridors but within the larger area of Site 4
were noted during ongoing disposal operations (CSA, 1987). These
large clumps of clay-like material were observed by divers during
repeated surveys of the site and were presumed to have fallen
from the barges after the completion of the majority of each
disposal operation. These materials were found primarily to the
north and east of the disposal area, and some clumps were found
-------
68
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCP.AW nT.CPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 32
N
A
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
H
SfTE 4
FIGURE 3-1.
RELATIONSHIP OF ACTUAL DISPOSAL AREA TO SITE 4.
-------
69
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page33
to the southwest. This material was not observed on the south,
west, or northwest borders of the disposal site. Surveillance
beyond the site boundaries was not performed as part of the CSA
study; therefore, it is not known whether these clumps were
present outside the site. Subsequent surveys conducted by EPA
divers indicated that boring organisms such as polychaetes and
bivalves were contributing to the breakdown of these clumps
(D. Hicks and P. Murphy, EPA Region IV, personal communication,
August 22, 1988).
In July 1986, eight months after completion of disposal
operations, divers observed substantial differences in relief (2
to 12 m) in the disposal area relative to the surrounding
sediments. The disposal mound was relatively flat. During the
dives conducted in March and July 1985, fine-grained sediment was
noted on the surface of the mound, and some winnowing of this
material was observed by the divers in July 1985. However, in
July 1986 fine-grained sediments were noticeably missing from the
surface at the top of the mound. Divers observed that fine
sediments were located on the slope of the mound, suggesting they
had been moved and deposited by local currents. At the same
time, heavy colonization of the dredged material mound was
apparent (CSA, 1987).
Subsequent to the CSA monitoring program, three additional
surveys of the area were conducted by the University of Georgia,
CAIS in cooperation with EPA, ESD, Region IV. Two new remote
sensing devices were used along multiple transects within the
disposal site and in areas immediately (approximately 0.5 nmi)
outside its boundaries; ground-truth samples were collected from
a selected number of stations. The first remote device was a
continuous seafloor sediment sampler (CS3) capable of collecting
and preparing fine-grained sediment samples for immediate
shipboard analysis by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) elemental
analysis. The CS3 system was used to collect and analyze samples
-------
70
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 34
from 487 stations. Iron, manganese, and titanium were measured
with this system.
The second device was a towed sled capable of detecting gamma
radiation from surficial (0 to 20 cm) seafloor sediments. The
gamma sled was used to analyze 360 sites and obtain information
on potassium (K-40), bismuth (Bi-214), and tellurium (Tl-208).
Six sediment samples were collected by EPA divers during the
June 1987 survey; three samples were collected within Site 4 and
three samples were collected outside the boundaries of the site.
Results of the chemical analysis of these samples showed the high
phosphorus concentrations typical of those reported for dredged
material in sediments from Site 4 in the vicinity of the disposal
area and from one location immediately north of the site (CAIS,
1988). Phosphorus concentrations in all other samples were at
background levels for the region.
Generally, samples with high phosphorus concentrations
relative to background concentrations also had high iron
concentrations relative to background concentrations (CAIS,
1988). Therefore, high concentrations of iron in the sediments
were considered indicative of the presence of dredged material.
In their 1987 survey, CAIS (1988) found extensive regions of
relatively high concentrations of iron in the vicinity of the
disposal area and extending northward into areas beyond the
northern boundary of Site 4 (Figure 3-2A). Areas with iron
concentrations above background levels were also observed in the
northeast portion and in the southwest corner of the site. These
results support the reported presence and distribution of dredged
material within the site as documented by CSA (1987) from data
collected during and after disposal operations.
The gamma-emitting isotope Bi-214 is associated with
phosphate-rich sediment and was interpreted by CAIS to indicate
the presence of dredged material (R. Culp, CAIS, personal
communication, June 6, 1988). The sediment analysis by CAIS
(1988) revealed relatively high values of Bi-214 in the vicinity
-------
TAMPA. n-ORlDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page35
eJ°07.txrw
27®33.50n
27*29.wx
o(oV c06^
°o j° /r)~
)
V <^>[ t) L
)
f®;!:
V
o
©* \ o
( > 0
<
>
c:
0
1
/
1
'In -
B3°02-50-W
27°J3iO-N
A
27®MJ0X
27029 KT*
27°29.50n
6i°03.50im
e3°07.oo"w
FIGURE 3-2. A. CONTOUR HAP OF PERCENT P«2°3 AT SITE 4-
B. CONTOUR OF Bi-214 ABSOLUTE ACTIVITY LEVELS
AT SITE 4.
-------
72
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 36
of the disposal area, with contours of high Bi-214 extending
towards the north, northwest, and, possibly, to the southeast
(Figure 3-2B). These results support the data on iron
concentrations collected by the CS3 system.
Two additional surveys have been performed at Site 4 since the
June 1987 survey discussed above. The CS3 system was not used in
the later surveys because it could not collect adeguate volumes
of fine-grained sediment; only the gamma sled was used. During
one of these additional surveys, the track lines were extended 2
nmi outside of the site on the west, north, and south, and 1 nmi
on the east (R. Culp, CAIS, personal communication, June 16,
1988). The preliminary results of this survey confirmed the
Bi-214 results of the June 1987 survey and determined that the
contour of high Bi-214 extends further north and northwest. High
concentrations were found approximately 2 nmi due north of the
site, 1 nmi due south of the southeast corner of the site, and in
an area to the northwest of the site (R. Culp, CAIS, personal
communication, June 16, 1988). These results suggest transport
of dredged material to areas outside the site boundary. Direct
measurements of sediment transport that conclusively demonstrate
the source of these Bi-214-rich sediments have not been made.
Ocean current data (see Section 3.2.2) indicate that water
movement in the area of Site 4 is primarily towards the southeast
with a variable northwesterly component (CSA, 1987). Review of
available current data also suggests that current velocity and
direction result in limited cross-shelf transport of materials
from the coast (D. Hicks and P. Murphy, EPA Region IV, personal
communication, August 22, 1988). The long-term water movement
measured in this area is consistent with the potential for
distribution of dredged material outside the site. However,
short-term sediment trap data obtained during disposal activities
were inconclusive in determining post-depositional movement of
the dredged material. Based on the concentrations of phosphorus
and strontium, and deposition rates of strontium and phosphate
-------
73
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page37
determined by sediment trap data, no movement to the boundary of
the site was detected (CSA, 1987). It is important to note,
however, that the sensitivity of the gamma sled would allow
detection of dredged material signatures not normally afforded by
conventional sediment trap analyses.
Finally, surface-wave-induced sediment transport out of the
site boundaries may occur during extreme weather conditions such
as hurricanes, possibly on the order of 7 to 12 percent of the
time (CSA, 1987).
Even though the conditions for sediment transport at the site
may occur, there is a low probability that consistent net
transport of the dredged material from Site 4 will occur.
Bathymetric data obtained in June 1987 (CAIS, 1988) indicated a
topographic high in the vicinity of the disposal area, suggesting
that the majority of the dredged material remained in place.
In summary, recently available data indicate that the present
distribution of dredged material within Site 4 is similar to the
distribution found during and immediately following disposal
operations. A mound of dredged material is located in the
southern half of the site and additional material is scattered
throughout the northern half of the site. Several areas to the
north, northwest, and southeast of the disposal site potentially
contain dredged material. Limited transport of material within
the site was observed seven months after dredging operations were
ended. Substantial benthic colonization on the surface of the
dredged material mound within seven months of the last disposal
may also have inhibited further movement.
3.1.4.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Other than presumed burial of infauna directly under the mound
of dredged material, there has been no demonstrated effect of
-------
74
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 38
disposal on infaunal communities within Site 4. There is no
evidence that the hard-bottom areas in the vicinity of Site 4
have been adversely affected by disposal operations (CSA, 1986a,
b, c; MML, 1988).
MML, in cooperation with EPA, ESD, Region IV, evaluated the
fauna at seven locations, five near the outside perimeter of Site
4 and two within the control area (MML, 1988) (Figure 3-3).
Station placement was directed by the results of the sediment
mapping technique discussed above. All locations contained both
soft- and hard-bottom habitats, which were sampled using two
different methods. A diver-operated suction sampler was used to
obtain quantitative samples of the macroinfauna of the thin
sediment layer overlying the hard-bottom at six stations. Six
replicate core samples were taken at each soft-bottom station.
Tables 3-2 and 3-3 summarize the community parameters for the
soft- and hard-bottom stations, respectively. The number of
infaunal taxa at the hard-bottom stations ranged from 193 at
Station B2 to 287 at Station B3. Fewer taxa were found in the
soft-bottom stations, probably because the sample size was much
smaller (MML, 1988). The number of taxa at the soft-sediment
stations ranged from 80 at Station B1 to 175 at Station C2 (Table
3-2). None of the stations was dominated by opportunistic taxa
indicative of disturbed sediments.
Diversity was high at all soft-bottom stations (H' = 3.72 to
4.29), with the lowest value found at the control site (C2) and
higher values found at stations identified by CAIS (1988) as
areas to which dredged material may have moved. Diversity was
even higher in the sediments associated with the hard-bottom
areas (Table 3-3). Although the diversity was highest in the
control areas, it was not significantly lower in the areas where
dredged material might be present. Even though Station B2 had
fewer taxa than the other stations, the H' value was greater than
4.0, indicating a diverse environment (Table 3-3).
An analysis of similarity among all of the stations sampled by
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page39
FIGURE 3-3. STATIONS SAMPLED BY MOTE MARINE LABORATORY IN
AUGUST 1987 (TROM MML, 1988).
-------
TABLE 3-2. SUMMARY OP COMMUNITY PARAMETERS FOR THE SEVEN
SOrT-BOTTOIt BENTHIC stations in the vicinity op the
SITS 4 DISPOSAL AREA (Modified from MML, 1986).
Station Total No. of Density Evenness Diversity Shannon Margalef's
Taxa Indiv. No./a2 (Plelou's J') 9' Index Index
H'
Old 3
128
387
7956
0.96
4.49
4.28
18.9
C2
175
1296
26,644
0.87
4.36
4.15
22.8
C3
99
407
8367
0.89
3.95
3.72
14.5
Bl
ao
186
3824
1.01
". 2«
3.86
13.1
B2
85
290
5962
0.91
i .87
3.73
13.1
B3
114
394
8100
1.02
4.52
4.21
18.0
B4
128
474
9745
0.98
4.60
4.29
19.6
X
115
490
10,085
[ ±SD)
(±32)
(±367)
(±7549)
-
-
-
-
1?-Mean.
SD-Standard deviation.
—Not applicablq.
-------
TABLE 3-3. 6UMMARY Or COMMUNITY PARAMETERS rOR THE SIX
HARD-BOTTOM BENTHIC STATIONS IN THE VICINITY OP THE
SITE 4 DISPOSAL AREA (Modified from MML, 1988).
Station Total No. of Density Evenness Diversity Shannon nargalef's
Taxa Indiv. No./"* (Pielou's J') 6' Index ,Index
B'
Old 3
256
1508
4021
0.91
4.91
4.65
30.8
C3
280
2039
5437
0.68
4.84
4.49
32.4
Bl
209
1458
3888
0.85
4.34
4.15
23.7
B2
193
1006
2683
0.94
4.76
4.07
24.1
B3
287
2106
5616
0.85
4.64
4.45
31.1
B4
230
1215
3240
0.86
4.59
4.38
28.2
X
243
1555
4148
_
—
_
[ ±SD)
(±38)
(±440)
(±1172)
-
-
-
-
x-Mean.
SD-Standard deviation.
—Not applicable.
-------
78
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 42
MML indicated a distinction between tne nara-Dottom and
soft-bottom stations (Figure 3-4). With the exception of Station
B2, which was least similar to the other hard-bottom stations,
the level of similarity among all hard-bottom stations was about
0.5. Although there were differences in the levels of similarity
among the soft-bottom stations, there was no clear difference
between control and potentially impacted stations.
Based on these results, MML concluded that there were no
measurable or adverse impacts on the benthic fauna as a result of
dredged material disposal at Site 4 (J. Culter, MML, personal
communication to D. Hicks, September 26, 1988).
The 1991 EPA video of the disposal mound indicates that the
rocky irregular relief of the material provides both cover and
attached food sources for the variety of fish attracted to the
mound. The amount of sessile invertebrates attached to the
boulders also demonstrates the good habitat provided by the mound
(Appendix F).
3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1 Meteorology and
The climate of the eastern Gulf of Mexico can be classified as
subtropical with two distinct seasonal periods. During the
spring and summer, the area is dominated by the western portion
of the Bermuda high pressure cell. The climate during this
period is warm and humid with persistent southeast tradewinds.
Thunderstorms occur at frequent intervals from June through
September. During the fall and winter, weather patterns are
dominated by an anticyclonic cell over northeast Texas resulting
in persistent north winds in the eastern Gulf. The fall and
winter climate is mild, with cold fronts moving into the area
-------
79
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DTfiPQSAL SITE FTS
Page43
tJOO
(Similar
OJZS
—i
0-SO
-4—
0-75
—J
OjOC
OUslraCUr I
Oo
ecj-
ig
a
Hi
o»-
COC
1
Bl-
83-
C3-
B4-
OLD 3-
_ 82-
82-
83-
84-
0LD3-
C2-
81-
C3~
FIGURE 3-4. CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF INFAUNAL DATA COLLECTED IN
AUGUST 1987 BY KOTE MARINE LABORATORY (FROM MKL,
1988).
-------
80
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE ETS
Page 44
from the northwest, occasional extratropical cyclones approaching
from the southwest, and occasional warm fronts approaching from
the south.
The mean annual temperature for the Tampa Bay area is 22.3°C.
August is the warmest month with a mean temperature of 27.9°C,
while January is the coldest month with a mean temperature of
15.8°C. Mean annual rainfall is about 125 cm with approximately
60 percent of this precipitation associated with summer
thunderstorms (US DOC, 1978). Wind speed is generally 7 to 10
knots throughout the year.
Heavy fogs are reported for 14 percent of the days between
June and September. The fog generally appears during the night
and early morning and dissipates soon after sunrise. Heavy fog
occurs on only 2 percent of the days from April through October
(US DOC, 1978; CE, 1975). These data reflect conditions in the
Tampa Bay area; data are unavailable for the offshore waters near
the alternative disposal sites.
Florida experiences an average of 1.7 tropical storms per
year, although for individual years, the number of storms may
vary from zero to five. During any year, the probability of
landfall in the Tampa Bay area has been estimated at 9 percent
for tropical cyclones (maximum sustained wind speed >35 knots), 6
percent for hurricanes (>64 knots), and 1 percent for great
hurricanes (>109 knots) (Ichiye et al., 1973). The high winds
and wave action associated with hurricanes could resuspend and
redistribute significant amounts of bottom sediments in coastal
waters, and thus affect transport and fate of disposed dredged
materials.
3.2.2 Physical Oceanography
Circulation in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is dominated by the
Loop Current and detached cyclonic eddies along its northern
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page45
boundary (Figure 3-5). The Loop Current is a continuation of the
Yucatan Current which originates in the western Cayman Sea. The
current enters the Gulf of Mexico through the Yucatan Channel
between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba, makes a clockwise loop
through the Gulf of Mexico, and exits eastward through the
Straits of Florida. The degree of intrusion of the Loop Current
into the Gulf varies. The mean position of the northern edge is
26°N, but this position may fluctuate between 24° and 28°N (Maul,
1977).
Off western Florida, most of the Loop Current water does not
mix with shelf waters because the main portion of the Loop
Current is generally confined to areas seaward of the 100-m
isobath. However, cyclonic eddies may detach from the northern
edge of the Loop Current, move on to the shelf, and mix with
shelf waters. Upwelled remnants of cold, saline Loop Current
water have been reported on the shelf off Mississippi, Alabama,
and Florida (Manheim et al., 1976). Some shelf water may be
entrained along the boundary of the Loop Current, resulting in
southward transport of outer shelf water through the Straits of
Florida (Tolbert and Salsman, 1964).
Circulation on the western Florida continental shelf is
heavily influenced by eddies from the Loop Current. The eddies
create low frequency (5 to 20 days), locally fluctuating current
patterns with velocities of 10 to 30 cm/sec (Chew et al., 1959).
Studies conducted on the shelf about 180 km south of the disposal
sites indicate mean bottom current velocities of 5 to 10 cm/sec
with flow parallel to bathymetric contours (Mooers and Price,
1975). These mean currents are seasonally variable, with net
southerly flow during the winter on the inner and mid-shelf and
northerly flow during the summer.
Mean bottom currents up to 5 cm/sec have been reported on the
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida shelf north of the alternative
disposal areas (Mooers and Price, 1975). Bottom currents capable
-------
82
TAMPAT FLORIDA OfRAM DISPOSAL SITE ETS
Page 46 ~
« V i
\U }
t .//c^ v \ i V
\ \lv / \ ir^ >
\ \*\ v
\ \ \ \
\*A
r* A - \\
JjS&TAN PBMNSUU'.ffl \
IT
M*
2TN
FIGURE 3-5.
•TYPICAL SURFACE CURR-ENT PATTERNS ASSOCIATED KITH
THE LOOP CURRENT AND DETACHED CYCLONIC EDDIES IN
SEPTEMBER 1970 (AFTER ICHIYE ET AL., 1973).
-------
83
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page47
of creating a bottom turbidity layer have been reported along the
30-m isobath west of Tampa Bay (Joyce and Williams, 1969). Drift
card studies of surface currents on the west Florida shelf
inshore of 83°W indicated a wind-induced northwesterly movement
in July and southwesterly flow in November, with velocities of
about 8 cm/sec during both seasons (Hela et al., 1955).
Extensive bottom current data for Site 4 are available from
the continuous recording current meters deployed at the site in
1984 and 1985 (Battelle, 1986a,b,c; CSA, 1984). Current
velocities at Site 4 generally average about 6 cm/sec throughout
the year, with occasional (weekly to monthly) brief periods in
which current velocities reach 20 cm/sec. Current direction is
predominantly to the south and southeast throughout the year,
although a northerly and northwesterly component also is apparent
in the summer and fall.
Wave heights on the inner and mid-shelf off Tampa Bay are
greatest in the winter (excluding periods of hurricanes) when
waves approach from the north and northwest. During winter, wave
heights less than 2 m comprise 70 to 80 percent of the
observations, waves between 2 and 4 m represent 20 to 30 percent
of the observations, and wave heights over 4 m are reported in
only 1 percent of the observations (Jordan, 1973). During
summer, 80 to 90 percent of wave heights are less than 1 m; waves
between 1 and 4 m represent 10 to 20 percent of the observations,
and less than 1 percent of the observed wave heights are greater
than 4 m. No specific data for wave heights at Sites 4 have been
collected during the recent monitoring studies.
Sediment transport models suggest that the critical shear
stress necessary to initiate particle motion would be exceeded
approximately 12 percent of the time for silt-sized particles and
7 percent of the time for 0.5-mm sand-sized particles (CSA,
1987). Such models do not account for effects of major
atmospheric disturbances such as hurricanes that frequent this
-------
84
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 48
region (see Section 3.2.1). These events may be expected to
influence currents and wave height, and therefore sediment
movement within the disposal areas. No guantitative data exist
to support or reject this supposition.
3.2.3 Water folmwn fTha-racteristics
3.2.3.1 Temperature
The water column over the shallow shelf (<30m) generally
exhibits very weak temperature and/or salinity stratification.
Surface and bottom water temperatures may reach 30°C in summer
and decrease to 17°C in winter (Figure 3-6). When a thermocline
is present, differences in the temperatures of surface and bottom
waters on the shelf shoreward of the 30-m isobath may reach 5°C
(Molinari et al., 1975), although the range in temperatures often
is much smaller. The strongest vertical gradients are associated
with the intrusion of cool, saline Loop Current eddy waters.
Water column characteristics were surveyed in September and
October 1983 (JRB, 1984). Temperatures ranged from 26.3 to
27.2°C at the surface and 26.2 to 26.9°C at the bottom. The mean
vertical temperature differential was 0.3°C.
3.2.3.2 Salinity
Salinity on the shelf off Tampa Bay is affected by upwelling
of saline Loop Current water and, to a lesser extent, freshwater
input. Because upwelling and freshwater input are more prevalent
during the summer, the potential for vertical stratification is
greater during this period (Figure 3-7). Salinity on the shelf
generally increases both with depth and distance from shore
-------
TAMPA. FI/3RIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE ETS
Page49
TtMrauTun ra
• 13 • SO
£ OCIAMOCIArMlC STATIONS ¦«¦—m «
• IOTTU OfFTH
FIGURE 3-6. TEMPERATURE PROFILES ALONG 27'30'N FOR JANUARY AND
AUGUST 1973 (FROM MOLINARI ET AI^. , 1975).
-------
86
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITR etc
Page 50
SAUMTT <"/••)
OOAMOC*A^IC JTATIOHS
• tOTTU OfFTW
• 25
1 !
NmUmBm
M
FIGURE 3-7. SALINITY PROFILES A10NG 27e30'N FOR JANUARY AND
AUGUST 1973 (FROM MOLINARI ET AL.( 1975).
-------
87
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page51
(EPA/IEC, 1981).
At Site 4, salinity in September and October 1983 ranged from
35.07 to 35.52 ppt at the surface and from 35.01 to 36.65 ppt at
the bottom (JRB, 1984). The mean vertical salinity gradient was
0.2 ppt.
3.2.3.3 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations near the alternative
disposal sites are generally above saturation levels.
Concentrations decrease with depth, and there is some evidence of
increased values with distance from shore (JRB, 1984). Oxygen
concentrations ranged from 7.2 to 7.9 ml/1 in September 1979,
January 1980, and May 1982 (US EPA, 1983). In September and
October 1983, DO concentrations were 5.9 to 6.6 ml/1 in surface
water and 5.2 to 6.1 ml/1 in bottom waters (JRB, 1984).
3.2.3.4 Turbidity
There is a general pattern of decreasing turbidity with
distance from shore due to input of suspended sediments from
rivers, resuspension of bottom sediments by waves and tides, and
biological primary productivity in nearshore coastal waters.
This inshore-offshore trend was clearly apparent in the data of
Manheim et al. (1976) collected about 50 km north of the
previously considered alternative disposal sites (Figure 3-8).
Suspended sediments in nearshore areas tend to have a higher
carbonate fraction than do the suspended particulates from the
outer shelf, which are primarily biogenic. The mineralogy of
nearshore suspended material also closely parallels regional
trends of bottom sediment mineralogy, indicating a local origin
either from resuspension of bottom sediments or terrigenous
-------
88
TAMPA, FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 52 ^
STATION 1103
tOCATION IW3»1
1102-1103
1102-1101
1101
(43-03-W)
FIGURE 3-8. PERCENT LIGHT TRANSMISSION PROFILES AT 27'55'N
A. JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1975. B. SEPTEMBER 1975.
(FROM KANHEIM ET AL., 1976).
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page53
runoff.
Figure 3-8 illustrates the seasonality of turbidity levels
typical of coastal waters on the western Florida shelf (Manheim
et al.f 1976). Winter transmissivity levels do not exceed 55
percent in shelf waters shoreward of 30 nmi. Turbidity levels
are vertically homogeneous, with only a slight increase in
near-bottom waters. During summer, the reduced turbulence
results in transmissivities in excess of 85 percent throughout
the water column, except higher turbidity levels associated with
a near-bottom nepheloid layer.
During the fall of 1983, turbidity levels at Site 4 averaged
0.46 NTU (0.28-0.72) and 0.45 NTU (0.25-0,64) for surface and
bottom waters, respectively (JRB, 1984). The similarity between
surface and bottom waters at Site 4 indicate a great degree of
water column mixing at this site.
3.2.3.5 Nutrients
Although data are very limited, nutrient (e.g., nitrate,
phosphate, and silicate) concentrations in the area of Site 4 are
typically low with little seasonal variation. Data for the
region from Graham et al. (1954) indicate that phosphate levels
are on the low end of the overall range for the Gulf. This
finding is consistent with the fact that eastern Gulf water
originates in the western Caribbean, an area with generally low
nutrient levels (Atwood et al., 1976). Tampa Bay waters contain
high levels of phosphates, but there is no evidence that the Bay
waters have a measurable influence on nutrient conditions at the
disposal sites (US EPA, 1983).
-------
90
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 54
3.2.3.6 Trace Metals and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Water column analyses for a variety of contaminants have been
conducted at sites northeast of Site 4. With the exception of
lead, trace metal concentrations are typical of levels reported
previously for Florida waters (State University System Institute
of Oceanography (SUSIO), 1974). Elevated lead concentrations
probably reflect the influence of lead fallout and freshwater
runoff from the Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area. During
surveys in 1979 and 1980 by IEC (1981), dissolved mercury (Hg)
concentrations from less than 3.0 to 11.2 ng/1 in September-
October, and from less than 3.0 to 3.7 ng/1 in January were
measured. Dissolved cadmium (Cd) concentrations ranged from 3.6
to 167 ng/1 in September- October, and from 0.7 to 14.0 ng/1 in
January. Dissolved lead (Pb) concentrations ranged from 13.3 to
163 ng/1 in September-October, and were less than 200 ng/1 in
January. Particulate Hg concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 5.0
ng/1 in September-October, and from 2.1 to 4.3 ng/1 in January.
Particulate Cd ranged from 14.1 to 31.3 ng/1 in September-
October, and from 3.9 to 9.7 ng/1 in January. Particulate Pb
ranged from 8.8 to 58.7 ng/1 in September-October, and from 5.0
to 23.8 ng/1 in January (IEC, 1981).
3.2.4 Regional Geology and sediment Character-!RticB
The west Florida continental shelf extends seaward about 200
km from Tampa Bay to a depth of 200 m (Shepard, 1973). The
continental slope extends from a depth of 200 m to the edge of
the Florida Escarpment at a depth of 1600 to 2400 m (Jordan and
Steward, 1959). The shelf west of Tampa Bay is a plateau of
Pleistocene limestone with a drowned karst topography (Price,
1954). The shelf gradient averages 0.5 m/km and the bathymetry
is characterized by a gently rolling bottom, irregularly covered
-------
91
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page55
by a thin veneer of unconsolidated sediments, and punctuated by
sinkholes, fissures, and rock outcrops. The outcrops provide
substrata for attachment of coral, algae, and associated
hard-bottom organisms. Most of the living corals are found
shoreward of the 20-m contour, although they do exist to a depth
of 60 m (Gould and Stewart, 1956).
Nearshore sediments off Tampa Bay are predominantly quartz
sands. The proportion of carbonate sediments increases with
distance offshore, until about 40 km from the coast at a depth of
30 m, where the sediments are primarily carbonate shell fragments
(Figure 3-9). Sediments are predominantly sands with no
consistent depth-related gradient in grain size (Figure 3-10).
With the exception of the nearshore quartz zones, most of the
unconsolidated sediments have originated from weathering of
submerged coastal plain sediments or Pleistocene reefs, or the
trituration of calcareous remains of benthic organisms (Gould and
Stewart, 1956).
Prior to the onset of dredged material disposal, the sediments
of Site 4 were characterized as coarse to fine-grained sands with
varying but minor amounts of either silt or gravel-sized
particles (US EPA, 1983). The median grain size ranged from 0.14
to 3.4 phi (0.91 to 0.09 mm). The mean percent composition of
the sediments was 2.3 percent gravel, 87 percent sand, and 9.7
percent silt (JRB, 1984). In localized areas, gravel reached
38.1 percent and silt reached 25.6 percent. Clay particles
typically were absent, but were reported to constitute about 2
percent of some samples (JRB, 1983, 1984).
Video observations made prior to dredged material disposal at
Site 4 indicated that the majority of the site (48.5 percent)
consisted of flat, featureless sandy bottom lacking visible life.
Large scale sand ripples composed an additional 32 percent of the
bottom area. Scattered live-bottom areas and densely populated
bottoms constituted 16.9 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively,
-------
FIGURE 3-9.
BOTTOM CHARACTER OP WEST FLORIDA SHELF (PROM GOULD AND
STEWART, 1956).
ID
KJ
-------
ID
u>
00"
*r
ir
06
if
30
E3 caiamcolsahd
ED ucd a fwc sand
ntn MCD.TO FINt SAND
A SILT
1 SILT A CLAY
GRAIN- SI Zrbt STRIBUTION
OFF WE ST COAST Of
FLORIDA
» » » w w
1U1UU Ut.ll
CONTOUMt N FATHOMS
*»•
00'
tt'X'
MOtf
•4 M'
• J'OO'
FIGURE 3-10.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OP SEDIMENTS ON TH8 WEST FLORIDA
SHELF (FROM GOULD AND STEWART, 1956).
• I* JO*
I fa1
JO*
cn
H
a
n
tn
-------
94
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 58
of the surveyed bottom area (US EPA 1983).
Monitoring subsequent to dredged material disposal has
indicated some changes in sediment composition within the
boundaries of Site 4 (Battelle, 1986a,b,c; CSA, 1984). Stations
affected by disposal have a higher phosphate content, a lower
strontium content, and a lower percentage of total organic carbon
in the fine fraction. No disposal-related differences in the
percentage of clay or silt/clay have been detected. Natural
spatial variability in these parameters and positioning error in
locating stations may have obscured such changes if any did
occur. Lumps of dredged sediments were seen occasionally in
areas within the site which were east, north, and northeast of
the disposal area. Chemical evidence for the presence of dredged
materials was noted at several locations throughout the site,
indicating that dispersal of dredged material by water currents
was not limited to the direction of the predominant bottom
current (CSA, 1987).
3.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.3.1 Plankton
3.3.1.1 Phytoplankton
Diatoms and dinoflagellates dominate the plankton communities
in the eastern Gulf. A typical phytoplankton assemblage for the
eastern Gulf waters is presented in Table 3-4. A list of
dominant shelf species of diatoms and dinoflagellates collected
near Tampa Bay is given in Table 3-5.
During the Hourglass Cruises conducted in 1965-67 by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), 232
dinoflagellate taxa were collected between St. Petersburg and Ft.
-------
95
TAMPA. FLORIDA OTEAN DISPOSAL SITE ETS
Page59
TABLE 3-4. TAXA COMMONLY FOUND IN COASTAL AND OPEN GULF
WATER ASSEMBLAGES IN THE GOLF OF MEXICO
(Froa Steidinger, 1973),.
DIATOMS
Chaetoceros coaprcssua
Gulnardla flacclda
Beniaulus hauckll
Plagioqramma vanheukll
Rhlzosolenla robusta
R. umbricata
Thalas6lothrix frauenfeldii
PINOFLAGELLATES
Blepharocysta splendoraan's
Ceratlum furca
C. fuscus
C. brlchoceros
C. aasslliense
C. carriense
C. tripos
Dlplopsalls lenticula
var. asymmetrlca
Heteraulacus polyedricus
Peridinium spp.
Podolampas spp.
-------
96
TAMPA, FLORIDA OCEAN DTSPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 60
TABLE 3-5. DOMINANT PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES FROM THE SHELF IN THE
VICINITY OF TAMPA BAY (from US EPA, 1983 ).a
DIATOMS
Rhitosolenia alata
R. setigera
R. stolterfothii
Skeletonema costatum
Leptocylindrus spp.
Rhizosolenia fragilissima
Bemldlscus hardnanlanus
Guinardia flacclda
Bellerochea malleus
Cerataulina pelagica
DINOFLAGELLATES
Gonyaulax monilata
Ptychodiscus brevis
Gonyaulax polyqramma
Katodinum glaucum
Oxyrrhis marina
Gyrodinium fissum
Torodinium robustum
Katodinium rotundatum
Gyrodinium sp.
Amphidinium crassum
aSpecies are listed in order o£ decreasing dominance.
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page61
Meyers, Florida. Generally, diatom abundance exceeds that of
dinoflagellates (Steidinger et al., 1967). Seasonal peaks in
abundance of diatoms occur in mid-winter and summer for offshore
and inshore populations, respectively (Saunders and Glenn, 1969).
Dinoflagellate abundance usually peaks in summer and autumn
(Steidinger and Williams, 1970). In contrast to abundance,
diatom diversity is lowest inshore and increases to a maximum
offshore (Saunders and Glenn, 1969). Dinoflagellate diversity
follows a trend similar to that of diatoms; however, the greatest
diversity occurs in transitional waters (Steidinger and Williams,
1970).
Uncontrolled blooms of dinoflagellates, such as Ptvchodiscus
brevis, occur periodically and result in a condition known as
"red tide." Red tides occur primarily in late summer or autumn,
when the following three conditions exist: (1) an increase in
population size (triggered by some environmental change)/ (2)
supportive salinity, temperature, nutrient, and growth factors,
and (3) maintenance by hydrological and meteorological forces
(Steidinger, 1975a) (see Section 3.3.10).
3.3.1.2 Zooplankton
The zooplankton population in the Gulf is basically homogenous
from Texas to middle Florida (T. Hopkins, University of South
Florida, personal communication, January 21, 1987). The
dominant factor affecting zooplankton distribution and production
in the Gulf of Mexico is the Loop Current (Hopkins, 1973). The
waters of the Loop Current vary significantly with season and are
constantly changing, resulting in a zooplankton population with a
distinct seasonality (Houde and Chitty, 1976). For example, when
the Loop Current moves over the continental shelf, it often
brings open-ocean fauna to the Tampa Bay area.
-------
98
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 62
Zooplankton collected from Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida
during the Mississippi, Alabama, Florida (MAFLA) studies are
listed in Table 3-6. Copepods, pteropods, chaetognaths, shrimp
and crab larvae, and fish eggs are characteristic members of
offshore zooplankton in the Gulf of Mexico (T. Hopkins,
University of South Florida, personal communication, January 21,
1987). Species collected off Tampa Bay are listed in Table 3-7.
3.3.2 Benthic Aloae
There is a rich benthic algal flora of perennial and annual,
subtropical and tropical species on the inner continental shelf
along the Florida Gulf coast (Dawes and Breedveld, 1969). Most
species are limited to hard substrata, but the green alga
Cauleroa is reported to form extensive growths on smooth areas
(shell and quartz sand) between limestone outcroppings at 18.3 mi
off Tampa Bay (Joyce and Williams, 1969). Phillips and Springer
(1960) reported an abundant and varied algal flora on limestone
reefs at 10.5 to 18 m depth off Johns Beach in Pinellas County,
north of Tampa Bay. Epiphytic flora, a large percentage of which
are red algae, accounted for nearly half of the 158 species
reported. These authors noted vast carpets of the green alga,
Halimeda scabra, composed of plants two to three inches tall, on
reefs at 13.5 to 18 m depth. The green alga Rhipocephalus
phoenix and the brown alga Saroassum filipendula were often
associated with the Halimeda. Crustose coralline algae in the
genera Goniolithon and Lithothamnion were occasionally observed
as large knobby growths on the reefs. Smith (1976a) reported
species of the green algae Halimeda. Udotea, and Penicillus as
characteristic of the back reef zone of shallow (12-18 m)
mid-eastern Gulf reefs.
Dark algal patches were commonly observed on the flat or
slightly rippled sandy areas of Site 4 prior to the dumping of
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page63
TABLE 3-6. ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED DURING MAFLA STUDIES.
(Adapted from US EPA, 1983 ).
PROTOZOA
Globiqerina 6p.
Other protozoans
HYDROZOA
Siphonophores
Medusae
ANNELIDA
Polychaete larvae
ECHINODERKATA
Echinoderm larvae
CHAETOGNATHA
Chaetognaths
CHORDATA
Tunicates
Oikopleuridae
Fritillaridae
Other tunicates
KOLLUSCA
Gastropod veligers
Pteropods
Bivalve larvae
Fish eggs
Fish larvae
Other zooplankton
CRUSTACEA
Cladocerans
Ostracods
Copepods
Calanoids
Centropages furcatus
Eucalanus sp.
Undinula vulgaris
Other calanoids
Harpacticoids
Cyclopoids
Corycaeus sp.
Oitnona sp.
Oncaea sp.
Other cyclopoids
Copepod copepodites
Copepod nauplii
Decapods-
Lucifer faxoni
Other shrimp-like forms
Crab larvae
Other crustaceans
-------
100
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN PISPOSAT. fiTTE EIS
Page 64
TABLE 3-7. ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES COLLECTED OFF TAMPA BAY IN
DEPTHS OF 30 K AND/OR 14 K. SPECIES HARKED WITH AH
ASTERISK OCCURRED AT 14 M. (From Hopkins et al.,
1981)
COPEPODA
Acartia danae
Arcocalanus lonqlcornis*
Calocalanus pavo
Candacia bipinnata
C. curta
C. pachydactyla
Centropages violaceous
Copilia mi rabilis
Corycaeus lautus
C. speciosus*
Eucalanus sewelli
Euchaeta marina
E. paraconcinna
Farranula gracilis
Macrosetella gracilis
Microsetella rosea
Nannocalanus minor
Paracandacia simplex
Pontella plumata
Rhincalanus cornutus
Scolecithrix danae
Temora stylifera
T. turbinata*
Undinula vulgaris*
EUPHAUSXACEA
Stylocheiron carinaturn
DECAPODA
Lucifer faxoni*
-------
101
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page65
dredged sediments (US EPA, 1983). At two live-bottom stations
(areas covered by algae, sponges, corals, and other biota)
surveyed within Site 4 during three post-disposal cruises (CSA,
1986a,b,c), benthic algae accounted for approximately 37 and 61
percent of the biotic cover. Algal species observed by divers at
live-bottom stations within or in the immediate vicinity of Site
4 included Halimeda sp., Udotea sp., Saraassum sp., Gracilaria
sp., and unidentified coralline forms. Recent diver surveys show
encrusting of the disposal mound boulders by calcareous algae
(Appendix F).
3.3.3 Benthic Invertebrates
The shallow sandy areas are inhabited by species from more
inshore waters as well as by tropical species. Analysis of the
polychaete communities at previously designated Sites A, B, 3,
and 4 (combined) revealed a high degree of distinct species-
habitat groupings (US EPA, 1983). In general, the species
diversity and density of the polychaete communities decreased
with increasing depth and increasing percent fines, with the
gravelly habitats generally supporting the most diverse
communities. Six of 45 polychaete families each accounted for
greater than 5 percent of the total composition: Spionidae,
Syllidae, Eunicidae, Sabellidae, Onuphidae, and Nephtyidae.
Scattered limestone rock outcrops on the shallow shelf and in
deeper water are inhabited by sponges, corals, bryozoans,
tunicates, and a diverse motile fauna of crustaceans,
polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms, and fish (FDNR, 1983a). A
similar assemblage in 18.3 m off Tampa Bay was described by Joyce
and Williams (1969) as a typical Gulf reef community. Organisms
noted during reconnaissance of a partially buried rocky area
previously designated Site A (14 m depth) included gorgonian
-------
102
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 66
octocorals (mainly Muricea elongata); the hard corals
Stephanocoenia michelinil. Siderastrea radians. Millepora
alcicornis. Cladocora arbuscula. Solenastrea hvades. Isophvllia
sinuosa. Manicina areolata, Scolvmia lacera. and Phvllanaia
americana: the asteroid Echinaster sp.; the sea urchin Diadema
antillarumr unidentified sponges; and unidentified holothurians
(sea cucumbers). Every attached sponge and gorgonian support
numerous ophiuroids (brittle stars, probably Ophiothrix) (FDNR,
1983b).
Carbonate sediments of the middle shelf I zone (30-60 m)
contain loggerhead sponge and coral communities supporting many
other tropical species. Communities are highly diverse and
contain more species than are found in the inshore zones (Lyons
and Collard, 1974). In the middle shelf II (60-140 m) region,
few rock outcrops are found. Dominant sessile epifaunal
organisms are sponges, bryozoans, ascidians, and alcyonarians
attached to small rocks and shells. Small molluscan and
crustacean species are very common (Lyons and Collard, 1974).
Species diversity decreases at the deep shelf depths, but many
species typical of the middle shelf II zone also occur here
(Lyons and Collard, 1974).
Site 4 is predominately characterized by fine sands and coarse
silts (US EPA, 1983). As seen in video surveys, the vast
majority of this area was devoid of visible life, though sand
dollars and dark "algal" patches were commonly observed (US EPA,
1983). Large-scale sand ripples, containing few visible benthic
organisms, also accounted for a large portion of Site 4.
Annelids, arthropods, molluscs, echinoderms, and miscellaneous
phyla accounted for 62, 15, 9, 3, and 10 percent, respectively,
of the total number of individuals in benthic cores (Barry Vittor
& Associates, Inc., unpublished data). Numerically dominant
infaunal species are shown in Table 3-8.
Portions of Site 4 contain live bottom. At two such stations
surveyed during three post-disposal cruises (CSA, 1986a,b,c),
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page67
TABLE 3-8. DOMINANT1 INPAUNA AT SITE 4 (PRIOR TO THE DUMPING OP
DREDGED SEDIMENTS ) . THE NUMBERS FOLLOWING EACH TAXA
REPRESENT THE NUMBER OP STATIONS WHERE THE TAXON WAS
DOMINANT.
Taxon 0.016-mJ core 0.13-ma box core
Barry Vittor2 JfcB Associates (1984)
April 1984 Sept/Oct 1983
(8 stations) (2 stations)
Annelida
Archiannelids
Polvaordius spp. 1 -
Oligochaeta 5 2
Polychaeta
Capitellidae
Medlomastus spp. - 1
Chrysopetalidae
Paleanotus sp. A 1 -
Dorvilleidae
Protodorvlllea kefersteini 3 -
Eunicidae
Eunice vlttatta - 1
Goniadidae
Goniadldes carolinae 2 1
Maldanidae - 1
Nephtyidae
Aolaophamus verrilll 3 2
Nereididae
Ceratocechale oculata 2
Cempcephaj-E sp. B 1
Nereis peloalca - 1
Opheliidae
AHW141.A P»cytJ,fl^a 7
Ovreniidae
Owenla sp. A 2
Paraonidae
Arlcidgft "tavlorl 1
sp. C - 1
CirrophoruB spp. 4 1
Pilargidae
AJlClPtrPSYmS hartmanae 1
Sabellidae
Fabriclola trllobata 2
Spionidae 1
Apoprionospio davi 1
Paraprionospio pinnata 3 -
Prionospio cristata - l
-------
104
TAMPA. FTjQRIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE RTg
Page 68
TABLE 3-8. (Continued).
Taxon
0.016-mJ core
Barry Vittor*
April 1984
(8 stations)
0.13-m2 box core
JRB Associates (1984)
Sept/Oct 1983
(2 stations)
Syllidae
Pionosvllis oesae 2
Arthropods
Amphipoda
Monoculodes nvei 2
Isopoda
Xenanthura brevitelson 2
Ostracoda 7
Brachiopoda 3
Glottldia pY7-aTII
-------
105
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page69
biota covered approximately 8 and 38 percent, respectively, of
the bottom surface. Sand covered greater than 50 percent of the
bottom at both stations, although rock and shell rubble were also
present. Epifaunal species observed by divers at live-bottom
stations within or in the immediate vicinity of Site 4 are listed
in Table 3-9. Many of these groups of organisms were present
during EPA's recent video of the disposal mound (see Appendix F).
3.3.4 Demersal and Pelagic Fish
Fifty-nine species of fishes have been reported offshore of
Tampa Bay by Moe and Martin (1965) and EPA/IEC (1981) (see Table
3-10). The most abundant species were leopard searobin Prionotus
scitulus, sand perch Diplectrum formosum. tomtate Haemulon
aurolineatum. pinfish Laoodon rhomboides. blackcheek tonguefish
Svmphurus plaaiusa. jackknife fish Eouetus lanceolatus. pigfish
Orthopristis chrvsoptera. fringed flounder Etropus crossotus. and
spotted wiff Citharichthvs macrops. These species are
characteristic of sandy and rocky habitats and are found from the
intertidal zone to water depths of 200 m.
The dominant fish taxa occur throughout most of the year in
the vicinity of Sites 4 and 5A, although offshore migrations
linked with spawning cycles have been reported for pinfish,
pigfish, and fringed flounder (Moe and Martin, 1965). Most of
these dominant species are thought to spawn in the spring and
summer, except Lagodon rhomboides. which spawns in winter and
spring, and Prionotus scitulus. which spawns in late summer and
fall (Moe and Martin, 1965; Smith, 1976a).
The following teleosts, most of which are prevalent on the
continental shelf, are associated with the pink shrimp, Penaeus
duorarum: silver jenny Eucinostomus quia. sand perch Diplectrum
formosum, leopard searobin Prionotus scitulu , fringed flounder
-------
106
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 70
TABLE 3-9. EPIBIOTA OBSERVED BY DIVERS AT SITE 4 OR IN
THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY (CSA, 1986a,b.-C; IS87)1.
CHLOROPHYTA (Green Algae)
Caulerpa sp.
Cod ium sp.
Haliaeda sp.
Odotea sp.
FBAEOPBYTA (Brown Algae)
Sarqassun sp.
RHODOPHYTA (Red Algae)
Gracilarla sp.
Spyridla sp.
Onld. coralline algae
AHTHOPHYTA (Flowering Plants)
Balophila declplens
PORXFERA (Sponges)
Alolochroia crassa
Aplyslna fistnlarls
Axinelfa polvcapella
Axinella sp.
Cinachvra alloclada
Cinacbvra sp.
Cliona sp.
Epipolasis llthophaqa
Geodla qlbberosa
Boaaxinella waltonsnitM
Irelnla sp.
Oxeostllon barton1
Phakellia folium
Plaeosponqla aelobesioides
Plaeosponoia sp.
Pseudaxinella sp.
Slpboaodictyon sp.
Tclcbajclnella sp.
CH1DARA
OCTOCOHALXalA (Octocorals)
Eonleea sp.
Karlcea sp.
SCLERACTZRIA (Bard Corals)
Cladocora arboscnla
isopbvlfTa sp.
Hanlcina areolata
Meandrlna sp.
PhyllangTa aaerlcana
Scolyaia lacera
Siderastrea radians
Solenastrea hvades
Stcphanocoenia nichelinii
MOLLOSCA
BIVALVZA (Class)
Area x'ebra
Pterla colyabus
Spondylus amencanus
AKTBKOPOOA
OECAPOOA (Crabs)
Stenorbynchus setlcornls
BRZOZOA (Hoss Aniaals)
Celleporaria alblrostrIs
C. aaqnlfica
Celleporaria sp.
Scrupocellaria sp.
ECEZROOESKAZA
ASZEBOZDZA (Sea Stars)
Astropecten sp.
Echinaster sp.
OPBXUBOXDEA (Basket Stars)
Astrophvton aurlcatua
ECBIBOIOEA (Sea Orcbins)
Arbaela ponctolata
Dladena antlllarua
Lvtecbinus sp..
Encope sp. (Sand dollar)
HO&OZBUROZDSA (Sea Cacanbers)
Isostlehopas badionotos
CBOBDAZA
ASCXDXACEA (Sea Squirts)
Dldeanua candidua
DideanuB sp.
Polycarpa circnaarata
Stvela sp.
Unidentified Dideanidae
1 Immediate vicinity includes Control Site (5 noi southeast of Site
4) and Station OLD-3 (0.7 nmi east of Site 4).
-------
TABLE 3-10. DEMERSAL AND PELAGIC SPECIES OF TELEOST FISH REPORTED OFFSHORE
OF THE TAMPA BAY AREA.
Scientific Maae
Co—on Haae
10 Moat
Abundant
Speolaa
Coaaeralal
laportanca
Hoe and
Martin,
1965
BPA/LBC,
1979-1980
Gvanura alcrura
Saooth butterfly cay
I
Shore to aore than 55 m
Gvanothorai ocallatua
Ocellatad Moray
1
Middle snalf app.
Ophlchthue qoaeal
She lap aal
X
Shallow bay and ahpre
llarenaula penaacolaa
Soalad aacdlna
X
Shallow watera
Anchoa haoaetoa
Strlpad anchory
I
Shallow to aoderata depth*
Synodua Ioetana
Inihore lltardflah
I
Inahore to 45 a
Svnodue Inttrndlua
Sand diver
x
40 a to 100 a
Trachlnoceohalua aYOpa
Snake fleh
X
40 a to 90 a
Arlua fella
Saa oatflah
x
X
Bay out to 10 a
Opaanua pardua
«
t
Offehore, aore than 30 m
Porlchthva roroalaelpue
Atlantlo aldahlpaan
X
¦
Shallow to aoderata depths
Antennaelua ocallatua
Oeellated (rogfleh
a
Of (ahora
Uroohvcle florldanue
Southern hake
a
8hore to aora than )0 m
Ophtdlon beani
Longnoae ouek-eel
a
Of(ahora
Oohldton 4tayl
Blotched ouak-aal
¦
1
20 a to SO ¦
Ophldlen holbrookl
Bank cuek-eel
t
X
10 a to 40 a
-------
table 3-10. (Continued).
Hi
01
•8
(D
fo
Scientific Ham
Co—on Mm
10 Moat
Abundant
Bpeotaa
Coanerclal
lapoitanca
Moa and
Martin,
1965
BPA/LRC,
1979-1580
fteaarks
Ophldlon welahl
Ctntropclatla ocrurua
Centroprlatla atrlata
Dlplectrua bWUtitua
Dtpltcttua fofutua
Lutianua aynactla
Euclnoatoaua quia
llaenulon aurollnaatmi
Octhoprlatta chrraoptera
Calaaua nodoaua
Lagodon rhoaboldea
Balrdlella chtyauca
Cynoaolon arenarlua
Created cttak-ael
Bank im baa*
Black •••
Drawl aand paroh
Sand patch
Lana anapper
Silver Jenny
ToNtata
Plqtlah
Knobbad por«y
Olndih
Silver parch
Sand aaa trout
Usually 20 a
20 n to aora than 90 a
20 ¦ to TO ¦
Nodarata daptha
Shora to 400 ¦
Only In Cult, hlgh-aalInlty
water
Moderate depths
Shallow water
10 m to 00 ¦
Inahora and baya to 40 n
Baya and ahallow watera
Shallow waters
01
en
H
3
w
H
W
o
00
-------
TABLE 3-10. (Continued).
SclantKIa Ntn
Co—an Ih*
10 Hoat
Abundant
Speolaa
Coaaerolal
laportanc*
Hoa and
Martin,
1«(S
EPA/LBC,
1979-1980
ftcaarka
Prlonotua trlbalua
Bothua lunatua
Bothua ocallataa
Cltharlchthra aaoropa
CItharIchthra aplloptaroa
etropua croaaotaa
Parallchthra alblqatta
Bvaclua papllloaea
Syphurua plagluaa
Aluterua aoho«p(l
Honacanthua olllatua
Honacanthua hlapldaa
Honacanthua aetltar
I.¦.<*tophfYa guadrloornla
Sphoetoldea nephalua
Sphoatoldaa apanqletl
Chlloavctarua achoept 1
Blfhead aaarebln
Paaoock (loander
Byad (loander
8 pot tad whiff 10
Bay vhl((
Prinqad (loander 9
Calf flopndar
fhtaky (loander
Blaokchaak tongue CI ah 6
Oranqa (lladah
Fringed (llatlah
Planehaad (llatlah
lytar (llatlah
Sorawlad eowflah
Southern pa(far
Bandtall paftac
Striped burrdah
Batuarlaa to 25 a
20 a to 90 a
Deeper than 20 ¦
Inahora to mors than IS m
10 ¦ to <5 ¦
Deep water
20 ¦ to Mora than 90 ¦
Batuarlaa to 20 a
Offahora raafa
Shallow qraaay baya
Shore to aore than 15 n
Mora than 20 a
10 a to 75 a
tnahora to 5 a
.Mora than 10 a, Inshore
8hora to aora than 30 n
-------
TABLE 3-10. (Continued).
Scientific Haaa
Raae
10 Host
Abundant
Speolea
Coanerolal
Iaportance
Noa and
Martin,
196}
BPA/LBC,
1979-1980
Equetua lanceolatua
Equetug iwbtoni
Leloatoaua aanthuraa
Hentlclrrhua aaerlcanua
Hlciopoqon undulatua
Chaetodlptetaa fabat
gcarua taenlootarua
Aatroacopua Y-qtaectm
Heoaerlntha haalnqwarl
Scocpaena btaalllanala
Ptlonotua catollnaa
Ptlonotae aalaonlcolot
Prlonotua acltalua
JaokknKa flah
Cubbyn
•pot
Southern klnqfleh
Atlantic oreakat
Atlantlo apadaflah
rdnoata parrottlah
Southern aUi]iui
Bptnyoheek aoorplonfiah
Barbflah
northern aaacobln
Blaokitlng aaarobln
Leopard aaarobln
x Daap «it«[
i Oftahore reeta
Batuariea to not* than 40 n
Baya and Moderate depths
Bataarlea to sore than 40 n
Baya to Moderate depths
I
tnatde 110 a tare
SO a to 1)0 n
Baya and ahore
Shore to 45 a
10 ¦ to <5 ¦
Inshore and bays to 45 m
-------
111
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page7 5
Etropus crossotus. pigfish Orthopristis chrvsopterus, dusky
flounder Svacium papillosum* tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum. and
Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrvsurus (Chittenden and
McEachran, 1976).
Seventeen of the species listed in Table 3-10 have commercial
value. The most important are seven Species of flounder. The
black mullet (Mugil cephalus) ranked second in economic value for
all commercial species taken during 1978 in the tri-county area
(Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties) (US EPA, 1983).
However, this species is usually caught in estuarine and
nearshore coastal waters, and does not frequent Site 4.
Based on information mapped in Beccasio et al. (1982), Site 4
does not lie within any areas designated as general habitat
boundaries for particular fish species. Such boundaries often
surround reefs. Table 3-11 lists fish species observed by divers
at live-bottom stations within or in the immediate vicinity of
Site 4 during three post-disposal cruises (CSA, 1987). Many of
the same species were observed on the disposal mound by EPA
divers during a recent video survey of the site (see Appendix F).
3.3.5 Pelagic Invertebrates
The most noteworthy pelagic invertebrates off Tampa Bay are
the penaeid shrimps (superfamily Penaeidea). Dominant species in
the area are the commercially important pink shrimp Penaeus
duorarum and rock shrimp Sicvonla brevlrostris, as well as
Solenocera atlantidis and Metapenaeopis ooodei. Each of these
species feeds and moves into the water column at night, and is
largely inactive during the day, when they remain on the bottom
(Huff and Cobb, 1979). Studies of gut content indicate that
these species are generalized benthic carnivores, with
crustaceans and bivalve molluscs dominating their diets (Huff and
-------
112
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 76
TABLE 3-11. FISHES OBSERVED BY DIVERS AT HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS IN
SITE 4 DURING POST-DISPOSAL SURVEYS III THROUGH VII
(CSA. 1987).
Species
Common Name
Balistes capriscus
Calamus sp.
Caranx crysos
Centropristis ocyurus
Centropristis striata
Chaenopsis ocellata
Chaetodon ocellatus
Chaetodon sedentarTus
Corvphopterus sp.
Diplectrum formosum
Epinepbelos morio
Equetus acuminatus
Equetus lanceolatus
Equetus umbrosus
Euthynnus alletteratus
Gobiosoma aacrodon
Gymnothorax nigromarginatus
Haemulon aurolineatum
Baemulon plumierT
Balichoeres aaculipinna
Balichoeres sp.
Holacanthus bermudensis
loglossus calliurus
Lachnolaimus maximus
Lutianus synagris
Microgobius carri
Mycteroperca**aicrolepis
Opsanus pardus
Pomacentrus leucostictus
Ponacentrus partitas
Pomacentrus variabilis
Prionotus cp.
Rypticus maculatus
Sco»beromorus aaculatus
Serraniculus pumilio
Serranus subllgarius
SphoeroTdes-spenqleri
Synodus interaedius
Gray triggerfish
Unidentified porgy
Blue runner
Bank sea bass
Black sea bass
Bluethroat pikeblenny
Spotfin butterflyfish
Reef butterflyfish
Unidentified goby
Sand perch
Red grouper
High-hat
Jackknife-fish
Cubbyu
Little tunny
Tiger goby
Blackedge aoray
Tomtate
White grunt
Clown wrasse
Unidentified wrasse
Blue angelfish
Blue goby
Eogfish
Gray snapper
Seminole goby
Gag
Leopard toadfish
Beaugregory
Bicolor damselfisb
Cocoa daaselfish
Unidentified searobin
Whitespotted soapfish
Spanish mackerel
Pygmy sea bass
Belted sandfish
Bandtail puffer
Sand diver
-------
113
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page77
Cobb, 1979). Data collected during the Hourglass Cruises off the
west coast of central Florida indicated that maximum abundances
of M. croodei were reached in the summer and fall, of £.
brevirostris in the late summer and fall, of £. atlantldes in the
fall and spring, and of P. duorarum in the fall through early
spring. Other species which have been collected off Tampa Bay
are Trachvpenaeus constrictus. Sicvonia laevigata, and {5. tvpica
(Huff and Cobb, 1979; Eldred et. al., 1961).
Pink shrimp (P. duoarum) are unique among the above species
they use estuarine areas in Tampa Bay as nurseries. After
over-wintering in the estuarine areas, the subadults recruit to
offshore areas (Huff and Cobb, 1979).
3.3.6 Coastal and Sea Birds
The avian population in the Gulf of Mexico consists of
shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, raptors, sea birds, and
songbirds (Beccasio et al., 1982). The Gulf serves as a
migration route and overwintering ground for a variety of species
(Table 3-12) (R.T. Paul, National Audubon Society, personal
communication, January 14, 1987). In the lower portion of the
Tampa Bay system, there are several important breeding and
feeding areas for birds. Among them are two National Wildlife
Refuges (NWR) (Passage Key and Pinellas) and a National Audubon
Sanctuary island (Figure 3-11). Two Aquatic Preserves (Terra
Ceia and Pinellas County) have also been designated in the area,
and are administered by the Department of Natural Resources (R.T.
Paul, National Audubon Society, personal communication, January
14, 1987) (Figure 3-12).
Black skimmers, least terns, American oyster catchers, and
snowy plovers nest on a small barrier island off Cabbage Key.
Least terns and snowy plovers also nest at Mullet Key, a county
-------
114
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN nTSP^AT. SITE EIS
Page 78
TABLE 3-12. BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED NESTING IN AND AROUND TAMPA
BAY (Richard T. Paul, National Audubon Society,
Personal Communication, January 14, 1987).
Pinellas Wildlife Refuge (Tarpon Key) and Washburn Sanctuary
Anhinga
Black-Crowned Night Heron
Brown Pelican
Cattle Egret
Double-Crested Cormorant
Glo66y Ibis*
Great Blue Beron
Great Egret
Green-backed Heron
Little Blue Heron
Magnificent Frigatebirds
Reddish Egret
Snowy Egret
Tricolored Heron
White Ibis
Yellow-Crowned Night Heron
Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge
American Oyster Catchers (6-6 pairs annually)
Black Skinners (up to 250 pairs)
Brown Pelicans (35 observed in 1987)
Laughing Gulls (2000 to 15,000 pairs)
Least Terns (approxinately 50 pairs)
Royal Terns (600 to 1100 pairs)
Snowy Plovers (occasional siting)
foata available for nesting pairs only at Passage Key.
Nests only at Washburn.
-------
™I
pn Spflngi
OULF OF MEXICO
PINELLAS NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
EGMONT KEY NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
PASSAGE KEY NATIONAL^
.WILDLIFE REFUGE ^
83*30'
83*20'
83*10*
83*00*
82*50'
82*t0'
82*30'
82*20'
FIGURE 3-11. TAMPA HARBOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES.
•d
P>
*
-j
io
B
£
8
a
H
w
3
g
CO
H
a
w
O)
-------
116
TAMPA. FLORIDA OTp&m DISPOSAL SITE RTS
Page 80
FIGURE 3-12. TAMPA BAY AQUATIC PRESERVES.
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page81
park (R.T. Paul, National Audubon Society, personal
communication, January 14, 1987). Little is known about the
biology of the few truly pelagic bird species, such as petrels,
found in open gulf waters more than 10 km offshore (Woolfenden
and Schreiber, 1973). Beaches of Passage Key, Mullet Key, and
Bunces Pass are used by large numbers of migrant and wintering
shorebirds. Other significant seasonal migrants or winter
visitors include gulls, terns, common loons, horned grebes,
lesser scaup, and possibly other waterfowl.
j^.T.7 Harinp Mamma In
A variety of cetaceans including dolphins, porpoises, and
whales inhabit the Gulf of Mexico (Table 3-13). Manatees
(sirenians) are also found among the marine mammals of the area
(Caldwell and Caldwell, 1973). As a result of man's
introduction, seals and sea lions (pinnipeds), although not
permanent residents, have been found occasionally in the Gulf.
For example, sea lions have been found in the Gulf after escaping
from zoos (D. Odell, University of Miami, personal communication,
January 21, 1987).
Little is known of the life histories of whales inhabiting the
Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, there are few data on the
seasonality of whale species because sightings and strandings are
so sporadic (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1973). It is uncertain which
whales use the Gulf for mating and calving (C. Oravetz, National
Marine Fisheries, personal communication, January 14, 1987).
Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are common in the
Tampa area. The sperm whale may also approach the continental
shelf in the Tampa area; however, most whale species occur
offshore (D. Odell, University of Miami, personal communication,
January 21, 1987).
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus\, a herbivorous
-------
118
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN rtTSPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 82
TABLE 3-13- SPECIES OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
(from US EPA 1983a, Schmidly, 1981; and D. Odell,
University of Miami, personal communication).
Cetaceans
Behavior
Minke whale
(Balenoptera acutorostrata)
Possible winter resident;
feed on euphausiids and small
fish
Byrde's whale
(Balenoptera edeni)
Possibly year-found; feed on
small fishes, some euphausiids,
and other crustaceans
Sei whale*
(Balenoptera borealis)
Fin whale*
(Balaenoptera physalus)
Blue whale*
(Balenoptera musculus)
Humpback whale*
(Megaptera novaeanqliae)
Black right whale*
(Eubalaena glacialis)
Bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus)
Atlantic spotted dolphin
(Stenella frontalis)
Bridled dolphin
(Stenella attenuata)
Short-snouted spinner dolphin
(Stenella clymene)
Spinner dolphin
(Stenella lonqirostris)
Common dolphin
(Delphinus delphis)
Possible winter resident;
winter calving and mating; feed
on copepods, euphausiids,
and various small fishes
Possible winter resident; mating
and calving in winter; feed
mostly on euphausiids
Uncommon; feed on euphausiids
Possible winter resident; feed on
euphausiids
Possible winter resident; feed on
copepods
Common; year-round; feed mostly
on fish; spring-summer calving
and mating
Common; year-round; feed
primarily on squid
Uncommon; feed on fish, squid,
and shrimp
Widely distributed, no life
information information available
May be year-round; probably feed
on fish and squid
May be year-round near shelf
edge; feed on fish
-------
119
TAKPA. FLORIDA OCEAN nTSPOSAL SITK rts
Page83
TABLE 3-13. (Continued).
Cetaceans
Behavior
Risso'6 dolphin
(Grampus qriseus)
Pygay killer whale
(Feresa attenuate)
False killer whale
(Pseudorca crassldens)
Short-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala macrorhyncha)
Killer whale
Spern whale*
(Physeter catodon)
Uncommon; feed on cephalopods
Rare; little known
Uncommon; feed on fish and squid
Year-round in deep water;
probably feed on squid
Uncommon; feed on fish, (Orcinus
orca) cephalopods, and other
cetaceans
winter resident or possibly
year-round; calving in summer;
feed on cephalopods and some fish
Pygmy sperm whale
(Koqia breviceps)
Dwarf spera whale
(Koqia simus)
Goose-beaked whale
(Ziphlus cavirostrls)
Gervais beaked whale
(Hesoplodon europaeus)
year-round; feed on squid and
pelagic crustaceans, such as
shrimp
Uncommon, possibly year-round;
feed on squid and pelagic
crustaceans, such as shrimp
Rare; feed on squid and deepwater
fishes
Rare; Little known
Sirenean
West Indian manatee*
(Trichechus manatus
clatirostrisl
Summer range ends just west of
the Suwanee River, Florida; feed
on aquatic vegetation
* Endangered species, Federal Register, 1986
-------
120
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 84
mammal, is often found in canals, rivers, estuaries, and
saltwater bays, but can also be found as far as 3.2 nmi off the
coast of Florida (Beccasio et al., 1982). In the Tampa Bay
region, manatees generally inhabit waters less than 3 m deep;
consequently, it would be very unlikely to find manatees in the
deeper waters of Site 4 (approximately 22 m) (D. Odell,
University of Miami, personal communication, January 21, 1987).
3.ft.a ware. Threatened, or Endangered Species
Endangered and threatened species of marine reptiles, mammals,
and birds are known to exist in the Gulf of Mexico (Caldwell and
Caldwell, 1973). Species with special status that may be present
in the Tampa Bay area are listed in Table 3-14.
Four species of endangered sea turtles, including the green,
hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, and leatherback, and one threatened
species, the loggerhead, are found in the Gulf of Mexico
(Beccasio et al., 1982). The loggerhead is the only sea turtle
known to nest with any frequency along the Gulf coast of Florida.
However, the other species of turtles may be found nesting at
Passage Key and Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuges (see Figure
3-11) (C. Oravetz, National Marine Fisheries Service, personal
communication, January 14, 1987).
Six endangered whale species have been reported in the Gulf of
Mexico (Schmidly, 1981). The sperm whale (Phvseter catodon),
however, is the only species that might be expected to occur near
Tampa Bay and even then only rarely (C. Oravetz, National Marine
Fisheries Service, personal communication, January 14, 1987).
The West Indian manatee fTrlchehus manatus) is a Federally
listed Endangered Species and is protected in the state of
Florida (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1973). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has listed Tampa Bay as a critical habitat for
the manatee (Department of the Interior (DOI), 1986). Threatened
-------
121
TAMPA. FT/ralDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE PTS
Page85
TABLE 3-14. ENDANGERED (E) AND THREATENED (T) SPECIES IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO (U. S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1986, Federal Register 50
CFR 17.11 and 17.12).
SPECIES
STATUS
AQUATIC REPTILES
Sea Turtles
Green
Hawksbill
Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley
Leatherback
Loggerhead
Chelonia ayda6
EretaocEelys i'abricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Peraochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
E
E
E
E
T
MARINE MAMMALS
whales
Finback
Humpback
Right
Sei
Sperm
Sirenlan
West Indian Manatee
Balaenoptera physalus
Meqaptera novaengliae
Balaena~qlacialis
Balaenoptera borealIs
Physeter catodon
Trichechus manatus
E
E
E
E
E
BIRDS
Cuban snowy plover
Least t«rn
Bald eagfc*
Peregrin#*-falcon
Brown pelican
Charadrius alexandrinus E
Sterna alElfrons T
Hallaet'us leucocephalus T
falco pergrinus E
Pelecanus occidentalis T
-------
122
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 86
and endangered bird species may also be found in the Gulf of
Mexico (Table 3-14). The brown pelican in particular uses the
Gulf coast and sheltered waters for nesting (R.T. Paul, National
Audubon Society, personal communication, January 14, 1987). The
Cuban snowy plover is a rare species that may breed on beaches
and sand bars during summer (Beccasio et al., 1982).
3.3.9 Ma-rinp Sanctuaries and Special Biological
Resource Areas
There are no marine sanctuaries (federal or state) in the
Tampa Bay area (J. Urguhart, FDNR, personal communication,
January 16, 1987). There are, however, state aguatic preserves
near Tampa Bay (Figure 3-12). These preserves are submerged land
areas of special concern that are regulated by the state. They
include
o Cockroach Bay Aguatic Preserve
o Terra Ceia Bay Aguatic Preserve
o Pinellas County Aguatic Preserve
o Boca Ciega Bay Aguatic Preserve
o Caladesi Island Aguatic Preserve
Site 4 is not located within or proximate to any of these
preserves.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has also
designated Tampa Bay as "Outstanding Florida Water."
Conseguently, the area is regulated by special rules and
permitting procedures (J. Urguhart, FDNR, personal communication,
January 16, 1987).
-------
123
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page87
3.3.10 Potential for Development or Rec""tmffnt r>f
Nuisance Species
Toxic red tides, caused mostly by dinoflagellates, are known
to occur on the west coast of Florida (Steidinger and Williams,
1970). The impact of red tides on marine communities can be
severe. Heavy mortalities of marine life have been documented
and attributed to poisoning by dinoflagellate toxins; secondary
effects include oxygen depletion, hydrogen sulfide poisoning, and
bacterial and fungal infections (Smith, 1975; Smith, 1976b;
Gunter et al., 1948; Quick and Henderson, 1975a and 1975b).
Blooms of dinoflagellates, for example Ptvchodlscus brevis.
are often associated with variations in salinity, temperature,
nutrient levels, and onshore winds (Rounsefell and Dragovich,
1966). Many different physical mechanisms such as winds, tides,
upwellings, and currents can concentrate motile dinoflagellate
populations (Steidinger, 1983). Studies have also suggested the
importance of resting cysts in the initiation of dinoflagellate
blooms (Steidinger, 1975b). Steidinger and Haddad (1981)
indicate that blooms begin in an initiation zone located 18 to 74
km offshore. Variations in the vertical distribution of cysts
within sediments may be important to the timing and magnitude of
the red tide bloom (Anderson et al., 1982).
3.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Over 1.6 million people reside in the three counties
(Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee) that border Tampa Bay. The
Bay area population has increased by 45 percent since 1970; rapid
population and industrial expansion have coincided with
ecological decline in the area (e.g., the demise of scallop and
oyster fisheries). Although economic benefits have been realized
-------
124
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 88
in shipping (Tampa is the third largest U.S. port in terms of
foreign exports), other industries based on ecologically
dependent resources are beginning to suffer.
Economic growth and development is difficult to manage in
Tampa Bay because of the myriad of federal, state, and regional
regulatory agencies in the area. In addition, 17 local political
entities contribute to the fragmented management framework
(Figure 3-13). Because no single agency has overall authority
for the Bay, there is no comprehensive management of the
ecological and economic resources of the Bay. However, the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council has initiated a few major studies
to address Bay management issues and to develop comprehensive
management plans.
3.4.1 Commercial Fishing
From 1979 to 1984, the total value of finfish and shellfish
landings on Florida's west coast (a 30-county area) averaged
approximately $106 million a year, not including further economic
impacts in processing, wholesale, and retail markets (Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council, 1986). In Tampa Bay, the total value
of landings in a four-county area (Pinellas, Hillsborough,
Manatee, and a combination of Pasco and Citrus counties) averaged
approximately $20 million a year. The landings reported for
Pinellas County account for 49 percent of the catch of the
four-county area, the largest percentage of any of the counties.
Pinellas County landings averaged 9 percent of the regional
total.
Five major species of finfish are caught commercially in Tampa
Bay: drum, flounder, mullet, seatrout, and sheepshead. Shellfish
species common to Tampa Bay waters include hard clams, blue
crabs, stone crabs, oysters, and bait shrimp.
During 1984, a total of 1952 commercial fishermen were issued
-------
125
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE Ptc
Page89
FIGURE 3-13. POLITICAL BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE TAMPA^BAY REGION.
-------
126
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 90
saltwater products licenses to earn their living. Residing in
Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas counties, these fishermen
represent 10 percent of all fishermen in Florida.
Economic benefits of commercial fishing in Tampa Bay are also
represented by the seafood processing and wholesaling industry.
In 1984, data collected for Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco
counties indicated that 46 establishments were engaged in seafood
processing and wholesaling. Each plant employed an average of
200 persons per month over the one-year period (Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), 1986).
3.4.2 Commercial Shipping ir Tampa Bay
Commercial shipping is an important economic factor in the
Tampa Bay area. The following discussion indicates the magnitude
of this Importance. However, the data supporting the discussion
do not represent the economic value of maintaining the shipping
channel. If the channel were not maintained at the current depth
shipping would not occur, which would change the economic value
of shipping in the area.
During 1983-84, nearly 46 million tons of cargo, mostly
phosphate, passed through the port of Tampa. In the preceding
year, industry representatives claimed that 90 percent of the
port's revenues were generated from phosphate exports (Amson,
1982). Other commodities included petroleum products, dry bulk
such as coal and aragonite, and liquid bulk such as sulfur,
ammonia, and phosphoric acid. Over 1 million tons of cargo,
handled at the port of Tampa includes steel products, bananas,
meat, and poultry products (TBRPC, 1986).
Each ton of cargo handled during 1984 contributed an average
of $6.42 in direct primary benefits to the local economy.
Therefore, the estimated 45.7 million tons handled at the port of
Tampa provided approximately $294 million in direct benefits to
-------
127
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE Elfi
Page91
the port during 1984 (TBRPC, 1986). Such trade can only be
accommodated by dredged channels that allow for passage of large
vessels. Testimony given in 1982 suggested that vessels had been
light-loaded because of the shallowness of the Bay. An industry
representative suggested that an additional $14 million in
revenues could have been realized during 1969-1982 if the Tampa
Bay shipping channels had been deepened (Amson, 1982).
Net economic gains may be passed on to shippers and receivers
who use the port of Tampa. These benefits could be realized
locally or in more distant geographic areas. One way to measure
the net economic benefits associated with Tampa is to estimate
the cost of using an alternative port or transportation method
and then calculate the transportation savings accrued by using
the port of Tampa. In 1979, Booz, Allen and Hamilton used this
method and determined that nearly $174 million in transportation
savings resulted from use of the Port of Tampa. Updated figures
for 1984 indicate an impact on savings of $281.3 million in
transportation costs through use of the Port (TBRPC, 1986).
3.4.3 Recreational
Resident and tourist populations generate economic gains
through direct expenditures on food, lodging, boat rental, fuel,
and maintenance, and through indirect expenditures which are more
difficult to quantify. A multiplier effect is generally
recognized in connection with tourist expenditures where tourist
dollars originating outside of the state spark a cycle of
spending within the 6tate. Indirect consequences of direct
expenditures include additional jobs, wages, and tax revenues.
To quantify indirect expenditures, direct expenditures are
multiplied by an estimated number derived by calculating sales
and basic income (export employment) vs. nonbasic income (local
-------
128
TAMPA. FIjORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 92
employment).
The following discussion is based on information taken from
Bell et al., 1982. The number of saltwater recreational
fishermen in Tampa Bay consists of both residents and tourists.
In 1980, it was estimated that 250,380 residents fished in the
Southwest Gulf (state planning Region 4). In addition, 374,820
tourists fished in Region 4 which includes Tampa Bay. The total
angler population of Region 4 (tourists and residents) spent
$207,324,803 on variable expenditures in 1980. These
expenditures vary in amount with the number of days spent fishing
and include the maintenance costs on boats and fishing gear.
Expenditures on new boats and gear are not included in variable
costs because these expenses do not vary with the number of days
spent fishing. However, it is not possible to determine what
proportion of this expenditure is for the area offshore of Tampa
Bay. The total economic value of recreational saltwater fishing
in Tampa Bay was estimated to be $197,382,616 in 1983 (TBRPC,
1986).
The four fish most frequently caught by anglers in the state
of Florida are snapper, seatrout, grouper, and catfish. Other
species include king mackerel, dolphinfish, bluefish, kingfish,
croaker, pinfish, spot, grunt, cobia, and red snapper. However,
among tourists and residents, the perception that fish stocks are
declining has been growing since 1960. The recreational catch
has gradually declined in the Gulf while fishing efforts have
increased. Also, the daily catch ha6 decreased each year, as
particularly noticed by anglers fishing for grouper, seatrout,
and snappers.
It is feared that tourist expenditures may decline in the area
if fishery stocks continue to decline. Competition between
recreational anglers and commercial fishermen for existing stocks
has been documented, which could lead to a greater loss of
tourist and resident dollars in the Tampa Bay area, as well as
Florida as a whole.
-------
129
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page93
3.4.4 Other Recreational Activities
In 1982, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council established a
committee to conduct a survey to evaluate the recreational uses
of Tampa Bay. In addition to fishing, recreational boating
(including motorboating, racing, and sailing), water skiing,
camping, nature studying, picnicking, scuba diving, and swimming
were identified as popular activities. From 1979 to 1985, the
number of registered pleasure boats has steadily increased to
totals of 34,541 in Pinellas County, 33*447 in Hillsborough
County, and 11,067 in Manatee County. In 1984, approximately
$184 million in retail sales were reported for motorboats,
yachts, and marine accessories in the tri-county area (TBRPC,
1986).
Activities in Tampa Bay related to boating, such as
snorkeling, scuba diving, swimming, fishing, and water skiing,
depend upon how boaters perceive water quality and clarity and
ease of access to the Bay. Nationwide coverage of the dredging
activities may encourage people to dive further south (in the
Keys) or on the eastern Florida coast (e.g., West Palm Beach).
Excluding some of the private facilities such as private clubs
and residences, 47 public and private marinas are located within
Tampa Bay boundaries. Also, small boat owners have access to
boat ramps. The total economic value of recreational activities
other than fishing in Tampa Bay area is estimated to be
$22,793,540 (in 1983 dollars). This estimate was based on the
unit-day approach, where the user value of $2.95 per day was
estimated. The documented number of occasions where boat ramps
were used and beach activities were pursued was multiplied by the
use value ($2.95/occasion) to arrive at the $2,793,540 figure
(TBRPC, 1986).
-------
130
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 94
3.4.5 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development.
The nearest active oil and gas leases, part of the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and
Gas Lease Sale No. 65, are approximately 50 nmi to the southwest
of Site 4. The distance of this site to the oil and gas lease
areas eliminates any interference of dredged material disposal
operations with drilling or production operations (US EPA, 1983).
3.4.6 Historical Sites and Shipwrecks
There is a sunken vessel near Site 4. However, the name and
age of the vessel are not known and it is not possible to
determine its historical significance (Florida Skin Divers
Association, 1982). At various locations in the general vicinity
of Site 4, there are small patch reefs on which limited SCUBA
diving has occurred (Florida Skin Divers Association, letter
dated July 12, 1982).
Several public and private beaches occupy the coast of western
Florida. Fort DeSoto County Park, located on Mullet Key, is the
recreational beach closest to the alternative disposal sites.
The park provides year-round recreation for an estimated 1.5
million people (US EPA, 1983).
Florida also has established an aquatic preserve, encompassing
the length of Pinellas County, extending from the shoreline to
the 3-mile limit. Alternative Site 4 is approximately 15 nmi
southwest of the preserve. Egmont and Passage Keys, located 18
nmi east of Site 4, are designated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as wildlife refuges (US EPA, 1983).
-------
132
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 95
CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the scientific and analytical basis for
evaluation and comparison of the alternatives described in
Chapter 2. The following discussion includes the environmental
consequences of the no-action alternative and the ocean disposal
alternative, Site 4. The environmental consequences are
discussed as they relate to the ecosystem and the socioeconomic
resources described in Chapter 3.
The effects of dredged material disposal at Site 4 have been
addressed previously by EPA (1983). Some of the effects on the
physical and biological environment at Site 4 have also been
monitored (CSA 1986a, b, c; 1987).
Some effects, such as burial of benthic organisms and
habitats, are immediately apparent; others, such as
bioaccumulation of sediment-bound contaminants, may be subtle and
difficult to assess. Short-term effects on biological communities
can be difficult to differentiate from natural fluxes in
diversity and community composition. Long-term adverse effects
can be the most difficult to assess because they may be indirect
or cumulative.
4.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative implies one of three possible
actions: (1) dredging operations would be discontinued, (2)
nearshore alternatives would be used for deposition of dredged
materials as fill (see Appendix A), or (3) dredged materials
would be dumped at a non-EPA-designated ocean site. Assessments
of environmental impacts associated with the^e actions are
-------
134
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 96
restricted to generalized effects because specific information on
a potential disposal site is lacking.
Discontinuing maintenance dredging operations would result in
no potential for future environmental impacts from disposal of
dredged material. However, the option to discontinue dredging is
not consistent with the continued use of Tampa as a port (as
discussed in Chapter 1) because the CE must provide dredging
operations to maintain navigable depths in the shipping channels
(L. Saunders, Jacksonville District CE, personal communication,
1987). Consequently, further analysis of this option relative to
other alternative actions would be inappropriate.
Nearshore alternatives for deposition of dredged material as
fill have been used previously by the CE for materials from new
and maintenance dredging projects. These alternatives include
beach nourishment, island creation, and submerged stockpiling.
Impacts associated with the use of these alternatives are
discussed in Appendix A.
Alternatively, the CE has the option to request use of an
ocean disposal site, with concurrence from EPA, on a case-by-case
basis if EPA does not permanently designate a site. In this
instance, the CE would probably request a permit to dump
materials at Site 4 (L. Saunders, Jacksonville District, CE,
personal communication, 1987). The potential environmental
consequences associated with disposal of dredged material at this
site are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.
4.3 OCEAN DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
The Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts 228.5-228.6)
contain 5 general and 11 specific criteria that constitute the
basis for the selection of ocean disposal sites and the
environmental assessment of impacts from dumping at those sites.
Three of the specific criteria are discussed in Chapter 3: (1)
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 97
the site locations (Geographic Position, Depth of Water, Bottom
Topography, and Distance from Coast: 40 CFR 228.6 [a][l]), (2)
proposed use of the site(s) (Types and Quantities of Waste to be
Disposed of and Proposed Methods of Release, Including Methods of
Packing the Waste, If Any: 40 CFR 228.6 [a][4]), and (3)
feasibility of surveillance and monitoring (Feasibility of
Surveillance and Monitoring: 40 CFR 228.6 [a][5]).
A summary of the general criteria as applied to the candidate
disposal site (Site 4) is presented in Section 4.3.1. The
specific criteria including the environmental effects of dredged
material disposal on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic
environments of those sites are discussed in Section 4.3.2. The
unavoidable adverse impacts and possible mitigation measures for
the proposed action are discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.7,
respectively. Classes of impacts, as defined in the Ocean
Dumping Site Designation Delegation Handbook (US EPA, 1986), are
identified where possible and are defined as follows:
1. Class I effects are unavoidable significant impacts;
2. Class II effects are significant impacts which can be
feasibly mitigated or avoided;
3. Class III effects are impacts which are not significant
and do not require mitigations; and
4. Class IV effects are beneficial impacts.
Some of the effects of dredged material disposal on the
physical and biological environment at Site 4 have been monitored
by CSA (1986a, b, c; 1987) and CAIS (1988). Results from these
monitoring surveys provide a basis for defining classes of
effects at Site 4.
-------
136
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 98
4.3.1 General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
4.3.1.1 The rliimping rvf matgriala into the ocean will be
permitted only at sites or in areas selected to minimize the
interference of dinposal activities in the marine environment,
particul ar-1 y avoiding areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries and regions of heavy r?r»mmercial or recreational
navigation (40 CFR 228.5 Tail
Site 4 is located offshore in order to minimize interference
with recreational activities popular along the Florida coast.
Some interference may occur during dredging and disposal
activities. The site is located outside designated navigation
lanes and designated fishing grounds.
4.3.1.2 Locations and boundaries of disposal site will be so
chosen that temporary perturbations in water Quality or other
environmental conditions during initial mivincy caused bv disposal
operations anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to undete^fahl nnnfaminant-
concentration or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline,
marine sanctuary, or known geographica)"*y limited fishery or
shellfisherv. (40 CFR 228.5 rbl)
Because nearshore waters are characteristically turbid,
temporary increases in suspended particulate concentrations due
to disposal operations at Site 4 are considered insignificant.
The location of the site at 18 nmi from shore will allow water
quality conditions to return to ambient levels, thereby
preventing a plume from reaching any shoreline area.
4.3.1.3 If at anv fr-img during or after disposal site evaluation
studies, it is determined that existing Hinposal sites presently
approved on an inter-im basis for ocean Humping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth in 40 CFR 228.5-228.6. the
use of such sites will be terminated as soon as s^ifrahlo
alternate disposal sites can be designated, (CFR 40 228.5 Tel)
Studies conducted to date indicate that disposal of dredged
material at Site 4 meets the requirements in 40 CFR 228.5-228.6.
No adverse environmental effects have been detected.
-------
137
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 99
4.3.1.4 The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be 1 i mi i n
order to localize for identification and control any immpHiate
adverse impaeta and permit the implementation of effective
monitoring and surveillance programs fn prevent adverse
long-rang^ impacts. The size, configuration, and location of anv
disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site
evaluation or designation study. (40 CFR 228.5 fd 11
Site 4 covers a total 4 nmi2; a much smaller area within this
site has actually been used for disposal of dredged materials.
Specific areas for disposal are limited within this site as
described in the detailed SMMP that is included in Appendix C.
4.3.1.5 EPA will, wherever- f*»a«ihle. designate ocean Humping
sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such
sites that have been historically used (40 CFR 228.5 fell
Site 4 was designated in November 1983 for a 3-year period and
has been used previously for disposal of dredged material. A
deep-water site beyond the continental shelf was considered as an
alternative (US EPA, 1983) but was found to be economically
unfeasible and was therefore dropped from further consideration.
4.3.2 Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
4.3.2.1 Location in relation to breeding areas, spawning,
nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult
or juvenile phases (40 CFR 228.6 fair21)
Tampa Bay is a nursery area for many commercially and
recreationally important species (such as pink shrimp and several
species of fish) (US EPA, 1983). Some species that mature in the
Bay eventually move offshore into coastal waters where they
remain as adults. Additionally, the adult phases of several
species migrate into and out of the Bay to spawn. Other species
such as king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, bluefish, and several
clupeid species migrate seasonally north anc^south in waters off
-------
138
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 100
the Florida coastline. These species spawn in offshore waters,
and the egg, larval, and juvenile stages are planktonic.
However, it is unlikely that these migration routes or spawning
locations are restricted geographically to the vicinity of Site
4. Therefore, impacts on migration and spawning are considered
non-significant (Class III) because the effects from dredged
material disposal would not interfere significantly with critical
biological activities.
Breeding, spawning, nursery, and feeding activities for
demersal fishes probably occur near live-bottom features in the
vicinity of Site 4. However, the available information (e.g.,
Beccasio et al., 1982) suggests that Site 4 does not lie within
areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service as general
habitat boundaries for particular fish species. Therefore,
significant differences in the effects from disposal operations
on these activities are not indicated.
The birds, mammals, reptiles, and rare and endangered species
that occur near Site 4 are discussed in Sections 3.3.6 through
3.3.8. Several bird species migrate, nest, feed, and overwinter
near Tampa Bay, with nesting sites for several species of birds
and sea turtles on barrier islands and the nearshore keys. The
migration paths of sea turtles and large marine mammals near the
alternative sites are poorly known. It is unlikely that
localized and intermittent dredged material disposal operations
at Site 4 would adversely affect migration, feeding, or nesting
of mammals, reptiles, or rare and endangered species.
4.3.2.2 Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas
MO CFR 228.6 raU3U
The alternative ocean Site 4 is approximately 18 nmi from the
closest beaches of the coastal barrier islands near the mouth of
Tampa Bay. Amenity areas for recreational fishing and diving are
present throughout the nearshore region, particularly at
scattered hard-bottom reefs (US EPA, 1983). Some diving and
-------
139
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 101
fishing may occur near Site 4, although less frequently than at
sites closer to shore (US EPA, 1983).
Due to the large distances between the alternative ocean sites
and the shoreline, it is unlikely that dredged material disposal
at Site 4 would have any effect on the coastal beaches. Although
EPA (1983) reported that recreational diving and fishing may
occur near Site 4, disposal of dredged material is not expected
to interfere with these activities in any way. Any interference
with these activities would consist of temporary, small-scale
displacement of diving activities to nearby areas during active
disposal operations (Class III).
4.3.2.3 Disposal, horizontal transport, and vertical wiiv-ing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current
directions and velocity, if any f40 CFR 228.6 raH6l)
The dispersion and transport of dredged materials dumped at
Site 4 were not assessed directly during the monitoring studies
(1984-1986) (CSA, 1987); however, some current measurements and
sediment trap observations are available and provide information
to evaluate sediment dispersion and accumulation at the disposal
site. Sediment mapping techniques used by CAIS (1988) provide
some insight on the distribution of dredged materials disposed at
Site 4. Additionally, suspended disposal plume transport has
been modelled (see Appendix H), and the SMMP has been modified
based on information provided by the model results.
Under average current conditions, sand-sized dredged materials
dumped at Site 4 settled rapidly to the bottom within about 275 m
of the point of discharge. Some silt and clay-sized sediments
were transported farther away from the discharge point by
horizontal currents before settling (CSA, 1987). Williams (1983)
predicted that only about 2.5 percent of the discharge mass was
entrained as a disposal plume. Thus, the fraction of the initial
discharged mass that is dispersed from the site as a suspended
sediment plume would be relatively small.
-------
140
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 102
Subsequent dispersion and transport of deposited materials
will depend on the frequency of bottom currents with sufficient
energy to initiate motion of sediment materials. Williams (1983)
used current and wave data for Site 4 to estimate bedload
transport of deposited dredged materials. Based on these
estimates, bottom turbulence required to transport silt particles
(0.03-mm diameter) would be exceeded 44 days per year, whereas
conditions necessary for transporting sand particles (0.5-mm
diameter) would be exceeded 25 days per year. However, the
majority of sediment transport and dispersion activity would
probably be associated with surface-wave-induced turbulence
during storms (CSA, 1987).
The current meter data collected during the Site 4 monitoring
program suggest that sediment transport in southerly and
southeasterly directions would predominate, although some
dispersion in east-west or northerly directions could be expected
due to tidal currents and near-bottom circulatory currents,
respectively (Ichiye et al., 1973; Danek and Lewbel, 1986). The
rates of sediment accumulation (mounding) were not measured
during the monitoring study; however, measurements of the
three-dimensionality of the mound at Site 4 are available from
EPA. Sediment transport from Site 4 was, however, measured using
sediment traps. Sediment trap data suggest that dredged material
was deposited at one or more stations during each survey.
Deposition rates measured with the traps varied spatially and
could not be linked to dredged material (CSA, 1987).
Data on levels of bismuth-214 and iron in sediments sampled
along extensive transects through and beyond the boundaries of
the disposal site indicated the presence of dredged material at
several points beyond the Site 4 boundaries (CAIS, 1988). In a
June 1987 survey, the University of Georgia CAIS found regions of
relatively high concentrations of iron (attributed to dredged
material) in the vicinity of the disposal area and extending
beyond the site boundary. High levels of Bi-214, also associated
-------
141
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 103
with dredged material, were found to the north, northwest, and
south of the site. These results suggest that transport of
dredged material to areas outside the site boundary may be
occurring.
4.3.2.4 Existence and effects of current and previous discharges
anrf Humping in the area, including mumilative effects (40 CFR
228.6 faim)
Effects on the Physical Environment. Specific effects of the
particulate plume on the water column at Site 4 were not
assessed during the monitoring program. The dredged material
plume contains elevated concentrations of suspended sediments
that result in localized increases in turbidity levels and
decreased light transmittance. These effects typically are short
term and localized, as the small percentage of the particulate
mass is dispersed by currents and sinks to the bottom (see
Appendix H).
In general, physical effects on the benthic environment from
dredged material disposal can include alterations in sediment
grain size, smothering of infaunal and/or epifaunal organisms,
and mounding of sediments with potential burial of low relief
features on the bottom. Dredged material disposal at Site 4 may
have resulted in changes in the percentages of sediment clay and
fines, although during the monitoring program these changes could
not be attributed unequivocally to dredged material disposal
(CSA, 1987).
Effects on the rhRmical Environment. In general, changes in
water quality, other than turbidity, associated with dumping are
relatively localized and short term; long-term or chronic impacts
typically are negligible (e.g., Wright, 1978; Brannon et al.,
1978). For example, releases of nutrients are common from both
polluted and non-polluted sediments dredged from coastal areas
(Windom, 1976). Results of chemical analysis of the liquid-phase
elutriate tests of sediments from Old Tampa iay and St.
-------
142
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 104
Petersburg Harbor demonstrated releases of ammonia and
orthophosphate (Jones, Edmunds and Associates, 1979; 1980).
These localized releases of nutrients at the disposal site may
stimulate phytoplankton productivity in a small area for a short
time (Windom, 1975); whereas elevated concentrations of ammonia
sufficient to cause toxicity to aquatic organisms are unlikely
(Brannon et al., 1978). Subsequent decreases in concentrations
of dissolved nutrients would result from mixing and dilution, as
well as uptake by phytoplankton (CE, 1980).
Dredged sediments may also contain elevated levels of certain
trace metals and hydrocarbon compounds. Trace metals typically
are associated with the particles in the disposal plume and are
rapidly removed from the water column during sinking of the main
plume mass (Brannon et al., 1978). Long- term release of trace
metals from dredged materials to overlying waters is minimal
(Brannon et al., 1978; Windom, 1975, 1976). Chemical analyses of
dredged materials from Old Tampa Bay and St. Petersburg Harbor
indicated negligible releases of cadmium, lead, and mercury
(Jones, Edmunds and Associates, 1979; 1980). Relatively greater
solubilization of manganese and iron may be expected, but
oxidation, particle scavenging, and dilution would also reduce
the concentrations of the dissolved phase of these metals,
typically within several hours of discharge (Brannon et al.,
1978).
Chlorinated or petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the
dredged materials probably would remain with the particulate
fraction following dumping, although some solubilization may
occur depending upon the water solubility and partitioning
behavior of individual compounds. Chemical tests of dredged
materials indicated no detectable releases of petroleum
hydrocarbons (Jones, Edmunds and Associates, 1979; 1980).
Sediments from Site 4 and dredged material intended for
disposal at Site 4 were analyzed for several chemical elements
and compounds prior to dumping. Results from these analyses
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 105
indicated that dredged material could be distinguished chemically
from surficial and suspended sediments collected between Site 4
and control sites by its significantly lower strontium and higher
phosphate concentrations. After dumping at Site 4 started,
statistically significant differences in concentrations of these
two tracers at the site boundary indicated the presence of
dispersed dredged sediments (CSA, 1987).
The University of Georgia CAIS conducted a sediment mapping
survey at Site 4, and evaluated levels of iron and the gamma-
emitting isotope Bi-214 (CAIS, 1988). These two tracers are
associated with phosphate-rich sediments and were used as
indicators of the presence of dredged material. Extensive
regions of relatively high concentrations of iron were found in
the vicinity of the disposal area and extending northward into
areas beyond the northern boundary of Site 4. Areas with iron
concentrations above background levels were also observed in the
northwest portion and the southwest corner of the site.
Relatively high values of Bi-214 were found in the vicinity of
the disposal area, with contours of high Bi-214 extending to the
north, northwest, and possibly to the southeast.
Effects on the Biological Environment. In general, aquatic
organisms may be adversely impacted by dredged material disposal
by temporary increases in turbidity, changes in the physical or
chemical characteristics of the habitat, smothering or burial,
and introduction of pollutants (Hirsch et al., 1978). The
magnitude of impacts would depend on the similarity of the
dredged sediments to existing sediments at the site, frequency of
dumping, thickness of the overburden, types of organisms present,
and physical characteristics of the habitat (Pequegnat et al.,
1978) .
The effects of dredged material disposal on plankton at Site 4
were not evaluated during the monitoring study. In general,
effects on plankton are difficult to assess because of the
inherently high natural variability (Sullivan and Hancock, 1977).
-------
144
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 106
Some phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton may be
entrained in a temporary turbidity plume, and thereby subjected
to decreased light transmittance and exposed to suspended
particulates and released contaminants (Wright, 1978). Elevated
concentrations of suspended particles may temporarily inhibit
filter-feeding planktonic larvae over a localized area, although
the extent of this impact is unknown.
EPA (1983) reported that bioassay tests of material dredged
from Tampa Bay indicated no significant mortality to grass shrimp
larvae exposed to the suspended particulate phase. Based on
these results, EPA (1983) predicted that impacts on plankton from
dredged material disposal would be localized, episodic, and
insignificant (Class III).
The results of studies at Site 4 indicated that the
composition of the infaunal community varied in relation to the
spatial distribution of grain-size composition, as well as to
differences in bottom depth (JRB, 1982; CSA, 1987; MML, 1988).
The CSA (1987) study also showed a seasonal variation in the
infaunal community composition. The inferred relationship
between sediment grain size parameters and infaunal community
parameters suggests that alterations to sediment texture from
dredged material disposal could produce concomitant changes in
the infaunal composition. However, results from the Site 4
monitoring program provided no conclusive evidence for an effect
from dredged material disposal on the infaunal parameters
measured at Site 4 (CSA, 1987). CSA (1987) concluded that the
absence of detectable effects probably was due to the small
amounts of dredged materials present at the monitoring stations;
however, greater effects would be expected at locations receiving
larger amounts of dredged materials. In these latter areas,
direct deposition of large volumes of dredged materials would
result in burial of infauna, with accompanying decreases in the
abundance and species richness of the infauna (e.g., JRB, 1982).
The magnitude of these changes would be expected to diminish with
-------
145
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 107
distance and time since the last dumping event, as the influence
from sediment accumulation is attenuated by dispersion and
mixing.
Adverse impacts typically are limited to the non-motile
species (Richardson et al., 1977); some active or motile species
are capable of burrowing up through 32 cm or more of overburden
(Mauer et al., 1978). Burial and smothering would result in
localized decreases in abundance of infaunal organisms. Recently
deposited sediments will be recolonized by motile infaunal
organisms burrowing up through the substratum and by species
migrating in from adjacent undisturbed areas (Hirsch et al.,
1978). Recolonization patterns and rates will be influenced by
the composition of the adjacent communities and the suitability
of the substratum for particular species.
Additional impacts to the benthos from potential exposure to
suspended particulates and/or changes in the sediment and water
quality are difficult to assess from existing data. Neither the
CSA (1987) monitoring study nor the additional study by MML
(1988) at Site 4 detected any clear relationships between the
presence of dredged material constituents and changes in the
infaunal community.
Potential effects from dredged material disposal on hard-
bottom epifaunal organisms also may result from burial by
deposited sediments, exposure to elevated suspended particulate
concentrations, or exposure to contaminants associated with the
suspended particulates. Attached organisms are unable to burrow
through an overburden or migrate to an unimpacted area.
Hard-bottom areas, although limited in extent, also provide
important habitat for reef fishes. Consequently, potential
impacts from dredged material disposal on hard-bottom habitats
are a primary factor governing selection of an appropriate
disposal site.
The hard-bottom areas within Site 4 are characterized as
scattered, with sparse coverage of sessile er>ifauna (CSA, 1987;
-------
146
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 108
JRB, 1984). During the CSA (1987) survey of Site 4, a relatively
low percent of coverage by total biota (as compared with other
nearby areas), algae, sponges, and corals was observed at the
hard-bottom site closest to the disposal area. However, because
no pre-disposal data were available for this site, it was not
possible to evaluate the extent of disposal-related impacts,
although there was no indication of significant differences in
the species composition at this site relative to those at
hard-bottom sites further from the disposal area. Therefore,
there was no evidence that any increases in sediment deposition
rates or elevated suspended sediment concentrations had caused
discernible changes to the epifaunal community.
The magnitude of impacts on epifaunal organisms would depend
on the rates of deposition and removal of sediment compared to
the ability of epifaunal organisms to withstand periodic burial.
For example, the frequency of bottom shear stresses necessary to
resuspend and transport sediments deposited on scattered
hard-bottom features may be sufficient to remove small amounts of
accumulated materials, but additional materials may exceed the
tolerances of organisms to burial. Impacts to epifaunal
communities potentially could be significant (Class II), but
could be mitigated by limiting the dumping area to sand-bottom
areas located several kilometers or more from hard-bottom
features. It is important to note that sessile invertebrates did
colonize the disposal mound and have survived under the post-
disposal conditions (see Appendix F).
In addition to the larger epifaunal organisms, a substantial
macroinfaunal community that far outnumbers the larger epifaunal
components in terms of species and individuals is found in the
layer of unconsolidated sediments that is usually found overlying
the hard-bottom habitat MML (1988). If dredged material disposal
had resulted in accumulation of fine sediments on both the soft-
and hard-bottom areas in the vicinity of Site 4, the infaunal
constituents of those sediments would be highly similar. In
-------
147
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 109
fact, MML found no indication of similarity between the infauna
associated with the two types of habitat, and concluded that
there were no discernible impacts due to dredged material
disposal (MML, 1988).
The effects of dredged material disposal on nekton were not
evaluated during the Site 4 monitoring program. However, results
from studies in other areas have indicated that nekton, because
of their high mobility, are not adversely affected by dredged
material disposal (e.g., Wright, 1978). Localized burial of
infauna may decrease the abundance of fish prey items, causing
temporary declines in finfish abundances and diversity. Some
inhibitory effects on fish gills or feeding structures also may
occur, but these are usually minor (Wright, 1978).
4.3.2.5 Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific impnrtance. and other lerHt-iinal-g urcb of the
ocean (40 CFR 228.6 ra1f81)
The designation of an ocean dump site for dredged material
will have small effects on the socioeconomic environment
regardless of the site selected for designation. The beneficial
impacts on shipping from the dredging activities that necessitate
an ocean dump site generally overcompensate for the adverse
impacts on commercial fishing and recreational use of the marine
environment. This section presents the implications of dumping
at Site 4 and possible interferences with uses of the ocean.
Commercial Shipping. Commercial shipping would be the primary
benefactor of site designation. In addition, no adverse effects
on shipping would occur as Site 4 is outside of the Tampa Bay
shipping fairway, and transit lanes for barged material through
Tampa Bay and to the site are designed to minimize interference
with commercial and recreational traffic. There is a risk of
collision when any vessel is underway; however, the probability
-------
148
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 110
is negligible, because of the relatively few transits by disposal
vessels.
Oil And Gas Exploration and Development. There are no oil and
gas development activities in Tampa Bay. Site 4 is approximately
50 nmi from the nearest oil or gas lease area lease area.
Physical separation of dredged material disposal from any
existing or proposed oil or gas development activities precludes
significant impacts.
Commercial Fishing. In general, the value or productivity of
the commercial fisheries will not be affected by the use of
either alternative ocean site. Essentially all of the
shellfishery is in the Bay or nearshore coastal waters, and the
offshore finfishery focuses on reef areas, which are not found in
Site 4. Thus, physical separation of the site from major
commercial fishing activity will minimize impacts.
Recreational Use. The major recreational use of marine waters
in the Tampa Bay area is in the Bay and nearshore coastal area.
Except for major trips in pleasure boats and sportfishing,
relatively little activity occurs more than 1 or 2 nmi offshore
of Egmont Key.
Little recreational use occurs near Sites 4 and 5A. Although
pleasure boating may occur in the area, it is not a major
activity except for boats passing through to other ports. EPA
(1983) reported that Site 4 was used infrequently by divers and
fishermen.
Other Activities. Desalinization, fish and shellfish culture,
and mineral extraction activities do not occur at Site 4.
4.3.2.6 The existing water quality and ecology of the site, as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or baseline
surveys f40 CFR 228.6 fair91)
Site-specific information concerning the water quality and
ecology at alternative ocean Sites 4 and 5A is presented in
Sections 3.2 and 3.3. The effects from previous dredged material
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 111
disposal operations at Site 4 are discussed in Section 4.3.4.
4.3.2.7 Potential for the Development or Recruitment Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site f40 CFR 228.6 fair 1011
During the Site 4 monitoring program, there was no indication
that dredged material disposal caused long-term changes in water
or sediment quality that would promote the recruitment or
colonization of the site by nuisance species. No effects were
detected from dredged material disposed on the infaunal species
composition (CSA, 1987; MML, 1988). The presence of bacteria or
pathogens in the bottom sediments or fish and macroinvertebrate
organisms was not measured during the monitoring survey.
Localized releases of nutrients at the disposal site may
stimulate phytoplankton productivity in a small area for a short
time (Windom, 1975); resulting in algal blooms and/or a shift in
dominant algal species (CE, 1978). The specific role of dredged
material for introducing nuisance species has not been studied
extensively.
4.3.2.8 Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of Any
Significant Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance
t40 CFR 228.6 Tairlin
The absence of major historical or natural features in the
area of the candidate dumpsite precludes significant impacts
associated with dredged material disposal at this site.
4.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Potential unavoidable adverse impacts from dredged material
disposal at Site 4 include (1) formation of temporary, localized
turbidity plumes, (2) temporary reduction of benthos at the site
due to burial and smothering of non-motile ir.fauna and/or
-------
150
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 112
epifauna, and (3) possible alterations in sediment texture or
chemical composition. Plumes of suspended sediment associated
with sinking dredged materials result in increases in turbidity
levels, suspended particulate concentrations, and decreased light
transmittance. With the possible exception of alterations in
sediment texture and chemical composition, these effects are
short-term and are dissipated by natural dispersion, mixing, and
eventual sinking of particles.
Deposition of dredged materials will bury and smother
localized populations of benthic organisms, reducing abundances
and diversity of the benthic communities in the immediate area of
dumping. The magnitude of this impact will depend on the spatial
extent of the affected area, volume of dredged material released,
rates of natural dispersion, and specific tolerances of affected
species to periodic burial. The recovery of impacted areas will
reflect the ability of buried organisms to burrow through the
sediment layer and the ability of adjacent populations to
recolonize the area. Burial of epifaunal organisms could cause
more severe impacts if the exposure exceeded the tolerances of
individual species for periodic burial.
Finally, grain size characteristics between the dredged
materials and the existing site sediments could exacerbate
impacts to the benthic fauna. Alterations in the bottom sediment
texture could affect the survival of existing species or
recruitment of new species. Because sediments should have passed
bioassay tests, appreciable increases in concentrations of
sediment-associated contaminants and accumulation of these
materials by exposed organisms are not expected.
4.3.4 Cumulative Impafffn
The effects of the disposal of dredged materials at Site 4
have been monitored by CSA (1986a,b,c, 1987). Cumulative impacts
-------
151
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 113
may be assessed based on those data and on the results of the
sediment mapping performed by CAIS (1988). The significance of
any impacts from dredged material disposal will be determined by
the frequency of disposal, the volume of the disposed materials,
and the duration of the disposal operations.
The dredged material dumped at the-site was non-toxic and
contained very low concentrations of trace metals and
hydrocarbons. No cumulative impacts on the chemical environment
were observed by CSA (1987) at Site 4. CAIS (1988) found high
levels of bismuth-214 and iron in sediments sampled along
transects through the site and beyond the boundaries of the site.
Adverse impacts to plankton, epifauna, and infauna from
increased turbidity, changes in the chemical or physical
characteristics of the habitat, or smothering of organisms by
burial would be temporary (Hirsch et al., 1978). The impacts.of
dredged materials on plankton at Site 4 were not evaluated during
the recent monitoring study (CSA, 1987). Nevertheless, the
effects of the disposal of dredged materials would have been
difficult to assess because of the natural high variability in
plankton populations (Sullivan and Hancock, 1977). Nekton would
not be adversely impacted by the disposal of dredged materials
because of the high mobility of the nekton (Wright, 1978). A
change in the fauna would be expected if the site is used
regularly for dredged material disposal (L. Saunders,
Jacksonville District CE, personal communication, May 6, 1987).
The recent studies at Site 4 did not detect any clear
relationships between the presence of dredged material
constituents and measured changes in the infaunal community (CSA<
1987; MML, 1988). In addition, there was no clear evidence that
any increases in suspended sediment concentrations or in the
sediment deposition rates had resulted in detectable changes in
the epifaunal communities (CSA, 1987).
Mounding may create a reef-like system. Amberjack, a species
of fish not typically found in the open waters, were observed
-------
152
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 114
inhabiting mounds of dredged material at Site 4, behaving as if
the mounds were typical reefs. This species is normally found
inhabiting shipwrecks and other submerged structures. It is not
known how long these mounds will persist at the site. However,
the shifting of sediments is a naturally occurring phenomenon in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico (L. Saunders, Jacksonville District
CE, personal communication, May 6, 1987).
During monitoring activities conducted by an EPA contractor,
during and after the disposal operations, it was evident that
assemblages of various sessile animals, such as sponges and
ascidians, were beginning to colonize some areas of the mound
where larger consolidated clay boulders were present. In 1988,
EPA divers conducted cursory video recordings which revealed that
armoring of the clay boulders was still evident in some areas but
that boring by macroinvertebrates was causing fragmentation of
the consolidated clay.
In October, 1991, EPA divers revisited the mound to visually
assess the extent of fragmentation of the consolidated clay
boulders and observe the status of sessile invertebrate
colonization (see Appendix F). In summary, the survey revealed
that both the rubble and boulder material consisted primarily of
rock with porosity varying from limestone to solid rock. Larger
boulders were encrusted by calcareous algae, sponges, ascidians,
and tube coral (Cladocora sp.). In many cases, the entire
surface of the rocks was near 100% colonized by these varying
assemblages of biota. Fish were abundant and included butterfly
fish, wrasse, damselfish, angelfish, highhats, grunts, snapper,
jacks, grouper, needlefish and barracuda, with grouper being the
most abundant sport/commercial fish observed (Appendix F).
-------
153
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 115
4.3.5 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and
Long-Term Impacts
Tampa Bay is an important area for commercial shipping and
fishing. The economy of the region surrounding the Bay relies
heavily upon the continued use of the harbor for these activities
(EPA, 1983). Ongoing dredging to maintain navigable depths in
the shipping channels of Tampa Bay is essential for the continued
economic health of the region.
Long-term impacts of dredged materials at a disposal site may
be minimized by locating the site in an area with few hard-bottom
areas and with sediment composition similar to that of the
dredged materials (EPA, 1983). However, several temporary
impacts may be seen as a result of the disposal of dredged
material at Site 4. Temporary impacts may include an increase in
turbidity of the water column, temporary loss of species, and
disruption of the community.
There may be an increase in the turbidity of the water column
during and after disposal activities. This increase would result
in a decrease in the amount of light transmitted through the
water column, a decrease in photosynthetic activity, and,
consequently, a decrease in the primary productivity of the area
(CE, 1978). Increased turbidity may prevent adequate light
penetration, thereby inhibiting the growth of seagrasses and
other plants. This would result in a loss of spawning areas and
protective covering for fish and invertebrates (US EPA, 1983).
Nutrient levels may also increase. Phytoplankton moves with
the water mass and will have maximum opportunity to react with
the excessive nutrients in the suspended dredge materials. This
could be significant because algal blooms could develop or a
shift in algal species dominance might occur (CE, 1978).
If the disposed sediments are dissimilar to the naturally
occurring sediments of the disposal site, the habitat could
dramatically change at the site (CE, 1978).--This change in
-------
154
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 116
habitat could lead to the selection of a different community
structure (i.e., different species, different relative
abundances). In studies conducted by the U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service on hopper disposal in San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays, disposal operations were found to
significantly decrease the abundances and numbers of species in
the benthic environment, including demersal fish. Even though
some species were reestablished in the area within a few months,
the species diversity index did not return to pre-dumping levels
during the study (CE, 1972). Conversely, community recovery
rates may be faster if the dredged materials are similar in
grain-size composition to the original sediments of the site (CE,
1978) .
The development of mounds of disposed materials could result
in several significant changes to the environment at the site,
including a change in bathymetry, localized burial of infauna and
epifauna, and the development of anoxic conditions. Localized
burial of epifauna and infauna may decrease the abundance of fish
prey, causing a decrease in the finfish abundances and diversity
at the disposal site.
4.3.6 Irreversible or Irretrievable Pnimnitment of Resources
Use of an offshore site for disposal of dredged materials from
Tampa Harbor may result in the following irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of certain resources:
o Permanent loss of suitable dredged materials for use
as landfill or beach nourishment material (US EPA,
1983).
o Fuel, labor, and equipment rental expenses will be
incurred during transport of the dredged material to
and from the disposal site. The total of these
expenses will increase as the distance to the
disposal site increases (US EPA, 1983).
-------
155
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 117
o The chemical characteristics of the bottom sediments
at the site may be changed (US EPA, 1983).
o Loss of existing habitat to certain species (US EPA,
1983) .
o Temporary loss of organisms at the site due to
smothering by the dredged material as well as loss
of habitat (US EPA, 1983).
4.3.7 Mitigation Measures
Adverse impacts from dumping at Site 4 (identified in the
previous sections) are considered insignificant, except potential
effects to exposed hard-bottom biota from accumulation on the
bottom of dredged materials (US EPA, 1983). The results from the
Site 4 monitoring study could not demonstrate unequivocally a
relation between disposal of dredged material and a reduction in
percent coverage by hard-bottom biota, although some effect was
inferred (CSA, 1987). Furthermore, CSA (1987) predicted that any
additional accumulation of dredged materials on hard-bottom
substrata could exceed the tolerances of epifaunal organisms to
periodical burial. Thus, the balance between sediment
accumulation rates and the tolerances of epifaunal organisms to
burial may be critical to the extent of adverse effects seen at
and near Site 4. Consequently, an important mitigation measure
is to avoid hard-bottom areas. This is of particular importance
considering the findings of EPA's recent video survey of disposal
mound (Appendix F). While habitat creation was not the purpose
of disposal, the communities that now exist should be protected
to the extent possible.
Results from monitoring efforts could potentially be used to
define the maximum discharge rate of dredged materials that would
not result in excessive mortality due to burial and/or
smothering. Alternatively, disposal operations could be
restricted to those months when bottom current velocities are
-------
156
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 118
strongest (i.e., fall and winter; CSA, 1987) and the frequency of
significant sediment transport events are highest relative to
those encountered during other seasons. In this case, dredged
material dispersion would be maximized and accumulation of
sediments on hard substrata would be discouraged. Finally,
periodic bioassay and bioaccuinulation testing of dredged
materials would ensure that dredged materials remain non-toxic to
marine organisms, or would facilitate identification of potential
environmental problems and subsequent planning for further
mitigating measures.
Specific responsibilities and the framework for management/
monitoring plans for ODMDSs in the southeast under the
jurisdiction of EPA/Region IV, are established in a regional
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA/Region IV and the
CE/South Atlantic Division. This MOU has led toward the
development of a site-specific management/monitoring plan for the
Tampa ODMDS (see Appendix C). Such site-specific management may
include strategically locating and/or orienting dredged material
within the site boundaries relative to predominant current
patterns. Monitoring should involve sediment mapping of disposed
material to determine any movement of material off of the site.
Determination of the significance of any biological impacts of
dredged material outside ODMDS boundaries would then be
appropriate. The existence, magnitude, and implementation of a
site plan is dependent upon available funding and coordination
between EPA and the CE.
4.4 DISCUSSION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Interim designation of Site 4 expired in November 1985. The
no-action alternative would refrain from designating an EPA-
designated ocean site for the disposal of dredged material from
Tampa Bay. By taking no action, the present ocean Site 4 would
-------
157
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE ETR
Page 119
not. receive final designation, nor would an alternative ocean
disposal site be designated. However, based on the information
presented in this EIS, ocean disposal of dredged material from
Tampa Bay is a feasible alternative.
Site 4 received periodic use between May 1984 and November
1985. It is located 18 nmi from Egmont Key and has an average
depth of 22 m. The site is characterized by the presence of fine
sands and silts.
The 11 specific site selection criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
discussed in the previous sections and outlined in Table 4-1
demonstrate the possibility of designating Site 4 on the
following basis:
o The bottom topography of Site 4 is characterized by
sand with few hard-bottom areas.
o Site 4 is removed from beaches and other
recreational areas. It is also unlikely that
migration and spawning locations are restricted
geographically to Site 4.
o Monitoring at Site 4 has not demonstrated any
adverse changes to the biological communities
occupying the area. Effects of further dredged
material disposal is expected to be the same.
-------
158
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 120
TU08 4-1. SOMH&BX TtBU OF EBV1MUWIKHXU. COHSEQOKIICKS.
Criteria as listed at 40 CFR 228.6
1. Geographical position; depth of water;
bottom topography; distance from aoast.
2. location in relation to breeding, ¦pawning,
nursery, feeding, or passage of living
resources in adalt or juvenile phases.
3. Location in relation to beaches and other
amenity areas.
4. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to
be disposed of, and proposed methods of
release, including methods of packing the
waste, if any.
5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and
vertical mixing characteristics of the area,
including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if any.
7. Existence and effects of current and
previous discharges and dumping in the
area (including cumulative effects).
8. Interference with shipping, fishing,
recreation, mineral extraction, desalination
fish and shellfish culture, area of special
scientific importance, and other legitimate
uses of the ocean.
9. The existing water quality and ecology of
the site as determined by available data and
by baseline surveys.
10. Potential for the development or recruitment
of nuisance species in the disposal site.
11. Existence at or in close proximity to the
site of any significant natural or cultural
features of historical importance.
Site 4
Depth 20-23 a; rolling sand/shell bottom,
very limited hardbottom outcroppings; no
major topographical relief} 18 nmi to
Bgmont Xey. See Figure 2-2.
Rot within areas designated as general
habitat boundaries for designated fish
species; migration, feeding, nesting,
overwintering of birds, mammals, reptiles
and endangered species occur closer to
shore; any Impacts would be insignificant.
Approximately 20 nmi to beaches of the
ooastal barrier islands; occasional recre-
ational diving, sport or oosmnrcial
fishing.
3.44 million yd3 of dredged material from
the Tampa Harbor Deepening Project already
deposited at this site. - • Future operation
and maintenance dredging .estimated at
276,000 yd of predominantly sand material
and 82,000 yd3 of predominantly silt
mntnrlnl per year.
Site readily accessible for monitoring
because of close proximity to shore and
shallow water; Appendix C is the 6HHP.
Less than 3% of discharged mass will become
entrained in a plume; sand-sized sediments
will settle to the bottom within 275 m of
discharge point; transport primarily in S
to SB direction; most transport due to
surface wave-induced turbulence during
storms.
Short-term Increases in turbidity, phyto-
plankton productivity, and nutrients
(ammonium, and orthophosphates); negligible
release of trace metals and chlorinated or
petroleum hydrocarbons from sediments;
increase in percent clay and fines; sounding;
effects on epifauna diminished with time.
Bo interference with oil and gas exploration
(nearest oil/gas lease Is'50 nmi seaward),
recreation, fishing; no desalination or fish
end shellfish culturijig occurring at the site.
Low in nutrients, suspended solids, and
anthropogenic contaminants; plankton and
nekton ooonunities consist of subtropical
tropical species; benthos primarily consists
of polychaete worms and Crustacea.
Populations of nuisance species have not been
developed or been recruited; animals present
prior to 1980 disposal activity are similar
to those presently found In and around thesite.
Hone known to exist.
-------
160
-------
161
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN. DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 121
CHAPTER 5.0 COORDINATION
Preparation of this EIS was a joint effort involving
scientific and technical staff from several organizations. This
chapter briefly presents the qualifications and contributions of
each primary author, listed here alphabetically.
DIANA BAtmwaT.T.
Ms. Baumwall holds a B.A. in Political Science from
Pennsylvania State University. She is employed by Scientific
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in McClean,
Virginia.
Ms. Baumwall wrote Section 3.4 of Chapter 3.
REA BOQTHBY
Mr. Boothby holds a M.S. in Fisheries from Louisiana State
University. He is the EIS Coordinator for the Environmental
Branch of Planning Division with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in Jacksonville, Florida.
Mr. Boothby coordinated the EIS for the District.
GARY COLLINS
Mr. Collins holds a B.S. degree in Biology from the College of
Charleston and a M.S. in Bio-Environmental Oceanography from
Florida Institute of Technology. He is an Environmental
Scientist with EPA Region IV in Atlanta, Georgia.
Mr. Collins replaced Mr. Hoberg as EPA reviewer and
coordinator for the EIS in July, 1991. He was also responsible
for drafting the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP).
J UUl'X'ri .1?
Ms. Gale holds a B.A. degree in Social Sciences from Chatham
College and a M.F.S. in Natural Resources Management from Yale
-------
162
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 122
University. She is a Research Scientist with Battelle Ocean
Sciences in Duxbury, Massachusetts.
Ms. Gale was instrumental in the early development of this
EIS. She wrote sections of Chapter 1 and provided editorial and
technical review of Chapter 3.
CHRISTIAN HOBERG
Mr. Hoberg holds a B.S. in Biology from the University of
Miami (Florida) and an M.S. in Marine Science from the University
of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. He
i6 an Environmental Scientist with EPA Region IV in Atlanta,
Georgia.
Mr. Hoberg was an EPA reviewer and coordinator for the EIS
from March 1989 until July 1991.
CARLTON HUNT
Dr. Hunt holds a B.A. in Chemistry from Doane College, an M.S.
in Chemical Oceanography from the University of Connecticut, and
a Ph.D in Chemical/Geological Oceanography from the University of
Connecticut.
Dr. Hunt wrote Section 3.1.4 of Chapter 3.
WnWKPT ITRT.T.TTV
Dr. Kelley holds a B.S. in Biology from Hobart College and a
Ph.D. in Zoology/Ecology from the University of North Carolina.
He is a Senior Project Manager with Scientific Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) in McClean, Virginia.
Dr. Kelley wrote Section 3.4 of Chapter 3.
MICHAEL KRAVTTZ
Mr. Kravitz holds a B.S. in Biology from State University of
New York at Stony Brook and an M.A. in Marine Science from The
College of William and Mary. He is a Researcher with Battelle
Ocean Sciences in Duxbury, Massachusetts.
-------
163
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 123
Mr. Kravitz wrote Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of Chapter 2, and
section 3.3 of Chapter 3.
NANCY MACIOLEK
Dr. Maciolek holds a B.A. in Biology from Boston University,
an M.A. in Zoology from University of Texas at Austin, and a
Ph.D. in Biology from Boston University. She is a Senior
Research Scientist with Battelle Ocean Sciences in Duxbury,
Massachusetts.
Dr. Maciolek was the technical reviewer of the entire EIS.
TIM MURPHY
Mr. Murphy holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Auburn
University. He is a study manager in Navigation Section of
Planning Division with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
Jacksonville, Florida.
Mr. Murphy prepard the Disposal Area Study (Appendix E).
nram.wfi PHILLIPS
Mr. Phillips holds a B.A. degree in Biological Sciences from
University of California, Santa Barbara and an M.A. degree in
Marine Biology from San Francisco State University. He is an
Oceanographer with Scientific Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) in La Jolla, California.
Mr. Phillips wrote Section 2.2 of Chapter 2, Sections 3.1 and
3.2 of Chapter 3, and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of Chapter 4. He
assisted in the preparation of sections of Chapter 4 for which
others had primary responsibility.
REGINALD ROGERS
Mr. Rogers holds a B.S. in Fisheries Biology from Auburn
University and an M.S. in Marine Biology from the University of
Hawaii. He was an Ecologist with the U.S. EPA Region IV in
Atlanta, Georgia, since retired.
-------
164
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 124
Mr. Rogers was the principal EPA coordinator for the EIS prior
to 1989.
LLOYD SAUNDERS
Dr. Saunders holdB a Ph.D. in Biology from University of
Waterloo (Ontario). He was the Chief Administrator of the
Environmental Resources Branch with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in Jacksonville, Florida.
Dr. Saunders wrote Appendix A. He is now in Project
Management, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, DC.
TRACY STENNER
Ms. Stenner, the EIS coordinator and principal author, holds a
B.S. degree in Biology from Emory University and an M.S. degree
in Marine Ecology from Northeastern University. She is a
Research Scientist with Battelle Ocean Sciences in Duxbury,
Massachusetts.
Ms. Stenner coordinated and assisted in the preparation of
Chapters 1, 2, Section 3.3, Sections 4.1 and 4.5 of Chapter 4,
and Appendix A. She also wrote the executive summary.
HEATHER TRULLI
Ms. Trulli holds a B.A. in Biological Sciences from Hope
College. She is a Researcher with Battelle Ocean Sciences in
Duxbury, Massachusetts.
Ms. Trulli wrote Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of Chapter 4, Chapters
5, 6, and 7, and Appendix B.
-------
166
-------
169
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE BIS
Page 125
CHAPTER 6.0 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
6 ¦ 1 GLOSSARY
ALCYONARIAN
ABUNDANCE
ADSORB
ALKALINITY
AMBIENT
Any anthozoan of the class Alcyonaria,
which includes the precious corals, sea
fans, and sea feathers.
The number of individuals of a species
inhabiting a given area. Normally, a
community of several component species
will inhabit an area. Measuring the
abundance of each species is one way of
estimating the comparative importance of
each component species.
To adhere in an extremely thin layer of
molecules to the surface of a solid or
liquid.
The number of milliequivalents of hydrogen
ions neutralized by one liter of seawater
at 20°C. Alkalinity of water is often
taken as an indicator of its carbonate,
bicarbonate, and hydroxide content.
Pertaining to the undisturbed or
unaffected conditions of an environment.
AMPHIPODA
ANNUAL
ANTHROPOGENIC
An order (primarily marine) of the class
Crustacea with laterally compressed
bodies, which generally appear similar to
shrimp. The order consists primarily of
three groups: hyperiideans, which inhabit
open ocean areas; gammarideans, which are
primarily bottom dwellers; and
caprellideans, which are common fouling
organisms.
Performed every year.
Relating to the effects or impacts of man
on nature. Construction wastes, garbage,
and sewage sludge are examples of
anthropogenic materials
-------
170
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 126
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE MARINE
ORGANISM
ASCIDIAN
Pertaining to bioassay samples 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 roost sensitive species
documented in the scientific literature or
accepted by EPA as being reliable test
organisms to determine the anticipated
impact of the wastes on the ecosystem at
the disposal site" (40 CFR Part 227.27).
A sessile tunicate, or sea squirt, of the
class Ascidiacea.
ASSEMBLAGE
A group of organisms sharing a common
habitat.
BACKGROUND
LEVEL
The naturally occurring concentration of a
substancewithin an environment that has
not been affected by unnatural additions
of that substance.
BASELINE
CONDITION
The characteristics of an environment
before the onset of an action that can
alter that environment.
BASELINE SURVEY
AND BASELINE
DATA
Survey conducted and/or data collected
prior to the initiation of actions that
may alter an existing environment; any
data serving as a basis for measurement of
other data.
BATHYMETRY
The measurement of the depths and contours
of the bottoms of oceans, seas, or lakes.
Submerged mountain ranges, unusually deep
areas, shoals, etc., may be of particular
interest.
BENTHOS
BIOACCUMULATION
All marine organisms (plant or animal)
living on or in the bottom of the ocean.
The uptake and assimilation of materials
(e.g., heavy metals) leading to elevated
concentrations of the substances within
tissue, blood, or body fluid of a living
organism.
BIOASSAY
A method for determining the toxicity of a
substance by observing the effects of
varying concentrations on growth or
-------
171
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 127
BIOLOGICAL
BIOMASS
BIOGENIC
BIOTA
BIOTIC GROUPS
BLOOM
BOD
BOREAL
BRYOZOAN
survival of suitable plants, animals, or
microorganisms; the concentration that is
lethal to 50% of the test organisms or
causes a defined effect in 50% of the test
organisms, often expressed in terms of
lethal concentration (LC50) or effective
concentration (EC50), respectively.
Relating to living organisms and life
processes.
The total mass of organic material of a
species per unit of area or volume, such
as 100 grams of fish per square meter of
ocean surface. This term is used to
express population density.
Produced by living organisms.
Animals and plants inhabiting a given
region.
Assemblages of organisms that are
ecologically, structurally, or
taxonomically similar.
A relatively high concentration of
phytoplankton in a body of water resulting
from rapid proliferation during favorable
growing conditions generated by
availability of nutrient and sunlight.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand or Biological
Oxygen Demand; the amount of dissolved
oxygen required by aerobic microorganisms
to degrade organic matter in a sample of
water usually held in the dark at 20°C for
5 days; used to assess the potential rate
of substrate degradation and oxygen
utilization in aquatic ecosystems.
Pertaining to the northern geographic
regions.
An invertebrate of the phylum Bryozoa,
which includes organisms commonly called
moss animals.
CARNIVORE
A flesh-eating animal.
-------
172
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 128
CEPHALOPOD
CETACEAN
CHAETOGNATHA
CHEMICAL
CHLORINITY
Exclusively marine animals constituting
the most highly evolved class of the
phylum Mollusca (e.g., squid, octopus, and
Nautilus).
Marine mammal, of the ojrder Cetacea,
including whales, porpoises, and dolphins.
A phylum of small planktonic, transparent,
worm-like invertebrates known as
arrow-worms.
Relating to the scientific study of the
composition, structure, properties, and
reactions of a substance or a system of
substances.
The quantity of chlorine equivalent to the
quantity of halogens contained in 1 kg of
seawater; may be used to determine
seawater salinity and density.
CHLOROPHYLL a
CHLOROPHYLL
CNIDARIA
COLIFORM
CONTINENTAL RISE
A specific photosynthetic pigment
characteristic of higher plants and algae;
frequently used as a measure of
phytoplankton biomass.
A group of oil-soluble, green plant
pigments that function as photoreceptors
of light energy for photosynthesis and
primary productivity.
A large diverse phylum of primarily marine
animals; its member possess two cell
layers and an incomplete digestive system,
with the opening usually surrounded by
tentacles. This group includes hydroids,
jellyfish, corals, and anemones. Formally
called Coelenterata.
Bacteria residing in the colons of
mammals; generally used as indicators of
fecal pollution.
The gentle slope with a generally smooth
surface between the continental slope and
the deep ocean floor, extending from
depths of 2000 to 3500 m and with an
average slope of l-10m/km.
-------
173
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 129
CONTINENTAL SHELF
CONTINENTAL SLOPE
CONTOUR LINE
CONTROL
CONTROLLING DEPTH
COPEPODA
CRUSTACEA
CURRENT DROGUE
CURRENT METER
That part of the continental margin
extending from the low water line to a
depth of 200 m, where 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. The continental slope
generally extends from 200 m to 2000 m,
with an average slope of 70 m/km, or 4
degrees.
A line on a chart connecting points of
equal elevation above or below a reference
plane, usually mean sea level.
In experimental work, a standard against
which observations and results can be
checked in order to determine their
validity.
The shallowest depth in the approach or
channel to an area, such as a port,
governing the maximal draft of vessels
which can enter.
A large diverse order of small planktonic
crustaceans representing an important link
in oceanic food chains.
A class of arthropods consisting of
animals with jointed appendages and
segmented exoskeletons composed of chitin.
This class includes barnacles, crabs,
shrimps, and lobsters.
A current-measuring assembly consisting of
an attached surface buoy, an underwater
sail or parachute, and a weighted current
cross. As the assembly moves with a
current, it is tracked electronically at
specific time intervals, enabling the
determination of an average current
velocity and direction.
An instrument for measuring the speed of a
current and, often, the direction of flow.
-------
174
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 130
DECAPODA
DEMERSAL
DENSITY
DETRITIVORE
DETRITUS
DIATOM
DIFFUSION
DINOFLAGELLATE
DISCHARGE PLUME
DISPERSION
The largest order of crustaceans; members
have five sets of locomotor appendages,
each joined to a segment of the thorax.
This order includes crabs, lobsters, and
shrimps.
Living at or near the bottom of the sea.
The mass per unit volume of a substance,
usually expressed in grams per cubic
centimeter (g water in reference to a
volume of 1 cc at 4°C). This term is
interchangeable with the term "abundance."
An animal that feeds on detritus; also
called deposit-feeder.
The product of decomposition or
disintegration; dead organisms and fecal
material.
Microscopic phytoplankton characterized by
a cell wall of overlapping silica plates.
Sediment and water column populations vary
widely in response to changes in
environmental conditions.
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 lower
concentration.
A large diverse group of flagellated
phytoplankton with or without a rigid
outer shell, some of which feed on
particulate matter. Some members of this
group are responsible for toxic red tides.
The region of water affected by a
discharge of waste and distinguishable
from the surrounding water.
The dissemination of discharged matter
over large areas by natural processes such
as currents.
DISSOLVE
To pass or cause to pass into solution.
-------
175
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 131
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DIVERSITY
(SPECIES)
The quantity of oxygen (expressed in
mg/liter, ml/liter, or parts per million)
in solution in a unit volume of water.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a key parameter
in the assessment of water quality.
A statistical measurement that combines
the measure of the total number of species
in a given environment and the number of
individuals of each species. Species
diversity is high when it is difficult to
predict the species or the importance of a
randomly chosen individual organism, and
low when an accurate prediction can be
made.
DOMINANT SPECIES
DREDGE
EBB CURRENT,
EBB TIDE
A species or group of species thatbecause
of their abundance, size, or control of
the energy flow, strongly affect a
community.
To clean, deepen, or widen with a machine
that removes sand or mud, especially from
the bottom of a body of water.
Tidal current moving away from land or
down a tidal stream.
EC
50
ECHINODERM
ECOLOGY
ECONOMIC
RESOURCE ZONE
The concentration that results in a mean
50 percent reduction in the test parameter
- i.e., 50 percent reduction growth or
fecundity, etc.
An exclusively marine animal of the phylum
Echinodermata, whose members are
distinguished by radial symmetry, internal
skeletons of calcareous plates, and
water-vascular systems that serve the
needs of locomotion, respiration,
nutrition, or perception. The phylum
Echinodermata includes starfishes, sea
urchins, sea cucumbers, and sand dollars.
The study of the interrelationships
between organisms and their environment.
The largely unexplored region of the ocean
that extends 200 nmi seaward from the
coast and brings within the national
jurisdiction over 3 million nmi2 of
-------
176
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 132
ECOSYSTEM
EDDY
ENDANGERED SPECIES
ENDEMIC
ENTRAIN
EPIBIONT
EPIFAONA
EPIPELAGIC
EPIPHYTE
ESTDARY
submarine land. This zone contains
valuable natural resources found in the
water, on the seabed, and below the
seabed.
The organisms in a community together with
their physical and chemical environments.
A circular mass of water within a larger
water mass; an eddy is usually formed
where currents pass obstructions, either
between two adjacent currents flowing
counter to each other, or along the edge
of a permanent current. An eddy has a
certain integrity and life history,
circulating and drawing energy from a flow
of larger scale.
A species threatened with extinction.
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or
region.
To draw in and transport by the flow of a
fluid.
An organism living on the surface of
another organism.
Benthic animals living on the surface of
the bottom materials.
Associated with that portion of the
oceanic zone into which enough light
penetrates to allow photosynthesis;
generally extends from the surface to
about 200 m.
A plant that grows upon another plant but
is not parasitic.
A semienclosed coastal body of water that
has a free connection to the sea, commonly
the lower end of a river, and within which
the mixing of saline and fresh water
occurs.
FAUNA
The animal life of any location, region,
or period.
-------
177
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 133
FINFISH
The term used to distinguish "normal" fish
(e.g., with fins and capable of swimming)
from shellfish, usually in reference to
the commercially important species.
FLOCCULATION
The process of aggregating a number of
small, suspended particles into larger
masses.
FLOOD TIDE,
FLOOD CURRENT
FLORA
FORAMINIFERAL
TEST
GASTROPOD
GENUS/GENERA
GEOLOGICAL
GORGONIAN
OCTOCORAL
GYRE
HERBIVORE
HETEROGENEOUS
HOPPER DREDGE
Tidal current moving toward land, or up a
tidal stream.
The plant life of any location, region, or
period.
A calcareous shell from any member of the
protozoan order Foraminifera, usually
perforated by small openings.
A mollusc with a distinct head (generally
with eyes and tentacles), a broad, flat
foot, and usually a spiral shell (e.g.,
snails).
A subdivision of a family that includes
one or more closely related species.
Dealing with the structure of a particular
area of the earth's surface.
A coral of the order Gorgonacea
characterize by the possession of a
skeleton containing horn-like material
(gorgonin). This group includes sea
whips, sea feathers, and sea fans.
A closed circulation system, usually
larger than an eddy.
An animal that feeds chiefly on plants.
Consisting of dissimilar parts, elements,
or ingredients; not uniform.
A self-propelled vessel with capabilities
to dredge, store, transport, and dispose
of dredged materials.
-------
178
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 134
HYDROGRAPHY
ICHTHYOPLANKTON
INDICATOR SPECIES
INDIGENOUS
INFAUNA
INITIAL MIXING
INJUNCTION
IN SITU
INTERIM DISPOSAL
SITE
INVERTEBRATE
ISOBATH
ISOTHERM
JURISDICTION
KARST
The science that deals with the
measurement of the physical features of
waters and their marginal land areas.
That portion of the plankton composed of
fish eggs and weakly motile fish larvae.
An organism so strictly associated with
particular environmental conditions that
its presence indicates the existence of
such conditions.
Having originated in, being produced,
growing, or living naturally in a
particular region or environment; native.
Aquatic animals that live in the bottom
sediment.
Dispersion or diffusion of liquid,
suspended particulate, and solid phases of
a waste material that occurs within 4
hours after dumping.
A court order forbidding or calling for a
certain action.
[Latin] In the original or natural setting
(in the environment).
An ocean disposal site tentatively
approved by the US EPA for use.
An animal lacking a backbone or internal
skeleton.
A line on a chart connecting points of
equal depth below mean sea level.
A line on a chart connecting points having
the same temperature.
The right or power to interpret and apply.
A type of topography formed over
limestone, dolomite, or gypsum, caused by
dissolution, and characterized by closed
depressions or sinkholes, caves, and
underground drainage.
-------
179
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 135
KNOT
LARVAL/LARVA
^•so
LITTORAL
LIVE BOTTOM
LONGSHORE CURRENT
LORAN-C
MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
MAINTENANCE
DREDGING
MESOPELAGIC
METEOROLOGICAL
MICRONUTRIENT
MIXED LAYER
A unit of speed; one nautical mile per
hour, or approximately 1.15 statute mile
per hour.
A young and immature form of an organism
which must usually undergo one or more
form and size changes before assuming
characteristic features of the adult.
The concentration of a substance that is
lethal (deadly) to 50 percent (lethal
concentration of 50 percent) of the test
organisms.
Of or pertaining to the seashore,
especially the region between tide lines.
Areas covered by algae, sponges, corals,
and other biota.
A current flowing parallel to a coastline.
Long Range Navigation, type C; a
low-frequency radio navigation system
having a range with a radius of
approximately 1500 mi.
The designated shipping corridor leading
into a harbor.
Periodic dredging of a waterway, necessary
for the continued use of the waterway.
Pertaining to depths of 200 m to 1000 m
below the ocean surface.
Concerned with atmospheric phenomena.
Substance essential in minute amounts for
normal growth and development of an
organism.
The upper layer of the ocean that is well
mixed by wind and wave activity.
MOLLUSCA
A phylum of unsegmented animals most of
which possess a calcareous shell; includes
snails, mussels, clams, and oysters.
-------
180
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 136
MONITORING
MOTILE
NAUTICAL MILE
NEKTON
NEMERTEAN
NEMATODA
NERITIC
NEUSTON
NUISANCE SPECIES
OLIGOCHAETA
OMNIVOROUS
OPHIUROID
ORGANOHALOGEN
PESTICIDES
Observation of environmental effects of
disposal (or other) operations through
biological and chemical data collection
and analyses.
Capable of movement.
An international unit of distance equal to
1852 m or, approximately, 6076 ft.
Free-swimming aquatic animals that move
independently of water currents.
Any member of the phylum Rhynchocoela
(Nemertinea), which includes the proboscis
worms or ribbon worms.
A phylum of free-living and parasitic
unsegmented worms; found in a wide variety
of habitats.
Pertaining to the region of shallow water
adjoining the seacoast, and extending from
the low-tide mark to a depth of about 200
m.
Organisms associated with the air-to-Bea
interface to a depth of 20 cm; composed
mainly of copepods and ichthyoplankton.
Organisms of no commercial value, that,
because of predation or competition, may
be harmful to commercially important
organisms.
A small class of the phylum Annelida;
worm-like organisms characterized by
simple bodies without appendages.
Pertaining to animals that feed on animal
and plant matter.
An echinoderm of the class Ophiuroidea,
which includes brittle stars, basket
stars, and serpent stars.
Pesticides whose chemical constitution
includes the elements carbon and hydrogen,
plus a common element of the halogen
family: bromine, chlorine, fluorine, or
iodine.
-------
181
TRMPR. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 137
OSTRACOD
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
OXIDE
PARAMETER
PATHOGEN
PCB
PELAGIC
PERENNIAL
PERTURBATION
PH
PHI
A crustacean of the subclass Ostracoda
that possesses a bivalve carapace.
One of the salts of orthophosphoric acid,
an essential nutrient for plant growth.
A binary chemical compound in which oxygen
is combined with another element, metal,
nonmetal, gas, or radical.
Values or physical properties thatdescribe
the characteristics or behavior of a set
of variables.
An entity producing or capable of
producing disease.
Polychlorinated biphenyl; any of several
chlorinated compounds having various
industrial applications. PCBs are
pollutants that tend to accumulate and
persist in the environment.
Pertaining to water of the open ocean
beyond the continental shelf and above the
abyssal zone.
Lasting from year to year.
A disturbance of a natural or regular
system; any departure from an assumed
steady state of a system.
The acidity or alkalinity of a solution,
determined by the negative logarithm to
the base 10 of the hydrogen ion
concentration (in gram-atoms per liter),
ranging from 0 to 14 (lower than 7 is
acid, higher than 7 is alkaline).
A ratio scale used to measure grain size.
The phi scale is a logarithmic
transformation of the Wentworth scale.
Modern grain-size data are nearly always
stated in terms of phi.
PHOTIC ZONE
The layer of a body of water that receives
sufficient sunlight for photosynthesis.
-------
182
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 138
PHYLUM/PHYLA
PHYTOPLANKTON
A taxonomic grouping constituting the
largest division of the animal or plant
kingdoms.
Microscopic, passively floating plant life
in a body of water; the.base of the food
chain in the sea.
PLANKTON
PLEISTOCENE
The passively floating or weakly swimming,
usually minute, animal and plant life in a
body of water.
The first era of the Quartemary period
(geologic time) characterized by repeated
glaciation and the first indications of
social life in man.
PLUME
POLYCHAETA
PRECIPITATE
PRIMARY
PRODUCTIVITY
PROTOZOAN
QUALITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
RECONNAISSANCE
SURVEY
A patch of turbid water, caused by the
suspension of fine particles following a
disposal operation.
The largest class of the phylum Annelida
(segmented worms); benthic marine worms
distinguished by paired, lateral, fleshy
appendages provided with bristles (setae)
on most segments.
A solid that separates from a solution or
suspension by chemical or physical change.
The amount of organic matter synthesized
by organisms (primarily phytoplankton)
from inorganic substancesper unit time and
volume of water. Plant respiration may or
may not be subtracted (net or gross
productivity, respectively).
Mostly microscopic, single-celled animals
that constitute one of the largest
populations in the ocean. Protozoans play
a major role in recycling nutrients.
Pertaining to the non-numerical assessment
of a parameter.
Pertaining to the numerical measurement of
a parameter.
A survey to explore an area, especially to
obtain data.
-------
183
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 139
RECRUITMENT
RED TIDES
RELEASE ZONE
RUNOFF
SAFETY FAIRWAY
SALINITY
SANCTUARY
SATURATE
SESSILE
SHELF WATER
SHELLFISH
Addition to a population of organisms by
reproduction or immigration of new
individuals.
The recurrence of enormous numbers of
dinoflagellates, especially Gonvaulax and
Ptvchodiscus in waters off the coasts of
Florida and California, resulting in
reddish hue of waters by day and
luminescence by night.
An area defined by the locus of points at
a distance of 100 m from a vessel engaged
in damping activities; will never exceed
the total surface area of the dumpsite.
That portion of precipitation upon land
ultimately reaches streams, rivers, lakes,
and oceans.
A navigable lane or corridor of a river or
bay through which boats and ships enter or
depart and in which no artificial island
or fixed structure, whether temporary or
permanent, is permitted.
The amount of salts dissolved in water,
expressed in parts per thousand (°/oo, or
ppt).
A place giving refuge.
To soak or load to capacity.
Attached, sedentary, incapable of
movement.
Water that originates in, or can be traced
to, the continental shelf; differentiated
by characteristic temperature and
salinity.
Any invertebrate, usually of commercial
importance, having a rigid outer covering,
such as a shell or exoskeleton; includes
some molluscs and arthropods; the term is
the counterpart of finfish.
SHIPRIDER
A shipboard observer assigned by the U.S.
Coast Guard to ensure that a waste-laden
-------
184
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 140
SHOAL
SILT
SLOPE HATER
SPAWN
SPECIES
STANDARD
ELUTRIATE
ANALYSIS
STANDING STOCK
SUBSTRATUM
SURVEILLANCE
SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED SOLID
TAXONOMY
vessel is dumping in accordance with
permit specifications.
A shallow place in a body of water, such
as a sandbar or sandbank.
Sedimentary material consisting of fine
mineral particles found especially at the
bottom of bodies of water.
Water that originates from, occurs at, or
can be traced to the continental slope,
differentiated by characteristic
temperature and salinity.
To produce and deposit eggs.
A group of morphologically similar
organisms capable of interbreeding and
producing fertile offspring.
A test used to determine the types and
amounts of constituents that can be
extracted from a known volume of water.
The biomass or abundance of living
material 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, permits, and safety.
Freely moving without falling or sinking.
Finely divided particles of a solid
temporarily suspended in a liquid (e.g.,
soil particles in water).
The science of classification; that is,
the arrangement of plants and animals into
groups based on their natural
relationships.
-------
185
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE KTfi
Page 141
TELEOSTS
THERMOCLINE
TOPOGRAPHY
TOXICITY
TRACE
TRACE METAL
OR ELEMENT
TRANSMISSIVITY
TRANSMITTANCE
TREND ASSESSMENT
SURVEY
TROPHIC LEVEL
TUNICATE
Any fish of the class Osteichthyes
characterized by the possession of a bony
skeleton.
A vertical temperature gradient in some
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.
The physical features of a place or
region.
Quality, state, or relative degree of
being poisonous.
A constituent, as a chemical compound
orelement, present in less than standard
(i.e., minute) amounts.
An element found in the environment in
extremelysma11 quantities; usually
includes metals constituting 0.1% (1,000
ppm) or less, by weight, in the earth's
crust.
The state or quality of being capable of
conveying something from one point to
another, as in the ability of water to
allow light to penetrate to a certain
depth or over a certain depth range.
The fraction of radiant energy that passes
through a medium, such as water, to a
further boundary or point.
Surveys conducted over long periods to
detect shifts in environmental conditions
within a region.
Discrete step along a food chain in which
energy is transferred from the primary
producers (plants) to herbivores and
finally to carnivores and decomposers.
Any member of the subphylum Urochordata; a
sea squirt.
TURBID
Opaque with suspended sediment or foreign
particles.
-------
186
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 142
TURBIDITY
VECTOR
HATER MASS
ZOOPLANKTON
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 magnitude.
A body of water, identified by its
temperature, salinity values, or chemical
composition, consisting of a mixture of
two or more water types.
Weakly swimming animals whose distribution
in the ocean is ultimately determined by
current movements.
-------
187
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE KTS
Page 143
6.2 ABBREVIATIONS
BLM
C
°C
Cd
CFR
cm
COE
DA
DMRP
DO
DOC
DOI
E
ec50
EIS
EPA
FDNR
FR
FWPCA
FWPCAA
g
Hg
h
Bureau of Land Management
Carbon
Degrees Celcius
Cadmium
Code of Federal Regulations
Centimeters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District Administrator (CE)
Dredged Material Research
Program
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Organic Carbon
U.S. Department of the Interior
East
Effective concentration, (see
Glossary)
Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Florida Department of Natural
Resources
Federal Register
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments
Gram
Mercury
Hour
-------
188
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 144
IEC Interstate Electronics
Corporation
IMCO Inter-Governmental Maritime
Consultative Organization
kg Kilogram
kHz Kilohertz
km Kilometer
kn Knot
1 Liter
LCS0 Concentration of material
lethal to 50 percent of the
test organisms.
MAFLA Mississippi, Alabama, Florida
m Meter
m2 Square meter
mg Milligram
mm Millimeter
MML Mote Marine Laboratory
MMS Minerals Management Service
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act
N North
ng Nanogram
NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act
nmi Nautical mile
nmi2 Square nautical mile
NMFS National Marine Fisheries
Service
NQAA National Oceanic and
Atomospheric Administration
NOO Naval Oceanographic Office
NTD Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
NUSC Naval Underwater Systems Center
-------
-------
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 147
CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES
Amson, J. 1982. Summary testimony given at the hearing on
Tampa Bay Dredged Material Disposal Project expansion.
Conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St.
Petersburg, FL, 30 June 1982. Jonathan Amson, U.S. EPA
Criteria and Standards Division.
Anderson, D. and D. Wall. 1978. Potential importance of
benthic cysts of Gonvaulax tamarensis and G. excavata in
initiating toxic dinoflagellate blooms. J. Phycol 14(2):
224-234.
Anderson, D.M., D.G. Aubrey, N.A. Tyler, and D.W. Coates. 1982.
Vertical and horizontal distributions of dinoflagellate cysts
in sediments. Limnol. Oceanog. 27:757-765.
Atwood, D.C., P. Duncan, M.C. Stalcup, and M.J. Barcelona. 1976.
Ocean thermal energy conversion: resource assessment and
environmental impact for proposed Puerto Rico site. University
of P.R., Mayaguez.
Battelle. 1986a. Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring
Study (Survey III Report). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Battelle New England Marine Research
Laboratory under Contract No. 68-01-6986. 72 p., 5 appendices.
Battelle. 1986b. Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring
(Survey IV Report). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Battelle New England Marine Research
Laboratory under Contract No. 68-01-6986. 120 p., 5
appendices.
Battelle. 1986c. Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring
(Survey V Report). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Battelle New England Marine Research
Laboratory under Contract No. 68-01-6986. 121 p., 5
appendices.
Beccasio, A.D., Fotheringham, N., Redfield, A.E., et al. 1982.
Gulf coast ecological inventory: User's guide and information
base. Washington, DC: Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 191 p.
Bell, F.W., P.E. Sorenson, and V.R. Leeworthy. 1982. The Economic
Impact of Saltwater Recreational Fisheries in Florida. Sea
Grant Project No. R/FR-16, Report Numbe, 47, Florida Sea Grant
College. 26 p.
-------
194
TAMPA, FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 148
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. 1979. Economic Assessment of the Port
of Tampa. Tampa Port Authority (EDA Project Number
04-06-01533), cited in Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council,
1986.
Brannon, J.M., R.H. Plumb, Jr., and I. Smith. 1978. Long-term
release of contaminants from dredged material. Dredged
Material Research Program Technical Report D-78-49. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
87 p.
Burks, S.A. and R.M. Engler. 1978. Water quality impacts of
aquatic dredged material disposal (laboratory investigations).
Dredged Material Research Program Technical Report DS-78-4.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 45 p.
CAIS. See Center for Applied Isotope Studies (University of
Georgia).
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell. 1973. Marine Mammals in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. In: J.I. Jones, R.E. Ring, M.O.
Rinkel, and R.E. Smith (eds.), A Summary of the Knowledge of
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, pp. IIII-1-IIII-4. State University
System of Florida Institute of Oceanography.
Center for Applied Isotope Studies, University of Georgia. 1988.
Rapid Surveillance of Dredged Material Site Sediments by
Continuous Seafloor Sampling and Analysis. Prepared for
Battelle Ocean Sciences under contract to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection. 88 p.
Chew, F., J.J. Bein, and J.H.G. Stimson. 1959. A data report of
Florida Gulf coast cruises. Tech. Rep. to ONR by Univer. of
Miami, Mar. Lab. pp. 59-109.
Chittenden, M.E. and J.D. McEachran. 1976. Composition, ecology, and
dynamics of demersal fish communities on the northwestern Gulf
of Mexico Continental Shelf, with a similar synopsis for the
entire Gulf. Texas A & M Univ., Sea Grant Coll. TAMU SG-76-208.
COE. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Continental Shelf Associates. 1984. First Quarterly Report, Tampa
Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring Study. Prepared
for Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. under contract to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection. 54 p., 5 appendices.
-------
195
TAMPA, FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 149
Continental Shelf Associates. 1986a. Second Quarterly Report
(Survey III), Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring
Study. Prepared for Battelle Washington Environmental Program
Office, Washington, D.C., 73 p.
Continental Shelf Associates. 1986b. Third.Quarterly Report (Survey
IV), Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Monitoring Study. Prepared
for Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office,
Washington, D.C., 80 p.
Continental Shelf Associates. 1986c. Fourth Quarterly Report
(Survey V), Tampa Harbor Dredged Material Monitoring Study.
Prepared for Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office,
Washington, D.C., 91 p.
Continental Shelf Associates. 1987. Synthesis Report, Tampa Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Monitoring Study. Draft report
prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 146 p. and appendices.
CSA. See Continental Shelf Associates.
Danek, L.J. and G.S. Lewbel (eds.). 1986. Southwest Florida Shelf
Benthic Communities Study - Tear 5 Annual Report. A final
report by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. and LGL
Ecological Research Associates, Inc. to the U.S. Department of
the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA -
Contract No. 14-12-0001-30211.
Dawes, C.T. and J.F. von Breedveld. 1969. Memoirs of the Hourglass
Cruises: Benthic Marine Algae. Mar. Res. Lab., Florida Dept.
Nat. Res. Vol. I, Part II, 45 p.
Department of the Interior. 1986. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior. January 1, 1986. 50 CFR 17.11
and 17.12.
Eldred, B., R.M. Ingle, K.D. Woodburn, R.F. Hutton, and H. Jones.
1961. Biological observations on the commercial shrimp, Penaeus
duorarum Burkenrod, in Florida waters. Fla. Sta. Bd. Conserv.,
Mar. Lab. Ser. No 60. 139 p.
FDNR. See Department of Natural Resources.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1983a. Comments by the
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources. In: Appendix G to the
Draft EIS for Tampa Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation, September 1983, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
196
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 150
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1983b. Interoffice
Memorandum by the Florida Dept. of Natural Resources. In:
Appendix G to the Draft EIS for Tampa Harbor, Florida, Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation, September 1983,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Gould, H.R. and R.H. Stewart. 1956. Continental terrace sediments in
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In: J.L. Hough and H.W.
Menards (eds.), Finding Ancient Shorelines. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists. Special Pub. 3, Tulsa, OK.
Graham, H.W., J.M. Amis an, and K.T. Marvin. 1954. Phosphorus
content of waters along the west coast of Florida. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 122. 43 p.
Gunter, G., R.H. Williams, C.C. Davis, and F.G.W. Smith. 1948.
Catastrophic mass mortality of marine animals and coincident
phytoplankton bloom on the west coast of Florida (Nov. 1946-
August 1947). Ecol. Monogr. 18(3): 311-324.
Hela, I., D. deSylva, and C. A. Carpenter. 1955. Drift currents in
the red tide area of the easternmost region of the Gulf of
Mexico. Rep. to Fla. Bd. of Cons., Univ. Miami Mar. Lab.,
55-11, 31 p.
Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo, and R. Peddicord. 1978. Effects of
dredging and disposal on aquatic organisms. Dredged Material
Research Program Technical Report DS-78-5. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 41 p.
Hopkins, T.L. 1973. Zooplankton. In: J.I. Jones, R.E. Ring, M.O.
Rinkel, and R.E. Smith (eds.), A Summary of the Knowledge of
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, pp. IIIJ-l-IIIJ-21. State
University System of Florida Institute of Oceanography.
Hopkins, T.L., D.M. Milliken, L.M. Bell, E.J. McMichael, J.J.
Heffernan, and R.V. Cano. 1981. The landward distribution of
oceanic plankton and micronekton over the west Florida
continental shelf as related to their vertical distribution.
J. Plankton Res. 3:645-658.
Houde, E.D. and N. Chitty. 1976. Seasonal abundance and
distribution of zooplankton, fish eggs, and fish larvae in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1972-1974. NOAA Technical Report, NMFS
SSRF-701.
Huff, J.A. and S.P. Cobb. 1979. Panaeoid and Sergestoid Shrimps
(Crustacea: Decapods). Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises. Fla.
Dept. Nat. Res. Lab. 5(4):1-102.
-------
197
TAMPA. FLORIDA CVKAW DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 151
Ichiye, T., Han-Hsiung Kuo, and M.R. Carnes. 1973. Assessment of
currents and hydrography of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Contrib. No. 601. Dept. Oceanogr., Texas A&M Univ.
Jones, Edmunds, and Associates. 1979. Results of bioassay
evaluation of sediments from St. Petersburg Harbor, Florida.
Final report prepared for Dept. of the Army, Jacksonville
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 32 p.
Jones, Edmunds, and Associates. 1980. Results of bioassay
evaluation of sediments from St. Petersburg Harbor, Florida.
Final report prepared for Dept. of the Army, Jacksonville
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 54 p.
Jordan, C.L. 1973. The physical environment: Climate. In: A
Summary of the Knowledge of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. State
Univ. System Fla. Inst. Oceanogr. (SUSIO)
Jordan, G.F. and H.B. Stewart. 1959. Continental Slope off south
Florida. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petr. Geol. 43(5): 974-991.
Joyce, E.A. and J. Williams. 1969. Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises:
Rationale and Pertinent Data. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Lab.
1(1):l-50.
JRB Associates. 1982. Characterization of the benthic environment at
four existing and alternative Tampa Bay offshore dredged
material disposal sites. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 136 p.
JRB Associates. 1983. Studies and sample analysis for Tampa Bay
surveys nos. 3 and 4 (February/March/April, 1983). Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
38 p.
JRB Associates. 1984. Final Report on studies and sample analyses
for Tampa Bay survey no. 5 (September/October 1983). Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 118 p.
Lyons, W.G. and S.B. Collard. 1974. Benthic invertebrate communities
of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Mar. Res.
Lab. Contrib. No. 223. pp. 157-165.
Manheim, F.T., R.G. Steward, and K.C. Carder. 1976. Transmissometry
and particulate matter distribution on the eastern Gulf of
Mexico Shelves. MAFLA SURVEY, 1975-76.
Maul, G.A. 1977. The annual cycle of the Gulf Loop Current. Part I:
Observations during a one-year time series. J. Mar. Res. 35(1):
29-47.
-------
198
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 152
Mauer, D.L., R.T. Keck, T.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leatherm, C.A. Wethe, M.
Huntzinger, C. Lord, and T.M. Church. 1978. Vertical migration
of benthos in simulated dredged material overburdens, Volume Is
Marine benthos. Dredged Material Research Program Technical
Report D-78-35. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 108 p.
MML. See Mote Marine Laboratory.
Moe, M.A. and G.T. Martin. 1965. Fishes taken in monthly trawl
samples offshore of Pinellas County, Florida, with new
additions to the fish fauna of the Tampa Bay area. Tulane Stud.
Zool. 12(4):129-151.
Molinari, R.L., D. Cochrane, and G.A. Maul. 1975. Deep basin
oceanographic conditions and general circulation. Ins
Compilation and summation of historical existing physical
oceanographic data from the eastern Gulf of Mexico in support
of the creation of a MAFLA sampling program. BLM 08550-CT-16.
State Univ. System Fla. Inst. Oceanogr. (SUSIO).
Mooers, C.N.K. and J.F. Price. 1975. General Shelf circulation.
In: compilation and summary of historical and existing
physical oceanographic data form the eastern Gulf of Mexico in
support of the creation of a MAFLA sampling program. BLM
08550-CT4-16. State Univ. System Fla. Inst, of Oceanogr.
(SUSIO).
Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Preliminary survey of potential
dredged material disposal sites off Tampa Bay, Florida.
Submitted to Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., Annandale, VA,
September 1983. 36 p.
Mote Marine Laboratory. 1988. Evaluation of hard bottom and adjacent
soft-bottom macrofaunal communities in the vicinity of the
Tampa Bay material ocean disposal site 4. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection under Contract No. 68-03-3319 to Battelle
Ocean Sciences. 60 p. and appendices.
Newell, G.E. and R.C. Newell. 1973. Marine planktons a pratical
guide. Hutchinson Educational. 244 p.
Pequegnat, W.E., O.D. Smith, R.M. Darnell, B.J. Presley, and R.D.
Reid. 1978. An assessment of the potential impact of dredged
material disposal in the open ocean. Dredged Material Research
Program Technical Report D-78-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 642 p.
-------
199
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 153
Phillips, R.C. and V.G. Springer. 1960. Observations on the offshore
benthic flora in the Gulf of Mexico off Pinellas County,
Florida. Amer. Midland Nat. 64(2):362-381.
Price, W.A. 1954. Shorelines and coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, ins
Gulf of Mexico, its origins, waters, and marine life. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Serv., Fish. Bull. No. 89s 39-65.
Quick, J.A. and G.E. Henderson. 1975a. Evidences of new
icthyointoxicative phenomena in *n*um breve red tides.
Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Mar. Res. Lab. Contrib. No. 249. 11 p.
Quick, J.A., and G.E. Henderson. 1975b. Effects of Gvmnodinium
breve red tide on fishes and birds: A preliminary report on
behavior, anatomy, hematology, and histopathalogy. Fla. Dept.
Nat. Res., Mar. Res. Lab. Contrib. No. 241. 28 p.
Raymont, John E.G. 1983. Plankton and Productivity in the Ocean.
Volume - Zooplankton. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY. 824 p.
Rice, S.A., G.W. Patton, and S. Mahaderan. 1981. An ecological
study of the effects of offshore dredge material disposal with
special reference to hard-bottom habitats in the eastern Gulf
of Mexico. Technical Report prepared for Manatee County
Chamber of Commerce. Bradenton, FL. 45 p.
Richardson, M.D., A.G. Carey, J.A. Colgate, and W.A. Colgate.
1977. Aquatic disposal field investigations, Columbia River
Disposal Site, Oregon. Appendix C: The effects of dredged
material disposal on benthic assemblages. Dredged Material
Research Program Technical Report D-77-30. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 411 p.
Rounsefell G.T. and A. Dragovich. 1966. Correlation between
oceanographic factors and abundance of the Florida red tide
(Gvmnodinium breve Davis), 1954-61. Bull. Mar. Sci. 16(3):
404-422.
Saunders, R.P. and D.A. Glenn. 1969. Diatoms. Memoirs of the
Hourglass Cruises. Vol I. (3), 199 p.
Schmidly, D.J. 1981. Marine Mammals of the Southeastern United
States Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS - 80/41. 163 p.
Shepard, F.P. 1973. Submarine Geology. Harper & Rowe, NY.
557 p.
-------
200
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 154
Smith G.B. 1975. The 1971 red tide and its impact on certain reef
communities in the mid-eastern Gulf of Mexico. Environ.
Letters. 9(2): 141-152.
Smith, G.B. 1976a. Ecology and distribution of eastern Gulf of
Mexico reef fishes. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Mar. Res. Lab. No.
19. 78 p.
Smith G.B. 1976b. The impact of fish-killing phytoplankton blooms
upon mideastem Gulf of Mexico reef fish communities. In:
Bullis, H.R. and A.C. Jones (eds.). Proceedings: Colloquium on
snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central
Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Coll. Progress. No. 17.
Steidinger, K.A. 1973. Phytoplankton. In: J.I. Jones, R.E. Ring,
M.O. Rinkel, and R.E. Smith (eds.), A Summary of the Knowledge
of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, pp. IIIE-1 - IIIE-17. State
University System of Florida Institute of Oceanography.
Steidinger, K.A. 1975a. Implications of dinoflagellate life cycles
on initiation of Gvmnodinium breve red tides. Envir. Letters
9(2):129-139.
Steidinger, K.A. 1975b. Basic factors influencing red tides. In:
V.R. LoCiero, (ed.), Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms, pp. 153-163. Mass.
Sci. Tech. Found,, Wakefield, MA.
Steidinger, K.A. 1983. A re-evaluation of toxic dinoflagellate
biology and ecology. Prog. Phyc. Res. 2:147-188.
Steidinger, K.A. and K. Haddad. 1981. Biologic and hydrographic
aspects of red tides. Bioscience 31(11): 814-819.
Steidinger, K.A. and J. Williams. 1970. Dinoflagellates. Memoirs of
the Hourglass Cruises. Vol. II. Fla Department of Natural
Resources Laboratory. Contribution No. 147.
251 p.
Steidinger, K.A., J.T. Davis, and J. Williams. 1967. Dinoflagellate
studies on the inshore waters of the west coast of Florida,
Fla. St. Bd. Conserv. Prof. Paper Series No. 9. p. 4-48 (in
part only).
Sullivan, B. and D. Hancock. 1977. Zooplankton and dredging
research perspectives from a critical review. Water Resources
Bull. 13:461-467.
SUSIO, 1974. Final report on the baseline environmental survey of
the MAFLA lease areas CY 1974. State University System Florida
Inst. Oceanogr., 16th Ann. Ses: 113-120.
-------
201
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 155
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1986. Documenting the
economic importance of Tampa Bay. 143 p + 2 appendices.
Taylor, J.L. and C.H. Salomon. 1969. Sediments, oceanographic
observations, and floristic data from Tampa Bay, Florida, and
adjacent waters, 1965-1969. U.S. Fish.and Wildlife'Service
Data Report 34. 562 p.
TBRPC. See Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
Tolbert, W.H. and G.G. Salsman. 1964. Surface circulation of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico as determined by drift bottle studies.
J. Geoph. Res. 69(2)s223-230.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972. Disposal of Dredge Spoil,
Problem Identification and Assessment and Research Program
Development. Technical Report H-72-8. 121 p., Appendices.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Tampa Harbor Project. 295 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Supplement to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Tampa Harbor Project.
150 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Aquatic Dredged Material
Disposal Impacts. Technical Report DS-78-1. 57 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
(Environmental Laboratory). 1980. Final Summary, Dredged
Material Research Program. Shore and Beach 48:35-41.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1978. Tampa Bay Circulatory Survey.
1963. Oceanog. Circ. Report No. 2. NOAA. NOS NOS002728. 39 pp.
U.S. DOC. See U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Tampa Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation, September 1983. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Ocean dumping site
designation delegation handbook for dredged material. Prepared
by SAIC under contract to Battelle for EPA Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. 100 p.
-------
202
TAMPA. FLORIDA OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE EIS
Page 156
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/IEC. 1981. Report of Field
Study. Appendix A to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Tampa Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Interstate Electronics Corporation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/MML. 1981. Appendix E to the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Tampa Harbor, Florida,
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. Effects of
dredged sediments from Bayboro Harbor, St. Petersburg at Site
A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Mote Marine
Laboratory.
Williams, D.T. 1983. Tampa Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site
Analysis. Hydraulics Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
Waterways Experiment Stations, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Paper No.
HL-83-8. 46 p.
Windom, H.L. 1975. Water quality aspects of dredging and dredge
spoil disposal in estuarine environments, pp 559-571. In;
L.E. Cronin (ed.) Estuarine Research, Volume 2: Geology and
Engineering. Academic Press, Inc.
Windom, H.L. 1976. Environmental aspects of dredging in the
coastal zone. pp. 91-109. In: C.P. Straub (ed.) Critical
Reviews in Environmental Control. CRC Press.
Woolfenden, G.E. and Ralph W. Schreiber. 1973. The common birds of
the eastern Gulf of Mexico: their distribution, seasonal
status, and feeding ecology. In: J.I. Jones, R.E. Ring, M.O.
Rinkel, and R.E. Smith (eds.), A Summary of the Knowledge of
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, pp. IIIJ-l-IIIJ-21. State
University System of Florida Institute of Oceanography.
Wright, T.D. 1978. Aquatic dredged material disposal impacts.
Dredged Material Research Program Technical Report D-78-1.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 57 p.
-------
203
-------
205
APPENDIX A
NEARSHORE ALTERNATIVES
-------
207
INTRODUCTION
The maintenance material from the Skyway Bridge west to the
sea buoy has historically been predominantly sand. There is
probably also some sand shoaling east of the Skyway Bridge.
This sandy material must be removed from the channel to maintain
navigation depths but is located too far from the diked disposal
areas for disposal there. Past studies have indicated that
placing sand on a sand substratum has relatively minor and
short-term environmental impacts. There is also an opportunity
for habitat creation through beach nourishment and island
creation. The state of Florida has indicated a desire to retain
"beach quality" sand on the beaches or at least in the littoral
drift system. The economics, resource conservation, and
environmental effects support the nearshore disposal of dredged
material that is predominantly sand.
Some alternatives that should be considered for the
disposal of sand are beach nourishment, island creation, and
submerged stockpiling for future beach nourishment. All of
these alternatives have costs, benefits, and environmental
impacts that should be evaluated individually. Beach
nourishment could be used on Mullet Bay and Egmont Key. The
human users of Mullet Key would benefit from maintenance of the
public beaches while Egmont Key would provide additional habitat
for colonial-nesting shorebirds. Islands could be created north
and south of Egmont Key. These islands would dissipate wave
energy and provide nesting and resting habitat for shorebirds.
Submerged berros or stockpiles of sand could be created offshore
of Treasure Island, Long Key, Sand Key, and Anna Maria Island.
These submerged disposal areas would reduce wave energy,
contribute to littoral sand supply, and provide a source of sand
for future beach nourishment. Lack of sand for protection of
highly developed and vulnerable areas is a serious concern in
Florida.
-------
208
BEACH NOURISHMENT
Investigations and research performed by many organizations
and scientists, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have
found that beach nourishment is one of the most desirable and
cost-effective means of restoring and protecting eroding
shorelines (COE, 1987). Beach nourishment is usually
accomplished by borrowing sand from inshore or offshore
locations and transporting it to the eroding beach by truck,
hopper dredge, or hydraulic pipeline. Beneficial impacts of
beach nourishment include protection of shoreline structures,
preservation of recreational resources, and protection and
preservation of wildlife shoreline habitat, such as beaches used
by turtles for nesting, by birds for nesting or foraging, or by
benthic invertebrates for colonization. When material from
maintenance dredging is suitable for nourishment, that is, free
from toxic elements and of grain-size composition comparable to
that of the project beach, two benefits are achieved: beach
restoration and safe disposal of the material.
Adverse impacts of beach nourishment operations include
displacement of substrata, changes in topography or bathymetry
of the borrow and nourishment areas, destruction of nonmotile
benthic communities, generation of turbidity and suspension of
sediments, disturbance of motile fish and benthic shellfish,
interruption of vessel traffic, and inconvenience to beach
users. Most of the impacts associated with offshore dredging
and placement of material on a beach are temporary, such as
turbidity generated by dredging and sand placement, and
disturbance to shore and sea life. For example, Reilly and
Bellis (1983) found beach nourishment affects organism density
and community structure both during and after nourishment.
Organisms on the beach at the time of beach nourishment were
killed, adult intertidal organisms failed to return from their
nearshore-offshore overwintering refuges, and larval recruitment
inhibited by the greater water turbidity associated with the
-------
209
nourishment operations. Mobile species living in beach areas
move out of the area to avoid potential impacts and often return
within a week. Animals unable to move often die.
However, destruction of benthic communities by smothering
is generally compensated by colonization by larvae and/or adults
of similar species. Nourished beaches and borrow pits are
repopulated within a relatively short period in most areas.
Important long-lived species, such as mussels, do not recover as
quickly (Nelson and Pullen, 1985). However, analyses of benthic
macroinfauna and surface sediment samples from Panama City
beaches and beaches in Indialantic and Melbourne, Florida,
showed no long-term adverse environmental effects as a result of
beach nourishment (Culter and Mahavedan, 1982; Gorzelany and
Nelson, 1983).
Potentially the most serious impact of offshore dredging is
the loss or damage to major commercial species of benthic
shellfish, seagrass beds, corals, and sea turtles. Damage can
be minimized or avoided by careful selection of borrow areas,
precise positioning of dredging equipment, and use of dredging
equipment that minimizes sedimentation and turbidity. Seagrass
beds and corals damaged by dredging can recover, but the
recovery time may extend over several years. Renourishment of
beaches can also affect nesting turtles. By scheduling
nourishment operations in the late fall to avoid egg-laying
seasons, it is possible to avoid adverse effects on turtles
living and nesting along the beaches (David Nelson, U.S. Army
Waterways Experiment Station, personal communication, May 1,
1987). A succession of short nourishment projects carried out
in nonsequential order would also have less long-term impact
than a single large-scale project (Reilly and Bellis, 1983).
Monitoring programs, including relocation of nests, can also
reduce or eliminate adverse effects.
-------
210
ISLAND CREATION
Years of dredging by the Corps of Engineers, state
agencies, and private industry has resulted in the creation of
more than 2000 islands formed from disposal of dredged material
throughout U.S. coastal areas, Great Lakes, and riverine
waterways. Many of these islands have become valuable resources
of wildlife habitat, but many others have lost their attraction
as wildlife habitat because of encroachment by man or inadequate
management. The primary wildlife species utilizing these
created islands in Florida waters are 37 species of
colonial-nesting waterbirds, including pelicans, cormorants,
herons, ibises, gulls, and terns, some of which are threatened
or endangered in large parts of their ranges. The islands offer
the birds protection from ground predators, seclusion from man,
and nesting suostrata similar to natural nesting sites.
Creation of new islands is a useful environmental tool when a
need is demonstrated for nesting habitat in a particular area,
and if the benefits to the birds exceed negative impacts of
construction to benthic organisms or current flow. Decisions on
island creation should depend on field studies and/or
consultation with wildlife biologists and on coordination with
appropriate federal and state agencies and the private sector to
insure that all concerns are evaluated.
One factor to consider in island creation is timing of
construction, preferably during the fall or winter preceding the
next breeding season. The need to maintain channels may,
however, require dredging at any time of the year. Another
factor is the physical design of the island: island creation
must insure that an island is permanently emergent at high water
levels, that it will be no smaller than 5 acres and no larger
than 50 acres, and that an overall elevation of between 3 to 10
feet above mean high water is achieved with slopes no greater
than a 3-foot rise in 100 feet. An island with a kidney shape
can provide a cove to facilitate marsh development and benthic
-------
colonization, and selective planting can increase the island's
attractiveness to wildlife. In the estuaries of west central
Florida, such islands dissipate wave energy with subsequent
natural development of seagrass beds in the lee of the islands.
Adverse impacts associated with island construction are
similar to some of those associated with beach nourishment.
Such impacts include displacement of substrata, loss of benthic
organisms, alteration of currents and bathymetry, and generation
of sediment suspension and turbidity. By creating islands, the
Bay's bottom habitat is lost and replaced with a new habitat.
Thus, numbers and types of species change; invertebrate species
may be smothered and birds will colonize the new island. Many
species that might potentially use the islands must have barren
areas to breed successfully. Islands are often ultimately
overrun by shrubs, thus limiting their value to the birds (Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council, 1985). Prevention of this and
other problems involves the careful placement of dredged
material and selection of the disposal season to prevent
disruption of active nesting (John Lunds, U.S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, personal communication, Hay 1, 1987).
Development of monitoring and management plans is important and
recommended for the successful use of islands as a nearshore
disposal alternative.
SUBMERGED STOCKPILING
Submerged stockpiling of dredged material in the littoral
zone can be an effective aid in beach nourishment. The decision
on whether to employ this method depends on field studies and
historic records to provide a thorough understanding of the
prevailing patterns of winds, waves, and currents affecting
movement of sand at the submerged disposal site. It has been
successfully employed offshore of northern St. Petersburg Beach.
If all factors are favorable, this method has the advantage of
nourishing an eroding beach in a natural manner, and reducing or
-------
212
avoiding impacts associated with direct placement of the sand on
the beach by mechanical means. Beneficial and adverse impacts
of this method are otherwise 'similar to those for direct
nourishment with regard to impacts at the offshore borrow site.
The same precautions are recommended to curtail or eliminate
those impacts.
Disposal of this material in the littoral zone, however, by
hydraulic pipeline or hopper dredge could generate more
turbidity and suspended sediment conditions for a longer period
over a broader area, depending on the method of disposal
(pipeline or hopper dredge) and the percentage of fines in the
dredged material. Caution should be exercised in the selection
of the material to be dredged and disposal operations should be
timed as nearly as practical to the winter when biological
activity is at its lowest ebb. Monitoring of material placed in
the littoral zone in the Tampa Harbor dredging project has shown
that water quality has not been adversely affected, and benthic
populations and species diversity improved over pre-project
conditions (Taylor, 1986). Experience at Virginia Beach,
Virginia, where an underwater berm was constructed using
coarse-grained dredged material, indicates that the method can
serve several functions; provide aquatic habitat, protect the
shoreline by dissipating storm waves, stockpile material for
beach nourishment, and reduce maintenance dredging in some tidal
inlets.
SUMMARY
Habitat development offers a disposal technique that is, in
many situations, a feasible alternative to open-water or upland
disposal options. Dredged material can be used effectively to
maintain the size of eroding beaches. Creating island habitats
can provide critical nesting areas for birds. As previously
mentioned, the feasibility of habitat development centers on
-------
several factors including the nature of the dredged material,
the site selection, the engineering design, the cost of the
alternatives, the environmental impacts, and public approval.
All of these factors must be considered in evaluating nearshore
disposal alternatives.
REFERENCES
COE. See U.S. Army Corps of Engneers.
Culter, J.K. and S. Mahadevan. 1982. Long-term effects of beach
nourishment on the benthic fauna of Panama City Beach
Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Miscellaneous
Report No 82-2.
Gorzelany, J.F., Jr. and W.G. Nelson. 1983. The effects of beach
replenishment on the benthos of a sub-tropical Florida
beach. Mar. Environ. Res. 21: 75-94.
D.A. and B.J. Pullen. 1985. Environmental
considerations in using beach nourishment for erosion
protection. In: Brodtmann, N.V. (ed.), The Second
Water Quality and Wetlands Conference Proceedings. New
Orleans, LA, October 1985.
F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1983. The ecological jumpact of
beach nourishment with dredged materials on the
intertidal zone at Bogue Banks, North Carolina. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Miscellaneous Report No.
83-3.
icuupa DC.; Regional Planning Council. 1985. The future of Tampa
Bay. A report to the Florida Legislature and the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council by the Tampa Bay
Management Study Commission. 242 p.
Taylor, John L. 1986. Benthic Monitoring Studies, Tampa Harbor
Project, Florida.
Nelson,
Reilly,
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Beneficial uses of dredged
material, EM 1110-2-5026, Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
-------
216
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF VIDEO SURVEYS
-------
219
INTRODUCTION
Within Site 5, five potential sites for the disposal of
dredged material from the Tampa Bay area were selected by EPA to
be surveyed. These five sites, discussed herein as Survey Sites
1 through 5, were located between 25 and 35 nmi from Egmont Key
(Figure B-l); the LORAN C coordinates of each site are
presented in Table B-l.
Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) conducted the first video
survey of the potential sites in August/September 1983. Based
on the results of this survey, three candidate sites were
selected for consideration as disposal sites. These sites were
located within Survey Sites 2, 3, and 5, and were named
Candidate Site A (later renamed Site 5A), Candidate Site B
(later renamed Site 5B), and Candidate Site C (eventually
eliminated), respectively.
In September/October 1983, JRB Associates (JRB)
conducted a video survey, the objective of which was to collect
quality assurance data for comparison with the earlier video
survey by MML. The JRB survey provided data for specific
portions of Survey Sites 2, 3, and 4; JRB designated their
survey sites as Sites 30MS-1 (= MML Survey Site A, renamed Site
5A), 30MS-2 (= MML Survey Site B, renamed site 5B), and 30MS-C
(later renamed Site 5MS-C).
Table B-2 indicates the approximate comparability of sites
surveyed by MML and JRB. Figure B-l shows the physical
relationship of the survey sites within Site 5. Three areas
were chosen by EPA for consideration as potential dredged
material disposal sites within Site 5; these three sites were
named Sites 5A, 5B, and 5MS-C. MML Candidate Site A and JRB
Site 30MS-1 were considered comparable and the area was renamed
Site 5A. MML Candidate Site B and JRB Site 30MS-2 were
considered comparable and the area was renamed Site 5B. MML
Candidate Site C and JRB Site 30MS-C were considered unique and
not comparable. MML Candidate Site C was eliminated from
-------
CD
I
ro
~ ' \ mm mm
r
30' (JOINS CHART HiX) 20*
FIGURE B—1. LOCATION OF SURVEY SITES 1 THROUGH 5 (WITHIN SITE
5) SURVEYED IN 1983 BY BOTE MARINE LABORATORY (NHL)
AND JRB ASSOCIATES (JRB) (ADAPTED FROM NHL, 1983).
NJ
rsj
o
-------
221
TABLE B-l.
LORAN C COORDINATES FOR THE FIVE SURVEY AREAS AND THREE
CANDIDATE AREAS SURVEYED BY MOTE MARINE LABORATORY FROM
AUGUST 25 TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 (FROM MML, 1983).
Coordinates
Sites
Northwest
LORAN C
Northeast
Southwest
Southeast
Survey Site 1
Survey Site 2
Survey Site 3
Survey Site 4
Survey Site 5
MML Candidate
Site A
(Renamed Site 5A)
MML Candidate
Site B
(Renamed Site 5B)
MML Candidate
Site C
(Eventually
eliminated)
14118.4
44951.0
14127.2
44925.0
14114.4
44915.1
14110.7
44892.0
14121.0
44871.9
14127.5
44910.0
14118.5
44907.5
14124.5
44864.7
14127.2
44925.0
14135.7
44898.9
14127.4
44878.9
14121.0
44871.9
14131.0
44850.0
14133.1
44892.8
14124.1
44890.2
14131.0
44850.0
14110.0
44931.0
14118.7
44904.9
14108.2
44897.4
14105.0
44866.9
14115.3
44846.9
14122.0
44896.9
14113.0
44894.0
14120.4
44847.5
14118.7
44904.9
14127.5
44878.9
14122.8
44866.9
14115.3
44846.9
14125.0
44823.5
14127.5
44878.9
14118.5
44877.1
14125.0
44823.5
-------
222
TABLE B-2. COMPARABILITY OF NAMES OF VIDEO SURVEY SITES
WITHIN SITE 5 DISCUSSED IMF THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS
EIS AND IN APPENDIX B. In some cases,
comparability is only approximate (see inset in
Figure B-8 for relationships).
EPA MML
Survey Candidate JRB
Final
Sites Sites" Sites" Nameb
1 c
2 A 30MS-1 5A
3 B 30MS-2 5B
4 30MS-C 5MS-C
5 C d
"MML and JRB Sites are located within the boundaries of but do not
correspond exactly to the EPA Survey Site.
''Name as used in main text of this EIS.
°No specific potential disposal area was identified within this site.
'Eliminated from consideration because of high percentage of hard
bottom.
-------
223
consideration as a potential disposal site because of the high
percentage of hard bottom in the area. JRB Site 30MS—C was
renamed Site 5MS-C.
MOTE MARINE LABORATORY (AUGUST 25 TO SEPTEMBER 1. 1983)
Survey Sites 1 and 2 were adjacent and were therefore
surveyed together as one large site measuring 3 by 6 nmi (area
18 rani2) . Survey Sites 4 and 5 were also adjacent and were
surveyed as one large area. Site 3 was irregularly shaped and
covered an area of approximately 8.9 nmi2. Transects were
arranged at 0.25-nmi intervals, resulting in 13 transects in
Survey Sites 1 and 2, 10 transects in Survey Site 3, and 13
transects in Survey Sites 4 and 5. A total of 45 nmi2 of the
ocean bottom was surveyed using a combination of underwater
television, side-scan sonar, and diver observations.
One of three classifications was assigned based upon the
relative abundance of sand and exposed or cryptic hard bottom.
The classification was based on a summary of bottom
characteristics observed since the preceding navigation fix;
additional information was added based on side-scan sonar
observations. An "S" was assigned to areas that were
predominantly sand, an "SHB" was assigned to areas of sand
interspersed with hard bottom (scattered hard bottom), and an
"EHB" was assigned to areas of extensive or nearly continuous
hard bottom. MML did not attempt to differentiate between
degrees of scattered hard bottom, and broad characterizations
were made based on the television data. On the television
monitor, hard-bottom habitats were identified by the presence of
exposed rock, large holes in the bottom, reefs, or hard-bottom-
associated organisms such as stump corals and sponges (attached
to sand-covered rock).
-------
224
Survey Sites 1 and 2
According to fathometer readings, the water depth increased
gradually from approximately 26 m on the eastern edge of Survey
Site 2 to approximately 30 m on the western boundary of Survey
Site 1 (Figure B-2). The topography of the bottom was flat with
occasional sand waves, and there was little variation in water
depth. The most irregular topography was found in the
southeastern portion of Survey Site 2, where sudden depth
changes of as much as 2.5 m in a distance less than 100 m were
observed.
Figure B-3 presents the final characterization of the
bottom habitats. The predominant habitat within Survey Sites 1
and 2 was sand with scattered patches of algae (Caulerpa^. The
most extensive areas of uninterrupted sandy bottom were found in
the northeast quadrant and south central areas of Survey Site 1,
and in the southeast quadrant and north central section of
Survey Site 2.
A large area of scattered hard bottom was located on the
central border between Survey Sites 1 and 2. To the northeast
of this large area, and within Survey Site 2, were three smaller
scattered hard-bottom areas. Five additional relatively R^all
scattered hard-bottom areas were identified in Survey Site Is
three in the northwest quadrant and two in the southwest
quadrant. One small area of extensive hard bottom was located
in the northwest quadrant of Survey Site 1.
A reef oriented northeast to southwest was located in the
central area of Site 1. The reef appeared to be approximately
1000 m in length with a vertical relief of nearly 2 m. The reef
was composed of broken rock and ledges, and abundant fish
populations were present. Two smaller reefs were found to the
west and northwest of the larger reef. These smaller reefs were
characterized by a relief of less than 1 m and contained large
fish populations and abundant growth of attached hird-bottom
organisms.
-------
(VJ
NJ
U1
SURVEY SITE 1 SURVEY SITE 2
DEPTH IN METERS
FIGURE B-2. BATHYMETRIC CHART OF SURVEY SITES 1 AND 2 (FROM
MML, 1983).
-------
SURVEY SITE 1
SURVEY SITE 2
-*—«—%—A—*¦
» t
-J—V
1——* V- 1 •« \
\ V • •
> ' if i * ?»??>? * t **
I • I •
* I
5 S
? »
,V»\ 5
i • > •
%
f* ! ! .'s"; ? i? >,><•"• •)
f\ / • »,
I ' •' •
J 5
^ J 4 • • / * •
f t f ? f ? ? ? ?
J J *.*?????? >
r i * I? ?/ ? ?
-5 » > »*»-'» ?_ }
4—I I L
* ? ** « t t f f t ! ? *
f f .'U\ »
I •' •
» — 4 .'**
• l i
» v."'..;
.zl « V
t
s
? »
? W. s
«s • <«• *•
• ;• ; • •
• \
• * - - -
*¦* '} 5
• »» • <>
(« **
J ;
*••••••
?
j—*i
-*—%—*—; ? «*¦ v.
• /
xm v i0i
• • •#
«•,' ?
\
*!•: ? ?
? ? ?
** f »
r;. ? *
? r;
• •«.
} ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
* »
« *
* ? v
? ?
? f
j i
r
Vlt
4 *-
S = Sand bottom
SHB = Scattered hard bottom
EHB = Extensive hard bottom
1 nmi
CANDIDATE SITE A
PIGURE B-3. LOCATION OP CANDIDATE SITE A (SITE 5A IN TEXT)
WITHIN SURVEY SITE 2 AND DISTRIBUTION OP BOTTOM
CHARACTERISTICS (PROMflML, 1983).
NJ
nj
-------
227
Survey Site 3
The bathymetry of Survey Site 3 is presented in Figure B-4.
Water depth increased from 28 n on the eastern border to 31 m on the
western edge of the site. The most variable topography within the
site was located in the central area along the western border. A
slight ridge with a localized trough to.. the south was located in the
north-central section of the site.
Survey Site 3 contained large areas of predominantly sandy
bottom along the northern border and southward into the central and
western sections (Figure B-5). Scattered hard-bottom habitats were
found in the southeastern quadrant and along the western border of
the site. There were no significant reefs or ledges. The
hard-bottom areas were characterized by low relief and a thin
covering of sand with a light to moderate growth of attached
organisms.
A SCUBA dive was made in a region of scattered hard bottom in
the southeast quadrant of the site. The water depth was 30.5 m, and
the topography was generally flat with sand ripples. The bottom was
sparsely covered with fish and invertebrates, and hard corals,
sponges, and other attached organisms were observed on hard strata
covered with 2.5 to 20 cm of coarse sand. Although actual
temperatures were not measured, a thermocline of approximately + 5°C
was detected around 21 m.
Survey Sites 4 and 5
Water depths at Survey Sites 4 and 5 ranged from 25 m at the
southeast corner of Site 5 to 31 m on the western border of Site 4
(Figure B-6). Depths generally increased from east to west in a
general steady slope, with a slight trough extending eastward from
the center of the two sites. Two small ridges were observed near
the center of the western border of Site 4. The most variable
-------
FIGURE B-4. BATHYHETRIC CHART OF SURVEY SITE 3 (FROM MML.
1983).
-------
Pvj
ro
SURVEY SITE 3
FIGURE B 5. LOCATION OF CANDIDATE SITE B (SITE 5B IN TEXT)
WITHIN SURVEY SITE 3 AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOTTOH
CHARACTERISTICS (FROM NHL, 1983).
-------
SURVEY SITE 4 SURVEY SITE 5
FIGURE B-6. BATHYHETRIC CHART OF SURVEY SITES 4 AND 5 (FROM
MML, 1983).
-------
231
topography was near the southern edge of the western border of
Survey Site 4, where rises and depressions of approximately 1 m over
relatively short horizontal distances occurred.
The bottom habitats of Survey Sites 4 and 5 were predominantly
sand with scattered hard bottom (Figure B-7). Predominantly sandy
bottom was observed in the central area of Site 5 and on the western
edge of Site 4. These areas contained no evidence of flora or fauna
associated with hard-bottom habitats. The scattered hard bottom was
characterized by occasional exposed rocks and attached organisms
penetrating the sand. These areas were characterized by low relief
with a thin layer of sand over underlying limestone, an observation
confirmed by SCUBA divers near the west central border of Survey
Site 5. Two areas of extensive hard bottom were found in the
central and south-central regions of each site along the common
border of the sites. Numerous associated fish and moderate to
extensive growth of algae and populations of invertebrates
characterized these areas. No large reefs were observed, but
side-scan sonar did reveal the presence of scattered elevations and
depressions in the area of the hard-bottom habitats. The general
relief over the hard-bottom areas was less than 1 m.
Selection of Candidate Sites
Three candidate sites for dredged material disposal were chosen
from within the areas surveyed. Each candidate site was square (2
nmi on each side). The location of the candidate sites, Site A
(renamed Site 5A), Site B (renamed Site 5B), and Site C, within
Survey Sites 2, 3, and 5, respectively, are presented in Table B-l.
Based on information available at the time of the study, the
candidate sites were located within the least environmentally
sensitive sections of the survey areas. The relative compositions
of bottom characteristics for the five survey areas and the
candidate sites are summarized in Table B-3.
MML Candidate Site A (= JRB Site 30MS-1; renamed Site 5A),
-------
CO
S
4 *
» " •
SURVEY SITE 4
s V »m ******* *** ni 5
SURVEY SITE 5
*» » «t i«a -» ' S
-M-^r
>*9 <»» Vf
»• « • j*M
* _ • & «
.'r y»
v»
•
9*0
* ^
•
90
•
{M
•
Y»
5«
•
•
m $n
• •
s
•
•
i
S *"
T ,s; V •
r r v ^ v
j» s<* v*
* i* m. r *• ** ** sr
<" »r .<•
• • i) *•" *• i j ? j 5 T V Jf
*
' ' if ? r ^ 'f ** (r~ y» y
? r 5»o * *• t 5?#
/ • • • • • •
f •'?/?""}-j—j— f; » »
i i I S
' ? f
W» «» 9 V
t* *• r v '•
if*
Sf»
'•' v r)
'•' v.T.rh
' '
«- * / ^ i
'f 5 (9*0 / «
IS . ?
/
'e « }\ **
? ? ' \ •
?
s
$
«
s
w
•
Y"
si *!
0 ft*
o
sr
•
t
«•
•
m
•
»»<•
•
/*••.
1
9«
•
5
•
S Jf*
• •
5 i
• #
*
•
»
Ufl
•
\
i#« <
• •
WB
•
5M
•
S#*0
•
f M
• •
s
•
511
5
•
)«
y*
•
in
•
•
/*'
1
»
~
J?*!
fM
•
»
%
^ v.
r
<¦">
o
3»
•H
rn
cr>
HH
I
rn
o
S = Sand bottom
SHB = Scattered hard bottom
EHB = Extensive hard bottom
S(0 $0$
* •
»r\f
FIGURE B-7. LOCATION OF CANDIDATE SITE C WITHIN SURVEY SITES 4
AND 5 AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS
(FROM NHL, 1983).
NJ
00
NJ
-------
233
TABLE B-3. RELATIVE COMPOSITION OF BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR
FIVE SURVEY AREAS AND THREE CANDIDATE AREAS (FROM
MML, 1983).
Scattered Hard Extensive Hard
Sand Bottom Bottom Bottom
Survey Areas Number1 Percent Number1 Percent Number1 Percent
Mote Marine laboratory (1983)
Survey Sites 1 and 2 293 80.3 69 18.9 3 0.8
Candidate Site A 52 78.8 14 21.2 0 0.0
(Renamed Site 5A)
Survey Site 3 116 74.4 40 25.6 0 0.0
Candidate Site B 70 89.7 8 10.3 0 0.0
(Renamed Site 5B)
Survey Sites 4 and 5 112 34.3 194 54.0 42 11.7
Candidate Site C 24 35.3 44 64.7 0 0.0
(Eliminated)
All MML Sites 532 60.5 303 34.4 45 5.1
JRB Associates (1983)
Site 30MS-1 133 94 9 6 0 0
(Renamed Site 5A)
Site 30MS-2 72 69 32 31 0 0
(Renamed Site 5B)
Site 30MS-C 34 92 3 8 0 0
(Renamed Site 5MS-C)
dumber of navigation points at which the characteristic was
observed.
-------
234
which is located in the southeast corner of Survey Site 2, contains
mostly sand bottom with a few areas of scattered hard bottom; this
site has a higher percentage of scattered hard bottom than the
larger Survey Sites 1 and 2 combined. The site is approximately 79
percent sand bottom and contains no extensive hard-bottom areas.
MML Candidate Site B (= JRB Site 30MS-2; renamed Site 5B) is
located in the west central area of Survey Site 3. Of the three
candidate sites, this site contains the highest percentage of
sand-bottom areas (90 percent) and the lowest percentage of
hard-bottom areas (10 percent).
MML Candidate Site C (not directly comparable to any JRB site;
eventually eliminated) is located in the northeast quadrant of
Survey Site 5. This site contains the highest percentage of
hard-bottom areas (65 percent) and the lowest percentage of
sand-bottom areas (35 percent) of the three candidate sites.
Videotapes of the survey areas revealed several transects with very
widely scattered hard-bottom communities and primarily sandy
bottoms. Because of the high percentage of hard-bottom areas,
Candidate Site C was eliminated from further consideration as a
potential site for disposal of dredged material.
JRB ASSOCIATES (SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983)
A total of 20 nmi of sea bottom was surveyed along four 2-nmi
transects in each of Sites 30MS-1 (renamed Site 5A) (Transects 1-4)
and 30MS-2 (renamed Site 5B) (Transects 5-8) and two 1-nmi transects
in Site 30MS-C (renamed Site 5MS-C) (Transects 9 and 10). However,
the actual path of Transect 5 is not known because the LORAN
coordinates on the videotape could not be deciphered.
During each transect, a navigational position was recorded
every 3 minutes. All observations, such as bottom type, LORAN
coordinates, and tape counter readings, made during one 3-min
interval were summarized and recorded at the end of the interval.
-------
235
Bottom habitats were classified as sand, scattered hard bottom,
or extensive hard bottom in accordance with the classification
system used by MML. Both extensive and scattered hard-bottom areas
were distinguished by the presence of exposed hard substrates such
as coral ledges or rocks; attached epifaunal organisms such as
sponges, tunicates, and hard and soft corals; or an irregular bottom
relief with epifaunal organisms or scnoois of reef fishes.
Scattered hard-bottom areas may have been covered with a layer of
sand but hard- substrate epifauna were observed protruding through
the sand cover. Extensive hard-bottom areas had a minimal sand
cover, and exposed rock had a dense coral substrate, with a typical
relief of 1 to several feet.
Site 30MS-1
No extensive hard-bottom areas were observed at Site 30MS-1 (=
MML Candidate Site A; renamed Site 5A). Approximately 6 percent of
the area surveyed was classified as scattered hard bottom (Figure
B-8); the largest area of hard bottom was found in the central area
of the eastern boundary of the site. Two additional scattered
hard-bottom c.reas, characterized by low densities of attached
epifauna, were found at the eastern end of Transect 2 just outside
the eastern boundary of the site.
Approximately 94 percent of the area surveyed within Site
30MS-1 was characterized as sandy bottom with flat topography.
Scattered patches of algae (probably Caulerpa sp.), shell hash, and
worm tube complexes were observed, particularly near the western
boundary of the survey area.
Site 30MS-2
Sand bottom dominated the northwestern portion of the area
surveyed in Site 30MS-2 (= MML Candidate Site B; renamed Site 5B)
-------
LOCATION OP VIDEO OBSERVATIONS AT SITE 30HS-1 (SITE
5A IN TEXT) WITHIN SURVEY SITE 2 AND DISTRIBUTION
OF BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS. A STAR INDICATES
SCATTERED HARD BOTTOM AREAS AND A DOT INDICATES
SAND BOTTOM AREAS. (PROM JRB, 1984).
NJ
UJ
<71
-------
237
(Figure B-9). Approximately 31 percent of the area surveyed was
classified as scattered hard bottom, with the greatest occurrences
found in the eastern and central portions of the study area. A few
areas of scattered hard bottom were found south of the sandy areas
in the western section of the survey area. No extensive hard-bottom
areas were identified.
Site 30MS-C
Approximately 92 percent of the area surveyed at Site 30MS-C
(renamed Site 5MS-C) was characterized as sandy bottom (Figure
B-10), which was generally flat with occasional ripples and
intermittent algal patches. Only 9 percent of the bottom substrate
was characterized as scattered hard bottom. The three scattered
hard-bottom areas observed were characterized by solitary corals and
low densities of epifaunal organisms such as sponges. No extensive
hard-bottom areas were observed.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF THE TWO STUDIES
JRB (1984) evaluated the reproducibility and replicability of
interpretations of the MML and JRB video surveys. Three different
quality control examinations were performed: (1) portions of the MML
and JRB videotapes were reanalyzed using the same methods followed
during the original analysis, (2) continuous sequences of the JRB
videotapes from Survey Sites 2 and 3 were reanalyzed, and (3)
videotapes of areas observed during both surveys were directly
compared.
In the reanalysis of portions of the MML tapes, 88 out of 883
MML observation points (or navigational fixes) were reexamined and a
percent difference calculated for c^ch substrate identified (Table
B-4). MML found 58 percent sand coverage and. 2 percent scattered
-------
* " Soottorotf hard bottom
• ¦ tiM bottom
/
FIGURE B-9 LOCATION OF VIDEO OBSERVATIONS AT SITE 30MS-2 (SITE
5 B IN TEXT) WITHIN SURVEY SITE 3 AND DISTRIBUTION
OF BOTTOH CHARACTERISTICS. A STAR INDICATES
SCATTERED HARD BOTTOM AREAS AND A DOT INDICATES
SAND BOTTOM AREAS. (FROM JRB, 1984).
B-20
-------
FIGURE B-10 LOCATION OF VIDEO OBSERVATIONS AT SITE 30MS-C (SITE
5 HS-C IN TEXT) WITHIN SURVEY SITE 4 AND
DISTRIBUTION OF BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS. A STAR
INDICATES SCATTERED HARD BOTTOM AREAS AND A DOT
INDICATES SAND BOTTOR AREAS. (FROM JRB, 1984).
-------
240
TABLE B-4. RESULTS OF QUALITY CONTROL ANALYSIS OF MML
(1983) AND JRfi (1984) VIDEO SURVEYS (ADAPTED FROM JRB,
1984).
Scattered Hard Extensive Hard
Sand Bottom Bottom Bottom
Number1 Percent Number1 Percent Number1 Percent
Method 1
Individual Observations(Survey Sites 1 through 5) from MML Survey
MML (Original) 51 58 37 42 0 0
JRB (QC) 59 67 29 33 0 0
Difference — 9 — 9 — 0
Video Sequences from JRB survey (Survey Sites 2 and 3)
JRB (Original) 37 73 14 \i / 0 0
'RB (QC) 44 86 7 14 0 0
Difference — 13 — 13 — 0
Method 2
Videotape Sequences from MML Survey, Percent Bottom Coverage (Survey
Site 2)
MML — 79 — 21 — 0
JRB (QC) — 85 ~ 15 — 0
Difference — 6 — 6 — 0
Contoured Bottom Types (Survey Site 2)
MML 0.477678g 88 0.06530g 12 0 0
JRB (QC) 0.46678g 87 0.07070g 13 0 0
Difference 0.01089g 1 0.00540g 1 0 0
lFor Method 1 and Percent Bottom Coverage for Method 2, this column
refers to number of observations. For Contoured Bottom Types for
Method 2, this column refers to weight in grams (g).
-------
241
hard-bottom coverage. In the reanalysis, JRB found 67 percent Band
coverage and 33 percent scattered hard-bottom coverage.
Discrepancies in substrate types occurred at 9 percent of the
observation points', or at 8 out of 88 points examined.
Nine randomly selected 15-min sequences of the JRB tapes, or a
total of 51 observational points, from Survey Sites 2 and 3 were
reexamined (Table B-4). The original analysis by JRB reported 73
percent sand coverage and 27 percent scattered hard—bottom coverage.
Upon reanalysis, JRB found 86 percent sand coverage and 14 percent
scattered hard-bottom coverage.
Discrepancies occurred at 14 percent (7 out of 51 observations)
of the observational points. This difference was approximately 1.5
times higher than the discrepancy found in the reanalysis of the MML
videotapes.
Continuous sequences of the MML videotapes from Survey Site 2
were reviewed (Table B-4). MML estimated 79 percent sand coverage,
21 percent scattered hard-bottom coverage, and 0 percent extensive
hard-bottom coverage. During the reanalysis, JRB estimated 85
percent sand coverage and 15 percent hard bottom coverage.
Therefore, discrepancies were found in 6 percent of the sequences
reviewed.
Substrate characterizations made by MML and JRB for sequences
of the MML videotapes at Survey Site 2 were plotted onto base maps.
Contoured bottom types from both analyses were cut out and each
contour was weighed separately. The MML contour weights indicated
88 percent sand coverage, 12 percent scattered hard-bottom coverage,
and no extensive hard-bottom coverage. The JRB contour weights
indicated 87 percent sand coverage and 13 percent scattered hard
bottom. This comparison resulted in a 1 percent difference in the
results (Table B-4).
Both MML and JRB collected video records in portions of Survey
Sites 2 and 3. However, only a small portion (20 percent) of the
areas directly correspond in the two surveys. Of the 142
observations made by JRB in this small overlapping area, 94 percent
of the bottom was characterized as ~and and 6 percent was
characterized as scattered hard bottom. MML rep rted this same area
-------
242
as having 79 percent sand and 21 percent scattered hard bottom.
Differences between the original results and the quality
control results were attributed to several factors. The MML
classification at each navigational fix was based on a summary of
observations in the preceding 3 minutes of videotape. During the
reanalysis, short sequences of the videotape from immediately before
and after the navigational fix were reviewed by JRB. Therefore, the
JRB observations were based on slightly different intervals. In
addition, the viewing of continuous sequences by MML resulted in
judgments based on previous observations. Random spot checks during
the quality control evaluation would not have included these
previous observations.
In some cases, the videotape picture was not clear enough to
accurately classify the bottom substrate. In the original analyses,
the side-6can sonar and fathometer could have been used to resolve
this problem by providing information on bottom characteristics
outside the field of view. However, side scan sonar cannot
distinguish between exposed rock and rock covered with a thin layer
of sand, and this method may have led to an overestimation of
exposed hard-bottom coverage in some cases.
Discrepancies between the two surveys of the same area may be
attributable to natural processes. A period of approximately 2
months separated the two surveys, and natural movement of the sand
may have occurred. Small to moderate relief features (less than 4
ft in height) in hard-bottom areas may have variable amounts of sand
cover depending upon seasonal differences. Larger or smaller areas
of hard-bottom features may be exposed or buried due to seasonal
differences in sediment transport and deposition.
In addition to natural processes, variations in sampling
methods may have contributed to discrepancies between the two sets
of data. For example, if the video cameras were not at the same
level during both tapings, one series of observations may have been
made from a greater height off the bottom. This would have resulted
in a greater viewing area. Other sampling errors may have included
variability in navigation systems and electrical interference that
affected resolution.
-------
In summary, varying degrees of replicability were achieved,
depending on the method of reanalysis. Spot-checking short
sequences of videotape would underestimate scattered bottom
coverage; greater reproducibility would result from reviewing
continuous sequences. When contour plots of substrates were
actually cut out and weighed, discrepancies in percent coverage were
minimal.
The replicability of different video records for the same area
from different times is limited by the variability caused by natural
movement of the sand (due to storm-induced turbulence) with
resulting changes in the thickness of the sand veneer. In addition,
sampling conducted using different sampling equipment and
technicians may introduce sampling errors.
REFERENCES
JRB. See JRB Associates.
JRB Associates. 1984. Final report on studies and sample analyses
for Tampa Bay survey no. 5 (September/October 1983).
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
118 p.
MML. See Mote Marine Laboratory.
Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Preliminary survey of potential
dredge material disposal sites off Tampa Bay, Florida.
Submitted to Camp Dresser and McEc^, Inc., Anncndale VA,
September 1983. 36 p.
-------
246
-------
247
APPENDIX C
SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
TAMPA, FLORIDA ODMDS
-------
APPENDIX C;
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
Introduction. It is the responsibility of EPA under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 to
manage and monitor each of the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites (ODMDSs) designated by the EPA pursuant to Section 102 of
MPRSA. As part of this responsibility, this management and
monitoring plan has been developed to specifically address the
deposition of dredged material into the Tampa ODMDS.
draft
SITE MANAGEMENT
Section 228.3 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229)
states: "Management of a site consists of regulating times,
rates, and methods of disposal and quantities and types of
materials disposed of; developing and maintaining effective
ambient monitoring programs for the site; conducting disposal
site evaluation studies; and recommending modifications in site
use and/or designation." The plan may be modified if it is
determined that such changes are warranted as a result of
information obtained during the monitoring process.
Management Objectives. There are three primary objectives in the
management of each ODMDS. These are:
o Protection of the marine environment;
o Beneficial use of dredged material whenever practical;
and
o Locumentation of disposal activities at the ODMDS.
The following sections provide the f_iinework for meeting these
objectives to the extent possible.
Material volumes. The Tampa ODMDS was first used in May, 1984
for disposal of material for harbor deepening. The following
table outlines expected disposal at the ODMDS as projected by the
Jacksonville District.
CI
-------
250
draft
TABLE: Volumes of Dredged Material Disposed at Tampa Site
and Estimated Average 1993-1998.
Completion Type of Volume Composition
Date Action (cubic yards)
1985 New work 3,141,272 unavailable
FY95 Maintenance 1,100,000 silty sand, fines
FY96 Maintenance 1,000,000 silty sand, fines
FY97 Maintenance 600,000 silty sand, fines
FY99 Maintenance 500,000 silty sand, fines
There are no proposed limitations on the quantity of material
that may be placed at the site.
Material suitability. The only source of material expected to be
placed at the site is maintenance material. These materials will
consist of mixtures of silt, clay and sand in varying
percentages.
The Tampa ODMDS is sectioned so that different types of materials
Till be placed a.- different locations to avoid potential adverse
impacts to resources. Extensive colonization has occurred on the
mound created by previous disposal of consolidated materials.
Therefore, the area of the mound will be restricted to the
disposal of material that consists of at least 90 % gravel or
larger grain size. No disposal shall occur directly on any
portion of the mound (as shown in Figure 1). Disposal of all
other material is restricted to that area within the site
identified in Figure 1 as "Disposal Zone" north of the mound.
The size of this area will provide sufficient room for proposed
volumes. Additionally, plume modelling results (Appendix .1) show
that disposal within this zone will ensure that no impacts occur
to the mound or to those areas outside the northern boundary of
the site.
The suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal must be
verified by the COE and agreed to by EPA prior to each disposal
event. Verification will be valid for three years from the time
last verified. Approval may be given by EPA for an additional
two years if conditions have not changed and no adverse impacts
have occurred or are expected. Verification will involve: 1) a
case-specific evaluation against the exclusion criteria (40 CFR
227.13(b)), 2) a determination of the necessity for bioassay
C2
-------
0'
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
83p06'02"
27*32'2?"
27c32'07"
DISPOSAL ZONE
27«31'47"
> SAND-SIZED
27*30'57"
27®30"27"
SITE 4
83*03'46"
Figure 1
-------
DRAFT
(toxicity and bioaccumulation) testing for non-excluded material
based on the potential for contamination' of the sediment since
last tested, and 3) carrying out the testing and determining that
the non-excluded, tested material is suitable for ocean disposal.
Documentation of verification will be completed prior to use of
the site. Documentation for material suitability for dredging
events proposed for ocean disposal more than 5 years since last
verified will be a new 103 evaluation and public notice.
Documentation for material suitability for dredging events
proposed for ocean disposal less than 5 years but more than 3
years since last verified will be an exchange of letters between
the COE and EPA.
Should EPA conclude that a reasonable potential exists for the
proposed dredged material to have been contaminated, acceptable
testing will be completed prior to use of the site. Testing
procedures to be used will be consistent with the EPA/COE testing
manual ('green book') and any regional implementation guidance.
Only material determined to be suitable through the MPRSA 103
verification process by the COE and EPA will be placed at the
designated ocean disposal site.
Time of disposal. At present no restrictions have been
determined to be necessary for disposal related to seasonal
variations in ocean current or biotic activity. As monitoring
results are compiled, should any such restrictions appear
necessary, disposal activities will be scheduled so as to avoid
adverse impacts. Additionally, if new information indicates that
endangered or threatened species are being adversely impacted,
restrictions may be incurred.
Disposal Technique. No specific disposal technique is required
for this site.
Utilization of any beach-compatible dredged material for beach
nourishment is encouraged by EPA. Disposal of coarser material
should be planned to allow placement within or accessible to the
littoral zone, to the maximum extent practical and following the
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
C4
-------
SITE MONITORING
Part 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations establishes the need
for evaluating the impacts of disposal on the marine environment.
Section 228.9 indicates that the primary purpose of this
monitoring program is to evaluate the impact of disposal on the
marine environment by referencing the monitoring results to a set
of baseline conditions. Section 228.10(b) states that in
addition to other necessary or appropriate considerations, the
following types of effects will be considered in determining to
what extent the marine environment has' been impacted by materials
disposed at an ocean site (excerpted):
1. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine
sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery and
shellfishery areas;
3. Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive
biota characteristic of the general area;
4. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or
sediment composition at the disposal site, when these
changes are attributable to materials disposed of at the
site;
5. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or
numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or
near the disposal site, when these changes can be
attributed to the effects of materials disposed at the
site; and
6. Accumulation of material constituents (including without
limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota at or near
the site.
Part 228.10(c) states: "The determination of the overall
severity of disposal at the site on the marine environment,
including without limitation, the disposal site and adjacent
areas, will be based on the evaluation of the entire body of
pertinent data using appropriate methods of data analysis for the
quantity and type of data available.
C5
-------
254
draft
Impacts will be classified according to the overall condition of
the environment of the disposal site and adjacent areas based on
the determination by the EPA management authority assessing the
nature and extent of the effects identified in paragraph (b) of
this section in addition to other necessary or appropriate
considerations."
Frequency of monitoring will be based on frequency of disposal
and previous monitoring results.
Baseline Monitoring. The results of investigations presented in
this EIS will serve as the main body of baseline data for the
monitoring of the impacts associated with the use of the Tampa
ODMDS (see DEIS).
A bathymetric survey will be conducted by the COE or site user
prior to dredging cycle or project disposal. The number of
transects required will be dependent upon the length of the
disposal operation and the quantity of material proposed for
disposal. The surveys will be taken along lines spaced at
200-foot intervals or less and be of sufficient length to
adequately cover the disposal area. Accuracy of the surveys will
be + 1.0 feet. These surveys will be referenced to the
_ppropriate datu*.. and corrected for tide conditions at the time
of survey. No additional pre-disposal monitoring at this site is
proposed.
Disposal Monitoring. For all disposal activities, the dredging
contractor will be required to prepare and operate under an
approved electronic verification plan for all disposal
operations. As part of this plan, the contractor will provide an
automated system that will continuously track the horizontal
location and draft condition (vertical) of the disposal vessel
from the point of dredging to the disposal area, and return to
the point of dredging. Required digital data are as follows:
(a) Date;
(b) Time;
(c) Vessel Name;
(d) Dump Number;
(e) Map Number on which dump is plotted;
C6
-------
255
DRAFT
(f) Beginning and ending coordinates of the dredging
area for each load, and the beginning and ending
coordinates for each dump and the compass heading at the
beginning of each dump;
(g) Shoal Number from which dredged material came; and
(h) Volume and brief description of material disposed.
As a follow-up to the baseline bathymetric survey, the COE or
other site user will conduct a post-disposal bathymetric survey.
The number of transects required will be the same as in the
baseline survey.
The user will be required to prepare and submit to the COE daily
reports of operations and a monthly report of operations for each
month or partial month's work.
Material Tracking and Disposal Effects Monitoring. Based on the
type and volume of material disposed, various monitoring surveys
can be used to determine if and where the disposed material is
moving, and what environmental effect the material is having on
the site and adjacent area. A tiered approach will be used to
determine the level of monitoring effort required following each
disposal event.
An interagency SMMP team, consisting of representatives of EPA,
COE, State of Florida and the user(s), will be established at the
time when use of the ODMDS is proposed. Other agencies, such as
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), will be asked to
participate where appropriate. This SMMP team will evaluate
existing monitoring data, the type of proposed disposal (i.e.,
O&M vs. construction), the type of material (i.e., sand vs. mud),
location of placement within the ODMDS and quantity of proposed
material. -This team will then make recommendations to the
responsible agency on appropriate monitoring techniques, level of
monitoring, significance of results and potential management
options.
The monitoring program for the area will address possible changes
in bathymetric, sedimentological, chemical, and biological
aspects of the ODMDS and surrounding area as a result of the
disposal of dredged material at the site, as appropriate.
C7
-------
draft
Initially, the level of monitoring proposed will focus on
tracking the material to determine if it moves, in sufficient
quantities, toward known resources. Sediment mapping will be
done approximately 12 to 24 months after the initial disposal
under the final designation is complete. The results of this
mapping will be reviewed by the SMMP team, which will recommend
the appropriate monitoring to study potential impacts, if
necessary.
Close coordination between EPA, COE, the State of Florida, and
the user(s) will be maintained during development of the detailed
survey plans and evaluation of results. Should the initial
disposal at the permanently-designated ODMDS result in
unacceptable adverse impacts, further studies may be required to
determine the persistence of these impacts, the extent of the
impacts within the marine system, and/or possible means of
mitigation. In addition, the management plan presented may
require revision based on the outcome of the monitoring program.
Reporting and Data Formatting. Any data collected will be
provided to federal and state agencies as appropriate. Data will
be provided to other interested parties requesting such data to
the extent possible. EPA requires data to be in the National
Ocean Data Center (NODC) format, where appropriate. Data will be
provided to members of the SMMP team for all surveys (including
bathymetric) in a report generated by the action agency. The
report should indicate how the survey relates to the SMMP and
list previous surveys at the Tampa ODMDS. Reports should be
provided within 90 days (bathymetric surveys within 45 days)
after completion. Exception to the time limit will be possible
if outside contracts stipulate a longer period of time. The
report should provide data interpretations, conclusions, and
recommendations, and should project the next phase of the SMMP.
Modification of ODMDS SMMP. A need for modification of the use
of the Tampa ODMDS because of unacceptable impacts is not
anticipated. However, should the results of the monitoring
surveys indicate that continuing use of the ODMDS would lead to
unacceptable impacts, then either the ODMDS Management Plan will
be modified to alleviate the impacts, or the location of the
ODMDS would be modified. Regardless, this plan will be reviewed
annually by the SMMP team for necessary revisions.
C8
-------
258
-------
259
APPENDIX D
Plates, Tampa Bay Channels
and Disposal Areas
-------
NJ
LEGEND PLATES 4,5,6 (revised plani
SUBMERGED MAINTENANCE
DISPOSAL ARFA
q:::i
SUBMERGED CONSTRUCTION
DISPOSAL AREA
SUBMERGED BOULDER
DISPOSAL AREA
EMERGENT CONSTRUCTION DISPOSAL AREA
(RECREATION AREA. WILDLIFE AREA)
EMERGENT MAINTENANCE
DISPOSAL AREA
RECREATION AND WILDLIFE ISLANDS
CIRCULATION CUT(-I5'MLW DEPTH* 1500" WIDE)
1 A MPA HARROR 1 1 OB I Da
MAIN CHANNfl
111.) Nil
• «< • f ¦ • \ I • • 1 t • (>»f\ •« 1
¦ A' ISIINdlll
l|. t. 1 1 MhiN 1 i I til ft • | Irf -.11 ,n >»•* SI
» 1* •> M ».
hiii
-------
if.*** *«. J.*.** CArGS 1257
SOUMOlMO 9 MOV Itrs a| V OCC lt?4
fAUPA HM|, n A 45M FftOJtCf
DISPOSAL »l AH NOV M
fSJ
ai
NJ
-------
-------
9x^J§MD/^-9 O"
K\ v-1° - •
V^vai"
~" *'i •
?-¦' >•.. , p - -
-------
-------
-------
268
-------
269
APPENDIX E
UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES STUDY
BY CE/JAX, 1993
-------
271
TAMPA HARBOR
DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
-------
273
TAMPA HARBOR
DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS 1
SHOAL CHARACTERISTICS 2
SITE IDENTIFICATION 2
Selection Criteria 2
Geographical Boundaries 5
Site Selection 5
Site Characteristics 5
SITE VERIFICATION 5
Changed Conditions 10
Pipeline Access 10
DETAILED SITE ANALYSIS 10
SITE SPECIFICS 10
Site Capacity 11
Site Preparation 11
Site Cost Summary 15
DETAILED DREDGING ANALYSIS 15
OCEAN DISPOSAL 15
Hopper Dredge Estimates 19
Clamshell Estimates 19
UPLAND DISPOSAL 24
Hopper Dredge and Pumpout 24
Clamshell/Barge and Pumpout 28
INITIAL COST COMPARISON 33
REAL ESTATE VALUES 33
FINAL COST COMPARISON 37
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 37
SUMMARY 37
RESULTS 38
i
-------
274
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
LIST OF TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
1 HARBOR CUT AND SHOAL CHARACTERISTICS 4
2 UPLAND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
3 INITIAL UPLAND SITES ELIMINATED OR RECONFIGURED . 9
4 UPLAND SITE DATA 12
5 CLEARING AND GRUBBING COST RANGES 14
6 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION COST RANGES .... 14
7 SITE PREPARATION COSTS 16
8 HOPPER DREDGE ESTIMATE 20
9 HOPPER DREDGE AND OCEAN DISPOSAL COST 21
10 CLAMSHELL DREDGE ESTIMATE 22
11 CLAMSHELL DREDGE AND OCEAN DISPOSAL COSTS 23
12 HOPPER DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT ESTIMATE 25
13 HOPPER DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT COST 26
14 CLAMSHELL DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT ESTIMATE 29
15 CLAMSHELL - BARGE WITH PUMPOUT COSTS 30
16 HYDRAULIC DREDGE ESTIMATE 31
17 HYDRAULIC DREDGE COST 32
18 COST COMPARISON 34
19 SITES REMOVED AFTER INITIAL COST COMPARISON 35
20 REAL ESTATE VALUES 36
21 POTENTIAL UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES 39
LIST OF FIGURES
No. TITLE PAGE NO.
1 LOCATION MAP TAMPA HARBOR 3
2 LOCATION MAP INITIAL UPLAND SITES 8
3 LOCATION MAP ODMDS 18
4 LOCATION MAP PUMPOUT PLANTS 27
5 LOCATION MAP POTENTIAL UPLAND SITES 40
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
TITLE ATTACHMENT
REAL ESTATE A
ii
-------
275
TAMPA HARBOR
DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performed
this study to determine the availability of upland sites in the vicinity of
Tampa Harbor for disposal of dredged material. The purpose of the study
was to determine the availability and feasibility of using upland sites in
comparison to offshore dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for Tampa
Harbor. Upland disposal sites underwent an analysis of environmental,
engineering, and economic criteria. The economic assessments included the
cost to purchase the required land, construct the necessary features, and
transport the dredged material to the site. The analysis involves
environmental and economic impacts of offshore and upland disposal to
obtain a cost comparison which would indicate the most feasible method of
disposal. The analysis and evaluation presented in this study include
information and conditions existing at the end of 1992 and the beginning of
1993. Further, more detailed study would be required to implement any
upland site recommended in this report.
As this study is primarily for the disposal of dredged material from the
Tampa Harbor Federal Project, the Federal navigation channel was the
major concern. Any material dredged from local access channels and
berthing areas was not a consideration at this time. The Manatee Harbor
channel was also excluded from this study as it is not part of the Tampa
Harbor Federal Project. The Manatee Port Authority has its own upland
disposal site for future construction and maintenance work. The St.
Petersburg Harbor channel was excluded as it is not part of the Tampa
Harbor Federal Project. Figure 1 is provided to show the extent of the
Federal project at Tampa Harbor.
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Initial investigations centered on obtaining and reviewing any previous
disposal area studies for Tampa and other harbors. The Tampa Port
Authority commissioned Greiner, Incorporated to develop a dredged material
management plan which included upland disposal areas. Pertinent sections
of the plan were made available to this office. Prior studies and reports
provided a methodology for an upland area evaluation which included
environmental, engineering, and economic considerations. The Hillsborough
County Planning Commission provided a county comprehensive plan which
1
-------
276
contained valuable information related to aspects of environmental and
cultural resources, future land use, and zoning. Information in each of the
previous studies was helpful in preparing for this analysis and understanding
the problems associated with dredged material disposal.
SHOAL CHARACTERISTICS
The initial analysis involved a determination of dredged material quantity
and classification as well as the dredging interval for every cut or section of
the harbor. A dredging history on the Federal channel is available in the
Jacksonville District Office. That history contains the quantity of material
removed from specific channel sections (cuts) during each dredging event
with a recorded time frame. Analysis of the data determined the annual
shoaling rate and dredging interval of each cut in the harbor. After
determination of the annual shoaling rate and dredging interval, an analysis
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Condition of Channel Reports for
Tampa Harbor provided the location and average depth of shoals within
each cut. Shoal quantity, surface area, and depth are important factors
related to dredging costs for shoal removal. The results of that analysis are
presented in table 1.
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Selection Criteria - To enable potential site identification, specific criteria
had to be established with regard to size, shape, use, and boundary
conditions. Potential sites with 10 acres or less in size or any dwelling on it
were not a consideration. Wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas
were also avoided as potential sites. For any small site, shape would be a
consideration to enable sufficient settling time for the return water to meet
required water quality standards. Property boundaries influenced site
selection because severance damages are a consideration in real estate
values. Severance damages are paid to a property owner when purchasing a
portion of a parcel of land that devalues the remaining sections. In
designating potential sites utilization of the entire parcel was a major
consideration to avoid any additional severance costs. With the criteria in
place, the selection process went forward to identify the geographical
boundaries as a means of limiting the scope of the search.
2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 1
TAMPA HARBOR
HARBOR CUT AND
SHOAL CHARACTERISTICS
CUT
NAME
CUT
LENGTH
(FEED
DISTANCE
TO ODMDS
(MILES)
ANNUAL
SHOALING
(CY)
DREDGE
INTERVAL
(YEARS)
TOTAL
QUANTITY
(CY)
SURFACE
AREA
(FEET ~ 2)
PROJECTED
SHOALING
(FEED
MATERIAL
TYPE
tUMONT 1
67,016
14
320,000
10
3,200,000
8,500,000
10.2
SAND
EGMONT 2
13,290
22
500
10
5,000
38,000
3.6
SAND
MULLET
22,000
25
2,500
10
25,000
68,000
9.9
SAND
A
16,661
29
15,000
5
75,000
203,000
10.0
SAND
B
20,955
32
11,000
10
110,000
1,310,000
2.3
SAND
C
10,512
35
100
D
13,154
37
2,000
10
20,000
300,000
1.8
SAND
E
12,500
40
400
F
9,523
42
6,000
10
60,000
800,000
2.0
SAND
G
16,392
44
65,000
10
650,000
3,562,000
4.9
SILTY
J
6,700
47
300
J2
5,887
48
25
K
13,000
50
1,000
20
20,000
194,250
2.8
SILTY
PT TAMPA
2,000
51
GADSEN
20,255
44
20,000
10
200,000
1,441,750
3.7
SANDY
A(HB)
6,045
46
39,000
4
156,000
1,140,000
3.7
SANDY
BIG BEND
11,616
48
45,000
7
315,000
1,554,000
5.5
SANDY
C(HB)
32,498
50
110,000
10
1,100,000
7,632,500
3.9
SANDY
ALAFIA
18,392
51
110,000
5
550,000
1,776,500
8.4
SANDY
SUTTON
4,152
53
75,000
5
375,000
1,346,000
7.5
SILTY
EAST BAY
5,762
54
20,000
5
100,000
444,000
6.1
SILTY
D(HB)
7,778
54
35,000
5
175,000
540,000
8.8
SILTY
SPARKMAN
7,778
55
30,000
5
150,000
777,750
5.2
SILTY
YBOR
4,308
56
10,000
10
100,000
557,500
4.8
SILTY
SEDDON
6,983
55
Distance to ODMDS is from the center of the cut to the center of the ODMDS
Quantities include 2 feet of overdepth dredging.
Cuts with no quantity information do not have a history of shoaling.
-------
280
Geographical Boundaries - The identification of initial geographical
boundaries usually involve a consideration for pipeline access to any
potential site. Interstates 1-75 and 1-275 form a barrier to pipelines and
served as the eastern and northern boundaries. The shoreline at the Gulf of
Mexico forms the western limit. Equipment limitations relating to pumping
dredged material to potential sites define the southern boundary. A detailed
dredging analysis includes the maximum pumping distance for this study as
approximately 10 miles from the hydraulic dredge plant or pumpout plant
location. Geographical boundaries and equipment limitations greatly
reduced the extent of potential site locations.
Site Selection - Recent aerial photography (1991) in conjunction with the
previous Greiner study and the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan
were of assistance in determining potential upland disposal site locations.
Utilizing the previously mentioned selection criteria and geographical
boundaries, the identification of 59 potential sites was possible in
Hillsborough County. The site selection process identified 14 potential areas
in Manatee County and 4 in Pinellas County. A total of 77 potential upland
disposal sites met the selection criteria and were within the identified
geographical boundaries. Ownership or willingness of the owner to sell was
not a consideration in this study.
Site Characteristics - The selected sites were then measured from scaled
drawings to determine size and perimeter. Site numbers and characteristics
are provided in table 2 with most site locations being presented in figure 2.
Exact site locations are not identified due to real estate requirements.
SITE VERIFICATION
Examination of aerial photographs of each selected site enabled an
environmental scientist to make initial observations concerning any
significant environmental resources in the area. Any site with significant
environmental resources was either dropped from consideration or redefined
to avoid impacting those resources (see table 3). During initial site selection,
the assumption was that each site remained as presented in the 1991 aerial
photography and that pipeline access to each site would not provide site
utilization. A site verification trip provided a more current identification
and characterization of each site. The site inspection verified the land use
and current conditions of the sites under consideration.
5
-------
281
TABLE 2
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
UPLAND SITE CHARAC1
rERISTICS
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
SITE
AREA
PERIMETER
NUMBER
(ACRES)
(FEET)
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
H-1
12.7
3,010
H-2
61.8
7,310
H-3
22.4
4,400
H-4
42.9
7,670
H-5
138.3
10,670
H-6
247.8
18,250
H—7
551.5
23,780
H-8
141.2
11,560
H-9
67.5
7,830
H-10
92.9
9,970
H—11
380.6
20,890
H-12
125.3
11,410
H-13
672.5
243,520
H-14
186.3
15,740
H-15
176.9
11,150
H-16
110.9
8,860
H—17
195.3
12,870
H-18
339.2
16,480
H-19
42.3
6,530
H-20
161.7
11,900
H-21
546.3
19,240
H-22
119.0
10,600
H-23
55.8
7,000
H-24
188.9
11,510
H—25
467.1
13,910
H-26
149.1
12,680
H-27
395.3
16,670
H-28
78.7
7,640
Big Bend Area
1
284.2
17,340
2
41.3
6,960
3
183.0
15,410
4
238.4
7,900
5
160.1
15,640
6
80.0
6,300
7
51.5
5,920
8
87.0
8,490
9A
484.3
20,140
9B
590.3
22,350
10
322.0
15,510
-------
282
TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
UPLAND SITE CHARAC1
rERISTICS
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
SITE
AREA
PERIMETER
NUMBER
(ACRES)
(FEET)
Big Bend Area (Cont'd)
11
158.0
14,700
12
70.3
7,200
13
295.0
10,780
14
398.0
17,970
15
176.3
10,450
16
227.0
13,780
17
483.0
18,030
18
96.0
10,260
19
261.0
15,750
20A
238.8
13,720
20B
123.0
9,720
20C
311.0
15,550
21
102.7
9,600
22
370.0
17,420
23
155.0
13,710
24
313.0
15,940
25
215.9
12,690
26
217.0
15,990
27
176.0
13,720
28
104.0
11,110
MANATEE
COUNTY
M-1
194.0
13,230
M-2
427.0
18,630
M-3
745.7
30,520
M-4
239.1
16,400
M —5
67.2
7,620
M-6
27.2
5,450
M—7
59.6
9,200
M—8
25.2
4,610
M—9
161.4
10,840
M-10
30.0
4,600
M-11
273.2
15,830
M-12
615.0
26,470
M-13
174.0
500
M-14
211.0
15,080
PINELLAS COUNTY
P-1 87.2 8,940
P—2 46.5 7,090
P-3 131.2 10,650
P —4 55.9 6,320
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
285
TABLE 3
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
INITIAL UPLAND SITES ELIMINATED OR RECONFIGURED
SITE
NUMBER
ESTIMATED
AREA
(ACRES)
ESTIMATED
PERIMETER
(FEET)
INITIAL
ELIMINATION OR RECONFIGURE
FACTOR
HILLSBOROU<
3H COUNTY
H-5 138.3 10,670 Reconfigured/Combined w/Site H-10
H-24 188.9 11,510 Development In Progress
H-25 467.1 13,910 Development in Progress
Big Bend Area
4
238.4
7,900 Reconfigured to Avoid Development
5
160.1
15,640 Environmental Concerns
6
80.0
6,300 Reconfigured to Avoid Access Problem
7
51.5
5,920 Environmental Concerns
13
295.0
10,780 Environmental Concerns
14
398.0
17,970 Environmental Concerns
15
176.3
10,450 Environmental Concerns
17
483.0
18,030 Environmental Concerns
18
96.0
10,260 Environmental Concerns
21
102.7
9,600 Environmental Concerns
22
370.0
17,420 Environmental Concerns
26
217.0
15,990 Environmental Concerns
MANATEE COUNTY
M-8 25.2 4,610 Development in Progress
PINELLAS COUNTY
P-1 87.2 8,940 Environmental Related Pipeline Access
P-2 46.5 7,090 Pipeline Access
P-3 131.2 10,650 Pipeline Access
P-4 55.9 6,320 Pipeline Access
-------
286
Changed Conditions - Site visits identified minor changes in site conditions
had taken place since the aerial photography was taken in 1991. Conditions
at sites H5, H24, H25, and M8 differed from the aerial photography. Each of
the four sites were under development for residential housing. Sites H5,
H24, H25, and M8 were no longer suitable and received no further
consideration in this study.
Pipeline Access - An acceptable access route is necessary to the upland
disposal site location. Access routes that must cross major highways,
railroads, and other land parcels must take into account any environmental
impacts and costs considerations to determine the practicality of such an
action. Direct access to a site via an inland waterway is the most desired
condition. Navigable waters of the United States do not require real estate
easements. Small streams, canals, and drainage ditches can also provide
access without an easement if they are attached to navigable waters. Access
along highways and railroads is also possible and usually achieved by passing
through bridges and culverts. Site P2 was eliminated because of limited
access due to environmental conditions. Access to the site was inhibited by
a thick stand of mangroves along the shoreline. Interstate 275 blocked
access to sites PI, P3, and P4 which were removed from further
consideration in this study.
DETAILED SITE ANALYSIS
The detailed site analysis considered the specific characteristics of each
site in order to determine preparation requirements and capacity for
material disposal. Preparation requirements included such items as clearing
and grubbing, dike construction, and weir installation, all of which directly
influence costs. Quantification of the work items enabled the development
of costs for each site. The total estimate cost of all the work items to
prepare a site is then divided by the site capacity to provide a cost per cubic
yard ($/cy). Combining that unit cost with the dredging cost provides a total
cost per cubic yard to utilize each site for disposal.
SITE SPECIFICS
An accurate determination of conditions at each site is essential in
developing the correct site preparation cost. Site capacity depends upon the
amount of usable area and dike heights at the site. Dike heights need to be
established and the site area cleared for utilization. Each component is
directly related to the utilization cost of a potential site.
10
-------
287
Site Capacity - The volume of material that can be placed within the diked
area is defined as the site capacity. Site capacity has three components, usable
area within the dikes, dike height, and bulking factor. The sites were first
identified in the initial site analysis and further reviewed during a visit. The
usable area has an influence on determining the dike height. Further
engineering studies would determine the maximum dike height for each site.
The vast majority of potential sites have large acreages which could
economically and engineeringly support dike heights of at least 20 feet. A
freeboard of two feet in the dike height was a factor in estimating the site
capacity. For a dike height of 20 feet, the freeboard consideration would limit
material placement to a height of 18 feet. Material used for dike construction
normally comes from inside the disposal perimeter of the area. The assumption
is that each site has suitable material for dike construction. The dike material
from inside the disposal area provides additional space for dredged material
disposal The bulking factor varies according to dredged material characteristics.
Sand has a bulking factor of 1 while silt can have a bulking factor of 1.5. Based
on previous dredging experience and the nature of the dredged material in the
harbor, the bulking factor should be approximately 1.3. Based upon the above
information, the estimated capacity of each potential site was calculated and is
provided in table 4.
Site Preparation - Preparation of a potential site for use as a disposal area
involves planning and design for dike construction, installation of water control
structures (weirs), provisions for returning water from the site, and clearing
the site of trees and brush for efficient use. The number of weirs required for
a disposal area depends upon disposal area and dredge size. For sites in this
study, the area in each is sufficient to accommodate a 30 inch hydraulic dredge.
To handle the discharge water from that dredge, each site would need six weirs
at a cost of $75,000 per unit. Site clearing costs depended upon the amount and
density of trees and bushes to be removed from an area. The aerial
photography was valuable in determining this factor at each site. Table 5
provides the range of costs for clearing and grubbing. Site 1 is an example for
estimating the clearing and grubbing cost. The site is a light to medium
wooded area that is estimated to cost $413,130 to clear and grub. The value is
derived from the 284 acres site size multiplied by the $1,450 per acre clearing
category. The estimated cost for dike construction is $1.90 per cubic yard with
the quantity provided in table 4. Mobilization and demobilization costs for
moving equipment to and from the construction site also depends primarily
upon the quantity of material in table 4 for dike construction. Table 6 provides
the range of costs employed for mobilization and demobilization. To cover the
cost of uncertainties in the estimate, a contingency item is estimated at 25
percent of construction costs. Costs for engineering and design (E&D) and
construction management (CM) are a percent of the total estimated
construction costs. The combined percentage is 15.
11
-------
TABLE 4
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
UPLAND SITE DATA
SITE
PERIMETER
DIKE
DIKE
DIKE
CAPACITY
SITE
SIZE
LENGTH
X-SECTION
QUANTITY
HEIGHT
BULKING
DIKED AREA
NUMBER
(ACRES)
(FEET)
(FEET ~ 2)
(CY)
(FEET)
FACTOR
(CY)
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
H1
13
3,010
1,600
178,400
20
1.3
290,000
H2
62
7,310
1,600
433,200
20
1.3
1,385,000
H3
30
4,800
1,600
284,400
20
1.3
670,000
H4
43
7,670
1,600
454,500
20
1.3
961,000
H6
248
18,250
1,600
1,081,500
20
1.3
5,540,000
H7
552
23,780
1,600
1,409,200
20
1.3
12,331,000
H8
141
11,560
1,600
685,000
20
1.3
3,150,000
H9
68
7,830
1,600
464,000
20
1.3
1,519,000
H10
97
10,190
1,600
603,900
20
1.3
2,167,000
H11
380
18,190
1,600
1,077,900
20
1.3
8,489,000
H12
125
11,400
1,600
675,600
20
1.3
2,792,000
H13
673
24,300
1,600
1,440,000
20
1.3
15,034,000
H14
186
15,600
1,600
924,400
20
1.3
4,155,000
H15
177
11,150
1,600
660,700
20
1.3
3,954,000
H16
111
8,860
1,600
525,000
20
1.3
2,480,000
H17
195
12,870
1,600
762,700
20
1.3
4,356,000
H18
339
16,480
1,600
976,600
20
1.3
7,573,000
H19
42
6,530
1,600
387,000
20
1.3
938,000
H20
162
11,900
1,600
705.200
20
1.3
3,619,000
H21
546
19,240
1,600
1,140,100
20
1.3
12,197,000
H22
119
10,600
1,600
628,100
20
1.3
2,658,000
H23
56
7,000
1,600
414,800
20
1.3
1,251,000
H26
117
10,500
1,600
622,200
20
1.3
2,614,000
H27
395
16,670
1,600
987,900
20
1.3
8,824,000
H28
79
7,640
1,600
452,700
20
1.3
1,765,000
Big Bend Area
1
284
17,340
1,600
1,027,600
20
1.3
6,344,000
2
41
6,960
1,600
412,400
20
1.3
916,000
3
180
15,410
1,600
913,200
20
1.3
4,021,000
4
96
7,900
1,600
468,100
20
1.3
2,144,000
6
54
6,300
1,600
373,300
20
1.3
1,206,000
8
87
8,490
1,600
503,100
20
1.3
1,943,000
9A
484
20,140
1,600
1,193,500
20
1.3
10,812,000
9B
590
22,350
1,600
1,324,400
20
1.3
13,180,000
10
322
15,510
1,600
919,100
20
1.3
7,193,000
11
158
14,700
1,600
871,100
20
1.3
3,529,000
12
70
7,200
1,600
426,700
20
1.3
1,564,000
16
227
13,780
1,600
816,600
20
1.3
5,071,000
19
261
15,750
1,600
933,300
20
1.3
5,830,000
20A
237
13,720
1,600
813,000
20
5,294,000
20 B
123
9,720
1,600
576,000
20
1.3
2,748,000
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont'd)
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
UPLAND SITE DATA
SITE
PERIMETER
DIKE
DIKE
DIKE
CAPACITY
SITE
SIZE
LENGTH
X-SECTION
QUANTITY
HEIGHT
BULKING
DIKED AREA
NUMBER
(ACRES)
(FEET)
(FEET ~ 2)
(CY)
(FEET)
FACTOR
(CY)
Biq Bend Area (Cont'd)
20 C
311
15,550
1,600
921,500
20
1.3
6,947,000
23
155
13,710
1,600
812,400
20
1.3
3,462,000
24
360
15,940
1,600
944,600
20
1.3
8,042,000
25
238
12,690
1,600
752,000
20
1.3
5,317,000
27
176
13,720
1,600
813,000
20
1.3
3,932,000
28
104
11,110
1,600
658,400
20
1.3
2,323,000
MANATEE COUNTY
M1
194
13,230
1,600
784,000
20
1.3
4,334,000
M2
427
18,630
1,600
1,104,000
20
1.3
9,539,000
M3
745
30,520
1,600
1,808,600
20
1.3
16,642,000
M4
239
16,400
1,600
971,900
20
1.3
5,339,000
M5
67
7,620
1,600
451,600
20
1.3
1,497,000
M6
27
5,450
1,600
323,000
20
1.3
603,000
M7
60
7,500
1,600
444,400
20
1.3
1,340,000
M9
161
10,840
1,600
642,400
20
1.3
3,596,000
M10
30
4,600
1,600
272,600
20
1.3
670,000
M11
273
15,830
1,600
938,100
20
1.3
6,098,000
M12
615
26,470
1,600
1,568,600
20
1.3
13,738,000
M13
174
12,500
1,600
740,700
20
1.3
3,887,000
M14
211
15,080
1,600
893,600
20
1.3
4,713,000
-------
TABLE 5
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
CLEARING AND GRUBBING COST RANGES
CLEARING CATEGORY
COST PER ACRE
Light (no trees)
$ 560
Light (with trees)
1,230
Light to Medium
1,450
Medium
1,680
Medium to Heavy
2,130
Heavy
2,460
TABLE 6
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION COST RANGES
CUBIC YARDS
COSTS
30,000 to 311,000
$ 56,000
312,000 to 1,099,000
112,000
1,100,000 to 1,299,000
168,000
1,300,000 to 5,000,000
224,000
14
-------
291
Site Cost Summary - The purpose of the detailed site analysis is to determine
;he site preparation costs for the disposal of material. Table 7 provides a site
:ost summary for each element of cost associated with a potential upland
lisposal site. The last column in that table provides a cost per cubic yard of
iredged material placed in each site. That unit cost comes from dividing the
,otal cost by the capacity. The site cost is only a portion of the entire cost for
lpland disposal. The remaining facets of dredging and real estate are discussed
n the following text.
DETAILED DREDGING ANALYSIS
Dredging involves both the removal of material from the channel bottom and
ransportation to the designated disposal area. The analysis examined five
nethods of dredging. Hopper dredging and clamshell dredging with barge
ransport provide the most efficient methods for estimating costs to dispose of
naterial in the offshore dredged material disposal site (ODMDS). The
raditional hydraulic dredging with pipeline for pumping material to an upland
lite provides an efficient method for moving dredged material to upland
lisposal sites. Analysis of upland disposal sites at extreme distances involved
wo modified methods of dredging to enable more economical transport,
iopper dredging to discharge material at a pumpout location where the
naterial is hydraulically moved through a pipeline to an upland disposal site. A
iimilar method is possible with a clamshell dredge and barge transport to the
lame pumpout location where the material is again hydraulically moved
hrough a pipeline to an upland disposal site. The previous two methods work
>est over long distances where access to upland areas for disposal would not be
easible using a traditional hydraulic dredge. As stated in the geographical
>oundaries section of this study, hydraulic dredging has a pumping limit of 10
niles which is based primarily on equipment limitations such as pipeline
ivailability. Some respected experts in the dredging field consider only a 5 mile
tumping distance as reasonable based upon the availability of pipeline. For this
itudy, however, the limit was extended to ensure all possible alternatives for
ipland locations in the vicinity of Tampa Harbor received full consideration.
)CEAN DISPOSAL
The dredging analysis included two methods for ocean disposal of dredged
naterial as mentioned earlier. Hopper dredging and transport as well as
lamshell dredging with barge transport are both applicable methods for ocean
lisposal. The ocean disposal site is the proposed ODMDS located approximately
'.6 miles southwest of the entrance marker for the Tampa Harbor Federal
Channel. Figure 3 provides a location map for the proposed ODMDS.
15
-------
TABLE 7
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
SITE PREPARATION COSTS
DIKE
MOB &
DIKE
CLEARING &
CONTROL
CONTINGENCY
E&D AND
SITE
SITE
QUANTITY
DEMOB
CONSTR
GRUBBING
STRUCTURES
SUBTOTAL
@25%
CM @ 15%
TOTAL
CAPACITY
COST
NUMBER
(CY)
($)
<$)
($)
<$)
($)
<$)
($)
($)
(CY)
(S/CY)
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
HI
178,100
55,950
338,800
16,000
450,000
860,750
215J200
129,100
1,205,050
290,000
4.16
H2
432,900
111,900
823,510
34,690
450,000
1,420,100
355,000
213,000
1,988,100
1,385,000
1.44
H3
284,400
55,950
541,010
61,550
450,000
1,108,510
277,100
166,300
1,551,910
670,000
2.32
H4
454,200
111,900
864,020
52,930
450,000
1,478,850
369,700
221,800
2,070,350
961,000
2.15
H6
1,081,200
111,900
2,056,770
138,760
450,000
2,757,430
689,400
413,600
3,860,430
5,540,000
0.70
H7
1,409,400
223,800
2,681,100
926,530
450,000
4281,430
1,070,400
642200
5,994,030
12,331,000
0.49
H8
684,800
111,900
1,302,700
78,890
450,000
1,943,490
485,900
291,500
2,720,890
3,150,000
0.86
H9
463,800
111,900
882290
1,693,720
450,000
3,137,910
784,500
470,700
4,393,110
1,519,000
2.89
H10
603,900
111,900
1,148,800
119,400
450,000
1,830,100
457,500
274,500
2,562,100
2,167,000
1.18
H11
1,078,000
111,900
2,050,680
637,830
450,000
3250,410
812,600
487,600
4,550,610
8,489,000
0.54
H12
675,600
111,900
1,285,190
69,940
450,000
1,917,030
479,300
287,600
2,683,930
2,792,000
0.96
H13
1,440,000
223,800
2,739,310
1,129,630
450,000
4,542,740
1,135,700
681,400
6,359,840
15,034,000
0.42
H14
924,400
111,900
1,758,490
104,070
450,000
2,424,460
606,100
363,700
3,394,260
4,155,000
0.82
H15
660,400
111,900
1,256,280
99,030
450,000
1,917,210
479,300
287,600
2,684,110
3,954,000
0.68
H16
524,800
111,900
998,330
62,100
450,000
1,622,330
405,600
243,300
2271,230
2,480,000
0.92
H17
762,800
111,900
1,451,070
109,100
450,000
2,122,070
530,500
318,300
2,970,870
4,356,000
0.68
H18
976,400
111,900
1,857,410
720,750
450,000
3,140,060
785,000
471,000
4,396,060
7,573,000
0.58
H19
387,000
111,900
736,190
23,500
450,000
1,321,590
330,400
198,200
1,850,190
938,000
1.97
H20
704,900
111,900
1,340,930
199,410
450,000
2,102,240
525,600
315,300
2,943,140
3,619,000
0.81
H21
1,140,100
167,850
2,168,810
305,490
450,000
3,092,150
773,000
463,800
4,328,950
12,197,000
0.35
H22
628,300
111,900
1,195,150
146,480
450,000
1,903,530
475,900
285,500
2,664,930
2,658,000
1.00
H23
414,900
111,900
789,260
31,330
450,000
1,382,490
345,600
207,400
1,935,490
1251,000
1.55
H26
622,200
111,900
1,183,610
316,790
450,000
2,062,300
515,600
309,300
2,887,200
2,614,000
1.10
K27
987,900
111 ^00
1,879,280
663,010
450,000
3,104,190
776,000
465,600
4,345,790
8,824,000
0.49
'
453,000
111,900
861,700
97240
450,000
1,520,840
380200
228,100
2,129,140
1,765,000
1.21
Biq Bend Area
1
1,027,600
111,900
1,954,720
413,130
450,000
2,929,750
732,400
439,500
4,101,650
6,344,000
0.65
2
412,400
111,900
784,590
68,820
450,000
1,415,310
353,800
212,300
1,981,410
916,000
2.16
3
912,900
111,900
1,736,590
261,850
450,000
2,560,340
640,100
384,100
3,584,540
4,021,000
0.89
4
468,100
111,900
890,450
27,980
450,000
1,480,330
370,100
222,000
2,072,430
2,144,000
0.97
KJ
lO
rsj
-------
nj
ko
U>
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
SITE PREPARATION COSTS
DIKE
MOB &
DIKE
CLEARING &
CONTROL
CONTINGENCY
E&D AND
SITE
SITE
QUANTITY
DEMOB
CONSTR
GRUBBING
STRUCTURES
SUBTOTAL
@25%
CM @ 15%
TOTAL
CAPACITY
COST
NUMBER
(CY)
($)
<$)
($)
($)
<$>
($)
(?)
<$)
(CY)
($/CY)
Big Bend Area (Conf d)
6
373,300
111,900
710,190
98,470
450,000
1,370,560
342,600
205,600
1,918,760
1206,000
1.59
8
503,100
111,900
957,070
107,090
450,000
1,626,060
406,500
243,900
2276,460
1,943,000
1.17
9A
1,193,600
167,850
2,270,590
595,760
450,000
3,484,200
871,100
522,600
4,877,900
10,812,000
0.45
9B
1,324,400
223,800
2,519,490
726,230
450,000
3,919.520
979,900
587,900
5,487,320
13,180,000
0.42
10
919,300
111,900
1,748,760
396,350
450,000
2,707,010
676,800
406,100
3,789,910
7,193,000
0.53
11
871,100
111,900
1,657,110
229,840
450,000
2,448,850
612,200
367,300
3,428,350
3,529,000
0.97
12
426,700
111,900
811,650
39,170
450,000
1,412,720
353200
211,900
1,977,820
1,564,000
126
16
816,700
111,900
1,553,630
482,620
450,000
2,598,150
649,500
389,700
3,637,350
5,071,000
0.72
19
933,300
111,900
1,775,480
379,680
450,000
2,717,060
679,300
407,600
3,803,960
5,830,000
0.65
20A
812,800
111,900
1,546,190
397,800
450,000
2,505,890
626,500
375,900
3,508,290
5294,000
0.66
20B
575,800
111,900
1,095,390
206,460
450,000
1,863,750
465,900
279,600
2,609,250
2,748,000
0.95
20C
921,600
111,900
1,753,160
522,010
450,000
2,837,070
709,300
425,600
3,971,970
6,947,000
0.57
23
812,400
111,900
1,545,510
225,480
450,000
2,332,890
583,200
349,900
3265,990
3,462,000
0.94
24
944,500
111,900
1,796,790
604,260
450,000
2,962,950
740,700
444,400
4,148,050
8,042,000
0.52
25
752,200
111,900
1,430,870
399,480
450,000
2,392,250
598,100
358,800
3,349,150
5,317,000
0.63
27
812,800
111,900
1,546,190
374,190
450,000
2,482,280
620,600
372,300
3,475,180
3,932,000
0.88
28
658,100
111,900
1,251,970
58,190
450,000
1,872,060
468,000
280,800
2,620,860
2,323,000
1.13
MANATEE COUNTTY
M1
784,000
111,900
1,491,400
238,790
450,000
2,292,090
573,020
343,810
3208,920
4,325,000
0.74
M2
1,104,000
111,900
2,100,140
525,590
450,000
3,187,630
796,910
478,140
4,462,680
9,539,000
0.47
M3
1,808,500
167,850
3,440,310
1,583,940
450,000
5,642,100
1,410,530
846,320
7,898,950
16,642,000
0.47
M4
972,100
111,900
1,849,230
401,160
450,000
2,812,290
703,070
421,840
3,937,200
5,339,000
0.74
M5
451,600
111,900
859,080
112,460
450,000
1,533,440
383,360
230,020
2,146,820
1,497,000
1.43
M6
323,200
111,900
614,820
45,320
450,000
1,222,040
305,510
183,310
1,710,860
603,000
2.84
M 7
444,400
111,900
845,380
127,570
450,000
1,534,850
383,710
230,230
2,148,790
1,340,000
1.60
M9
642,300
111,900
1,221,850
270,240
450,000
2,053,990
513,500
308,100
2,875,590
3,596,000
0.80
M10
272,700
111,900
518,760
16,790
450,000
1,097,450
274,360
164,620
1,536,430
670,000
2.29
M11
938,100
111,900
1,784,550
336,040
450,000
2,682,490
670,620
402,370
3,755,480
6,098,000
0.62
M12
1,568,700
223,800
2,984,140
757,000
450,000
4,414,940
1,103,740
662,240
6,180,920
13,738,000
0.45
M13
740,400
111,900
1,408,460
214,180
450,000
2,184,540
546,140
327,680
3,058,360
3,887,000
0.79
M14
893,700
111,900
1,700,090
259,720
450,000
2,521,710
630,430
378260
3,530,400
4,713,000
0.75
-------
FIGURE 3 . LOCATION OP ALTERNATIVE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
Orf TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA.
M
VO
-------
295
Hopper Dredge Estimates - The hopper dredge for estimating purposes has
a carrying capacity of 3,600 cubic yard (cy). A hopper dredge hydraulically
removes shoal material from the channel bottom and places it in a hopper
on the dredge. As soon as the hopper is full, the dredge proceeds to the
ODMDS where the bottom of the hopper opens and the material is
deposited on the bottom. The material classification which greatly
influences dredging efficiency and therefore costs was discussed earlier in
the shoal characteristics section of this study. As stated in the same section,
the Federal project was broken into sections or cuts identical to normal
operations in the harbor (see figure 1). The cuts were then grouped into
areas that could conceivably be dredged during one maintenance event. This
grouping increases the amount of material removed during one dredging
event which reduces the cost per cubic yard of any overhead or sunk cost
(mobilization, demobilization, permits, and testing). A sample estimate to
hopper dredge one of the Tampa Harbor cuts is provided in table 8. Note
that the unit cost given at the top excludes any costs related to mobilization,
contingencies, engineering and design, as well as construction management.
Table 9 provides the total dredging and disposal costs for each cut in the
Tampa Harbor Federal Project as well as the assumed grouping of cuts for
each dredging event. The costs for mobilization and demobilization are
prorated over that group of cuts. As shown in table 9, hopper dredge costs
increase rapidly with increases in the distance to the ODMDS.
Clamshell Estimates - The clamshell dredging techniques are similar to the
hopper dredge. The clamshell removes shoal material from the channel
bottom and deposits it in an ocean going barge for transport to the ODMDS.
One benefit of the clamshell operation is that with multiple barges the
clamshell dredge can operate almost continuously. However, the additional
equipment does cost more to mobilize to the dredging location. The
clamshell dredge operates with a 12 cubic yard bucket for estimating
purposes and uses a maximum of 4 barges for transporting the material.
The number of barges influences the operating efficiency of the dredge and a
maximum of 4 is within reason to be available for such an operation, table
10 provides a sample estimate summary which is similar to the hopper
dredge estimate in table 8. Again, the mobilization and other costs absent in
table 8 are also absent in clamshell sample estimate. Table 11 provides the
total dredging and disposal costs using a clamshell for each cut grouping
shown in table 9. As with the hopper dredge costs, distance to the ODMDS
is a primary factor influencing clamshell dredging costs.
19
-------
TABLE 8 296
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
HOPPER DREDGE ESTIMATE
CUT C(HB)
CHECKLIST FOR INPUT DATA.
Planning Est. 22 Jan 1993
PG 1 OF 14: PROJECT TITLES
UNIT $. 111.89 /CY
TOTAL.. $13,079,000 JOB COST
TIME... 15.15 MONTHS
PROJECT - CUT C(HB)
LOCATION - Tampa Harbor Disposal Area Study
INVIT IIf - Preliminary
BID ITEM M - PC 13 OF 14: MARKUPS USED
FILENAME - THF301
EST - Al Fletcher/Tim Hur
MIDPT DATE - Mar-93
DESCRIPTION ENTERED-
O.H.
PROFIT
BOND
15X
10X
1.000X
PG 2 OF 14: EXCAVATION OTY'S
PG 3 OF 14: LOCAL AREA FACTORS
DREDGING AREA -
REQ'D EXCAVATION -
X MUD -
X SAND -
X GRAVEL -
PAY OVERDEPTH -
O.D. NOT DREDGED -
OVERDIG FOOTAGE -
NONPAY YARDAGE -
GROSS YARDAGE -
7,633,000 sf
1,100,000 cyds
40X
60X
OX
0 cyds
0 cyds
1.00 ft
282,700 cyds
1,382,700 cyds
FUEL COST -
CFC RATE -
USE MONTHS / YEAR -
MARINE INSUR -
TAXES -
PROVISIONS & SUPP -
$1.00 /gal
7.000X
9 mo/yr
1.5X
1.0X
>15 /man
PG 4 OF 14: DREDGE SELECTION (ALT-D)
PG'S 5-7 OF 14: PROOUCTION WORKSHEET
DREDGE: SUGAR ISLAND
LOADS PER DAY
CYCLE TIME
HOPPER CAPACITY -
3,600
cyds
DUMP/CONNECT TIME
5
min
EFF. HOPPER CAP. -
1,500
cyds
JET PUMP AVAIL?
YES
AVAIL DREDGING RATE -
2,100
cy/hr
TYPE OF DISPOSAL
GRAVITY DUMP
AVAIL. DRAGHEADS -
2
ea
PUMPING RATE
cy/hr
ACT. DRAGHDS USED -
2
ea
TRVL SPD TO DREDG
11.7
mph
DRDGE RATE USED -
2,100
cy/hr
MAX TRVL SPD LIGHT
13.8
mph
TURNS/CYCLE -
2
ea
EFFECTIVE TIME
90.OX
MIN. PER TURN -
3
min
OPER UORK DAYS/MO
30.42
days
DISPOSAL D1ST -
50
mi
ADO. CLEANUP TIME
10X
TRVL SPD TO DISP -
10.8
mph
SPECIAL COST
$0
/mo
MAX TRVL SPD LOADED -
12.7
mpti
SPECIAL COST
$0
/job
2.2
588 min/load
MOBILIZATION COST
$250,000
LOCATION: CUT C(HB)
50 MI TO ODMDS
1.100,000 CY
7,633,000 SF (SURFACE AREA)
1,500 CY PER LOAD
40 X MUD
60 X SAND
0 X GRAVEL
1.0 FT OVERDIG
(NON-PAY)
PG'S 8-9 OF 14: PLANT OUN. I OPER.
PG'S 10-12 OF 14: LABOR, 24 Jir 88
DREDGE
PROPULSION TUG
SURVEY VESSEL
BOOSTER
CRANE BARGE
TENDER TUG
SHORE EQUIP
$424,432
self prop
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PG 14 OF 14: DREDGE OPER. ADJ. FAC.
PUMP LOAD FACTOR
RPR & MAINT. ADJ
JET PUMP X USAGE
OVERTIME X -
VACATION/HOLIDAY X -
TAX £ INSUR X -
FRINGE BENEFITS -
DREDGE CREU:
SUGG. CREU SIZE -
USED CREU SIZE -
SHORE CREU:
USED CREU SIZE -
GOVERNMENT PERSON -
FRE. PO TRAVEL -
RT TRAVEL COST -
28.00X
8.64X
30.61X
$4.35 /hr
14 ea
14 ea
0 ea
3 ea
28 days
$400
HOPPER DREDGE ESTIMATE
Tampa Harbor Disposal Area Study
THF301.UIC1 Page
-------
TABLE 9
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
HOPPER DREDGE AND OCEAN DISPOSAL COSTS
CUT
SHOAL
MOB &
EXCAVATION
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
E&D
HOPPER
DREDGING
NAME
QUANTITY
DEMOB
COST
COSTS
COSTS
AND CM
TOTAL
COSTS
(CY)
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
25%
15%
$
$/(CY)
EGMONT1
3.200.000
500.000
9,276,000
9,776,000
2,444,000
1,466,400
13,686,400
4.28
3,200,000
500,000
EGMONT 2
5,000
1,300
17,550
18,850
4,700
2,800
26,350
5.27
MULLET
25,000
6,500
113,250
119,750
29,900
18,000
167,650
6.71
A
75,000
19,400
374,250
393,650
98,400
59,000
551,050
7.35
B
110,000
28,500
782,100
810,600
202,700
121,600
1,134,900
10.32
D
20,000
5,200
182,200
187,400
46,900
28,100
262,400
13.12
F
60,000
15,500
563,400
578,900
144,700
86,800
810,400
13.51.
G
650,000
168,400
7,650,500
7,818,900
1,954,700
1,172,800
10,946,400
16.84
K
20.000
5.200
293,000
298,200
74,600
44,700
417,500
20.88
965,000
250,000
GADSEN
200,000
74,500
2,142,000
2,216,500
554,100
332,500
3,103,100
15.52
A(HB)
156,000
58,100
1,734,720
1,792,820
448,200
268,900
2,509,920
16.09
BIG BEND
315.000
117.400
3,502,800
3,620,200
905,100
543,000
5,068,300
16.09
671,000
250,000
C(H8)
1.100.000
250.000
13,079,000
13,329,000
3,332,300
1,999,400
18,660,700
16.96
1,100,000
250,000
ALAFIA
550,000
134,100
6,737,500
6,871,600
1,717,900
1,030,700
9,620,200
17.49
SUTTON
375,000
91,500
4,826,250
4,917,750
1,229,400
737,700
6,884,850
18.36
EAST BAY
100.000
24.400
1,345,000
1,369,400
342,4 00
205,400
1,917,200
19.17
1,025,000
250,000
D(HB)
175,000
102,900
2,248,750
2,351,650
587,900
352,700
3,292,250
18.81
SPARKMAN
150,000
88,200
2,103,000
2,191,200
547,800
328,700
3,067,700
20.45
YBOR
100.000
58.800
1,439,000
1,497,800
374,500
224,700
2,097,000
20.97
425,000
250,000
-------
298
TABLE 10
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
CLAMSHELL DREDGE ESTIMATE
CUT C(HB)
CHECKLIST FOR INPUT DATA.
Planning Est. 25 Jan 1993
PC 1 OF 7: PROJECT TITLE
UNIT COST... M.10 PER C.T.
JOB DURATION 6.95 MONTHS
TOTAL $8,910,000
DREDGE TIME
HAUL TIHE..
5.IB MONTHS
6.95 MONTHS
PROJECT - CUT C (HB)
LOCATION - Tanpe Harbor Disposal Area Study
IMVIT # - Preliminary
EST - Al Fletcher/Tim Murphy
PC 2 OF 7: EXCAVATION QTY'S
DREDGING AREA -
REQ'D EXCAVATION -
PAY OVERDEPTH -
O.D. NOT DREDGED -
OVEROIG FOOTAGE -
NONPAY YARDAGE -
GROSS YARDAGE -
7.633,000 sf
1,100,000 cyds
0
0
1.0 ft
262,700 cyds
1,382,700 cyds
PG 3 OF 7: EQUIPMENT COSTS
DREDGE -
12 C.Y. Clamshell
DREDGE COST -
$130,000 /mo (Ea)
WORK TUG(S) COST -
*42,000 /mo
SURVEY VESSEL COST -
S11,000 /mo
OTHER EQUIP COST -
SO /mo
TOUING VESSEL -
2400 Hp Diesel--T«in Screw
TOUING VESSEL COST -
t160,000 /mo (Ea)
SCOU -
3000 C.Y. Bottom Dunp
SCOU COST -
S44.000 per Month (Each)
PG i OF 7: LABOR AND OTHER COSTS
DREDGE LABOR -
(95,000 /mo (Ea)
TOU VESSEL LABOR -
SO /mo (Ea)
OTHER LABOR -
570,000 /mo
SPEC EXCAV COSTS -
SO /mo
ADO EXCAV COSTS -
so /job
OH -
15 X
PROFIT -
10 X
BOND -
1 X
PG 5 OF 7: DREDGE PROOUCTION WORKSHEET
BUCKET SIZE -
12 cy
BUCKET CYCLE TIME -
45 sec
CLEANUP DREDGING -
10 X Additional Time
MOBILIZATION COST
,S350,000
LOCATION: CUT C (HB)
50 MI TO ODMDS
1,100,000 CY
7,633,000 SF (SURFACE AREA)
2,160 CY PER LOAD
40 X HUD
60 X SANO
1.0 FT OVERDIG
(NON-PAY)
BUCKET FILL -
CYCLE EFF FACTOR -
OPER TIME FACTOR -
0.75
0.8
PG 6 OF 7: HAULING PRODUCTION WORKSHEET
T0U1NG CYCLE:
PREPARE SCOU TOU - 15 Bin
HAUL DIST - 50 mi
SPEED TO D/A - 5 mph
SPEED FROM D/A - 6 npfc
DUMP OR PUMPOUT - 20 win
DISENGAGE TOU • 10 min
TOU EFFICIENCY - 80 X
SCOU EFFICIENCY:
USEABLE VOLUME - 90 X
X SOLIDS - 80 X
PG 7 OF 7: EQUIPMENT MATCHING
* OF PIECES: Used
DREDGES - 1
TOUING VESSELS - 3
SCOWS PER TOW - 1
ADDITIONAL SCOWS - 1
TOT SCOWS ON JOB - U
THF^n?.Ut1
Paae
-------
NJ
TABLE 11
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
CLAMSHELL DREDGE AND OCEAN DISPOSAL COSTS
SHOAL
MOB &
EXCAVATION
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
E&D
CLAMSHELL
DREDGING
CUT
QUANTITY
DEMOB
COST
COSTS
COSTS
AND CM
TOTAL
COSTS
NAME
(CY)
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
25%
15%
$
$/{CY)
EGMONT1
3.200.000
450.000
10,336,000
10,786,000
2,696,500
1,617,900
15,100,400
4.72
3,200,000
450,000
EGMONT2
5,000
1,600
20,400
22,000
5,500
3,300
30,800
6.16
MULLET
25,000
7,800
112,250
120,050
30,000
18,000
168,050
6.72
A
75,000
23,300
378,000
401,300
100,300
60,200
561,800
7.49
B
110,000
34,200
796,400
830,600
207,700
124,600
1,162,900
10.57
D
20,000
6,200
183,800
190,000
47,500
28,500
266,000
13.30
F
60,000
18,700
582,000
600,700
150,200
90,100
841,000
14.02
G
650,000
202,100
5,473,000
5,675,100
1,418,800
851,300
7,945,200
12.22
K
20.000
6,200
204,200
210,400
52,600
31.600
294,600
14.73
965,000
300,000
GADSEN
200,000
89,400
1,726,000
1,815,400
453,900
272,300
2,541,600
12.71
A(HB)
156,000
69,700
1,408,680
1,478,380
369,600
221,800
2,069,780
13.27
BIG BEND
315.000
140.800
2,847,600
2,988,400
747,100
448,300
4,183,800
13.28
671,000
300,000
C(HB)
1.100.000
350,000
8,910,000
9,260,000
2,315,000
1,389,000
12,964,000
11.79
1,100,000
350,000
ALAFIA
550,000
187,800
4,048,000
4,235,800
1,059,000
635,400
5,930,200
10.78
SUTTON
375,000
128,000
2,910,000
3,038,000
759,500
455,700
4,253,200
11.34
EAST BAY
100.000
34.100
807,000
841,100
210,300
126,200
1,177,600
11.78
1,025,000
350,000
D(HB)
175,000
123,500
1,634,500
1,758,000
439,500
263,700
2,461,200
14.06
SPARKMAN
150,000
105,900
1,512,000
1,617,900
404,500
242,700
2,265,100
15.10
YBOR
100.000
70,600
1,042,000
1,112,600
278,200
166,900
1,557,700
15.58
425,000
300,000
-------
300
UPLAND DISPOSAL
Three dredging methods were used to compare upland disposal costs.
One was to use a hopper dredge to transport the material to hydraulic
pumpout locations for pipeline transfer to the disposal sites. The second was
to use a clamshell dredge with barges to move material to hydraulic
pumpout locations for pipeline transfer to the disposal sites. The third
method involved the traditional hydraulic dredging and transport to the
upland site. As mentioned earlier, hydraulic dredging and material
movement via pipeline has a 10 mile limit due to equipment limitations and
dredging efficiencies. All three methods place material into the designated
upland disposal site with the use of a pipeline. All three methods use the
same pipeline access route to each potential upland site. Of the three
methods, hydraulic dredging and transport is generally the most economical
method when the disposal site is within 5 miles of the dredging location.
The total cost for upland disposal includes dredging and transportation costs,
site preparation cost, and site procurement cost. Further discussion of
dredging and transportation costs for each method is in the subsequent text.
Hopper Dredge and Pumpout - The hopper dredging operation is identical
to the ocean disposal alternative with the difference being in the transfer of
material to a pipeline for transport to the disposal site. The hopper dredge
fills the storage hopper with dredge material then proceeds to a designated
pumpout location where the material is hydraulically pumped via a pipeline
to the disposal site. The advantages are a reduction in travel time if the
pumpout location is closer than the ODMDS and utilization of upland
disposal areas farther than 10 miles from the dredging location. However,
the disadvantages are that more equipment is necessary for the operation
and cost efficiency decreases with the need to transfer material to a pipeline
rather than ocean disposal. Another disadvantage is the inefficient
utilization of pumpout equipment due to the down time between dredge
visits. The cost estimates reflect the advantages and disadvantages while
providing a basis for comparison with other methods. A sample estimate
summary for hopper dredging is provided in table 12.
The pumpout locations required a water depth of at least 25 feet to allow
the fully loaded dredge direct access to the site. Several pumpout locations
shown on figure 4, were strategically placed in the harbor to allow deep
water access while staying within the 10 mile pumping limit. Costs for to
the pumpout equipment included the pipeline required to carry the material
from the pumpout location to the potential upland site. Table 13 provides a
sample of the total cost to hopper dredge and transport dredge material
from each cut in the harbor to a pumpout location with the material
hydraulically pumped to an upland site. The sample demonstrates the
24
-------
301
TABLE 12
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
HOPPER DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT ESTIMATE
BIG BEND
CHECKLIST FOR INPUT DATA.
Planning Est. 22 Jan 1993
PC 1 OF U: PROJECT TITLES
UNIT $. $3.32 /CY
TOTAL.. $3,652,000 JOB COST
TIME... 4.19 MONTHS
PROJECT - CUT C (HB)
LOCATION - Tampa Harbor Disposal Area Study
INVIT # - Preliminary
BID ITEM * - PG 13 OF 14: MARKUPS USED
FILENAME - THF301P
EST - Al Fletcher/Tin Mur
MIDPT DATE - Mar-93
DESCRIPTION ENTERED- ERR
PC 2 OF 14: EXCAVATION QTY'S
DREDGING AREA -
REQ'D EXCAVATION -
X MUD -
X SANO -
X GRAVEL -
PAY OVERDEPTH -
O.D. NOT DREDGED -
OVERDIG FOOTAGE -
NONPAY YARDAGE -
GROSS YARDAGE -
7,633,000 sf
1,100,000 cyds
40%
60*
OX
0 cyds
0 cyds
1.00 ft
282,700 cyds
1,382,700 cyds
PC'S 5-7 OF 14: PRODUCTION WORKSHEET
HOPPER CAPACITY -
EFF. HOPPER CAP. -
AVAIL DREDGING RATE -
AVAIL. DRAGHEADS -
ACT. DRAGHOS USED -
ORDGE RATE USED -
TURNS/CYCLE -
HIN. PER TURN -
DISPOSAL DIST -
TRVL SPD TO DISP -
MAX TRVL SPD LOADED -
O.H.
PROFIT
BOND
15X
10X
1.000*
PG 3 OF 14: LOCAL AREA FACTORS
FUEL COST -
CFC RATE -
USE MONTHS / YEAR -
MARINE INSUR -
TAXES -
PROVISIONS t SUPP -
$1.00 /gal
7.000*
9 mo/yr
1.5X
1.0X
$15 /man
PG 4 OF 14: DREDGE SELECTION (ALT-D)
DREDGE: SUGAR ISLAND
LOADS PER DAY -
CYCLE TIME -
7.95
163 min/load
MOBIL1Z. COST PER DREDGE:
$250,000
LOCATION: CUT C (HB)
5 MI TO PUMPOUT
1,100,000 CY
7,633,000 SF (SURFACE AREA)
1,500 CY PER LOAD
40 X MUD
60 X SANO
1.0 FT OVERDIG
(NON-PAY)
3,600 cyds
1,500 cyds
2,100 cy/hr
2 ea
2 ea
2,100 cy/hr
2 ea
3 nin
5 ni
10.8 nph
12.7 nph
DUMP/CONNECT TIME -
JET PUMP AVAIL? -
60 min
YES
TYPE OF DISPOSAL - GRAVITY DUMP
PUMPIMG RATE -
TRVL SPD TO DREDG -
MAX TRVL SPD LIGHT -
EFFECTIVE TIME -
OPER WORK DAYS/MO -
ADO. CLEANUP TIME -
SPECIAL COST -
SPECIAL COST -
cy/hr
11.7 nph
13.6 nph
90.OX
30.42 days
10X
$0 /no
$0 /job
PC'S 8-9 OF 14: PLANT OUN. I OPER.
PG'S 10-12 OF 14: LABOR, 24 Jo 88
DREDGE
PROPULSION TUG
SURVEY VESSEL
BOOSTER
CRANE BARGE
TENDER TUG
SHORE EQUIP
$430,972
self prop
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
PG 14 OF 14: DREDGE OPER. ADJ. FAC.
PUMP LOAD FACTOR
RPR i MAINT. ADJ
JET PUMP X USAGE
50*
1.00
100*
OVERTIME X
VACATION/HOLIDAY X
TAX I INSUR X
FRINGE BENEFITS
DREDGE CREU:
SUGG. CREU SIZE
USED CREU SI2E
SHORE CREU:
USED CREU SIZE
GOVERNMENT PERSON
FRE. TO TRAVEL
RT TRAVEL COST
28.00X
8.64X
30.61*
$4.35 /hr
14 ea
14 ea
0 ea
3 ea
28 days
S400
uopppd noFnnF
HIT C fHRI
THF301P.UK1 Page
-------
TABLE 13
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
HOPPER DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT COST
DREDGE
PUMPOUT
SHOAL
MOB &
MOB &
PUMPOUT
EXCAVATION
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
E&D
TOTAL
DREDGING
CUT
QUANTITY
DEMOB
DEMOB
COSTS
COST
COSTS
COSTS
AND CM
COSTS
COSTS
NAME
(CY)
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
25%
15%
$
$/(CY)
PUMPOUT: B
G BEND
DA SITE 1
DISTANCE
1.76 MILES FROM PUN
POUT TO DA
EGMONT1
3,200,000
250,000
400,000
3,904,000
21,536,000
26,090,000
6,522,500
3,913,500
36,526,000
11.41
3,200,000
250,000
400,000
EGMONT 2
5,000
1,300
2,100
6,100
26,150
35,650
8,900
5,300
49,850
9.97
MULLET
25,000
6,500
10,400
30,500
130,500
177,900
44,500
26,700
249,100
9.96
A
75,000
19,400
31,100
91,500
348,000
490,000
122,500
73,500
686,000
9.15
B
110,000
28,500
45,600
134,200
601,700
810,000
202,500
121,500
1,134,000
10.31
D
20,000
5,200
8,300
24,400
96,200
134,100
33,500
20,100
187,700
9.39
F
60,000
15,500
24,900
73,200
228,000
341,600
85,400
51,200
478,200
7.97
G
650,000
168,400
269,400
793,000
2,892,500
4,123,300
1,030,800
618,500
5,772,600
8.88
K
20.000
5,200
8,300
24,400
121,000
158,900
39,700
23,800
222,400
11.12
965,000
250,000
400,000
GADSEN
200,000
74,500
119,200
244,000
670,000
1,107,700
276,900
166,200
1,550,800
7.75
A(HB)
156,000
58,100
93,000
190,320
453,960
795,380
198,800
119,300
1,113,480
7.14
BIG BEND
315.000
117.400
187.800
384,300
752,850
1,442,350
360,600
216,400
2,019,350
6.41
671,000
250,000
400,000
C(HB)
1,100.000
250,000
400,000
1,342,000
3,652,000
5,644,000
1,411,000
846,600
7,901,600
7.18
1,100,000
250,000
400,000
ALAFIA
550,000
134,100
214,600
671,000
1,914,000
2,933,700
733,400
440,100
4,107,200
7.47
SUTTON
375,000
91,500
146,300
457,500
1,575,000
2,270,300
567,600
340,500
3,178,400
8.48
EAST BAY
100,000
24.400
39,000
122,000
459,000
644,400
161,100
96,700
902,200
9.02
1,025,000
250,000
400,000
D(HB)
175,000
102,900
164,700
213,500
728,000
1,209,100
302,300
181,400
1,692,800
9.67
SPARKMAN
150,000
88,200
141,200
183,000
736,500
1,148,900
287,200
172,300
1,608,400
10.72
YBOR
100.000
58,800
94,100
122,000
510,000
784,900
196,200
117,700
1,098,800
10.99
425,000
250,000
400,000
UJ
o
rsj
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
305
procedure for proration of mobilization costs and includes contingencies,
engineering and design costs, as well as construction management costs.
The sample also enables a view of the additional costs involved with the
pumpout operation.
Clamshell/Barge and Pumpout - The actual dredging operation is identical
to the ODMDS alternative. As with the hopper dredge operation, the
material is transported to pumpout locations and hydraulically pump via
pipeline to an upland site. The same pumpout locations in figure 4 were
also used in the clamshell operation. A sample cost estimate summary for
clamshell dredging and barge transport to the pumpout location is in table
14. As identified in other dredging estimates in this study, no mobilization
costs are included in the these estimates. Table 15 presents a sample of the
total cost to clamshell dredge shoal material for transport by barge to a
pumpout location where the material is hydraulically pumped to an upland
site.
Hydraulic Dredging - As stated throughout this report, hydraulic dredging
is the traditional method for upland disposal and generally, the most
economical for pumping distances less than 5 miles. This fact is possible
because the dredge can work continuously without stopping to empty the
hopper as with a hopper dredge or having to wait for a barge to return as
with a clamshell dredge. Disadvantages relate primarily to the expanse of
Tampa Bay. The bay is wide with an extremely long channel which greatly
reduces the inland area within reach for possible disposal. This restricts the
number of cuts within the pumping limits of any one upland site.
A sample estimate for hydraulic dredging is given in table 16. The total
cost is in table 17. As described earlier, hydraulic dredging to a disposal site
is restricted to about a distance of 10 miles which greatly reduces the
number of cuts available to pump to any one site. This required another
proration of the mobilization costs. Where possible the same groups of cuts
in the hopper and clamshell alternative considerations were utilized. In
most cases, the mobilization cost proration was over the cuts within the 10
mile pumping distance of the potential site. The exceptions would be
similar to the situation on cut C. The extensive shoaling in that cut
warrants exclusion from grouping with other cuts. Sites that were only
within pumping distance of one cut had the entire mobilization cost added to
the dredging cost for that cut. This caused the hydraulic dredging cost to be
high for many potential sites in comparison to other dredging methods.
28
-------
TABLE 14
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
CLAMSHELL DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT ESTIMATE
BIG BEND
CHECKLIST FOR INPUT DATA.
Planning Est. 25 Jan 1993
PG 1 OF 7: PROJECT TITLE
UNIT COST... S3.85 PER C.Y.
JOB DURATION 5.18 MONTHS
TOTAL $4,235,000
DREDGE TIME
HAUL TIME..
5.18 MONTHS
2.84 MONTHS
PROJECT -
CUT C(HB)
LOCATION -
Tacnpa Harbor Disposal Area Study
INVIT « -
Preliminary
EST -
Al Fletcher/Tim Murphy
PG 2 OF 7: EXCAVATION QTY'S
DREDGING AREA -
7.633,000 sf
REQ'O EXCAVATION •
1,100,000 cyds
PAY OVERDEPTH -
0
O.D. NOT DREDGED -
0
OVERDIG FOOTAGE -
1.0 ft
NONPAY YARDAGE -
282,700 cyds
GROSS YARDAGE -
1,382,700 cyds
PG 3 OF 7: EQUIPMENT COSTS
DREDGE -
12 C.Y. Clamshell
DREDGE COST -
$130,000 /no (Ea)
WORK TUG(S) COST -
$42,000 /mo
SURVEY VESSEL COST -
$11,000 /mo
OTHER EQUIP COST -
$0 /mo
TOWING VESSEL -
2400 Hp Diesel--Twin Screw
TOWING VESSEL COST -
$160,000 /mo (Ea)
SCOW -
3000 C.Y. Bottom Dunp
SCOW COST -
$44,000 per Month (Each)
PG 4 OF 7: LABOR AND OTHER COSTS
DREDGE LABOR -
$95,000 /no (Ea)
TOU VESSEL LABOR •
$0 /no (Ea)
OTHER LABOR -
$70,000 /mo
SPEC EXCAV COSTS -
$0 /mo
ADD EXCAV COSTS -
$0 /job
OH -
15 X
PROFIT -
10 X
BOND -
1 X
PG 5 OF 7: DREDGE PRODUCTION WORKSHEET
MOBILIZATION COST
(250,000
LOCATION: CUT C(HB)
5 Ml TO ODMDS
1,100,000 CY
7,633,000 SF (SURFACE AREA)
2,160 CY PER LOAD
40 X MUD
60 X SAND
1.0 FT OVERDIG
(NON-PAY)
BUCKET SIZE -
BUCKET CYCLE TIME -
CLEANUP DREDGING -
BUCKET FILL -
CYCLE EFF FACTOR -
OPER TIME FACTOR -
12 cy
45 sec
10 X Additional Time
0.7
0.75
0.8
PG 6 OF 7: HAULING PRODUCTION WORKSHEET
TOWING CYCLE:
PREPARE SCOW TOU - 15 min
HAUL DIST - 5 mi
SPEED TO D/A - 5 mph
SPEED FROM D/A - 6 mph
DUMP OR PUMPOUT - 20 nin
DISENGAGE TOU - 10 win
TOU EFFICIENCY - 80 X
SCOW EFFICIENCY:
USEABLE VOLUME - 90 X
X SOLIDS - 80 X
PG 7 OF 7: EQUIPMENT MATCHING
* OF PIECES: Used
DREDGES - 1
TOWING VESSELS - 1
SCOWS PER TOU - 1
ADDITIONAL SCOWS - 2
TOT SCOWS ON JOB - 3
MECHANICAL DREDGE ESTIMATE
CUT C(HB) OREDGE LOCATION* THF302P.WK1 Page
-------
o
TABLE 15
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
CLAMSHELL-BARGE DREDGE WITH PUMPOUT COST
DREDGE
PUMPOUT
CUT
SHOAL
MOB &
MOB &
PUMPOUT
EXCAVATION
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
E&D
TOTAL
DREDGING
NAME
QUANTITY
DEMOB
DEMOB
COSTS
COST
COSTS
COSTS
AND CM
COSTS
COSTS
(CY)
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
PER CUT
25%
15%
$
$/( CY)
PUMPOUT
BIG BEND
DA SITE 1
DISTANCE
1.76 MILES FROM PUMPOUT TO DA
EGMONT 1
3,200,000
350,000
900,000
5,504,000
17,632,000
24,386,000
6,096,500
3,657,900
34,140,400
10.67
3,200,000
350,000
900,000
EGMONT 2
5,000
1,800
4,700
8,600
26,750
41,850
10,500
6,300
58,650
11.73
MULLET
25,000
9,100
23,300
43,000
118,500
193,900
48,500
29,100
271,500
10.86
A
75,000
27,200
69,900
129,000
333,750
559,850
140,000
84,000
783,850
10.45
B
110,000
39,900
102,600
189,200
635,800
967,500
241,900
145,100
1,354,500
12.31
D
20,000
7,300
18,700
34,400
114,400
174,800
43,700
26,200
244,700
12.24
F
60,000
21,800
56,000
103,200
277,800
458,800
114,700
68,800
642,300
10.71
G
650,000
235,800
606,200
1,118,000
2,047,500
4,007,500
1,001,900
601,100
5,610,500
8.63
K
20.000
7,300
18.700
34,400
86,200
146,600
36,700
22,000
205,300
10.27
965,000
350,000
900,000
GADSEN
200,000
74,500
268,300
344,000
776,000
1,462,800
365,700
219,400
2,047,900
10.24
A(HB)
156,000
58,100
209,200
268,320
613,080
1,148,700
287,200
172,300
1,608,200
10.31
BIG BEND
315.000
117.400
422,500
541,800
1,174,950
2,256,650
564,200
338,500
3,159,350
10.03
671,000
250,000
900,000
C(HB)
1,100,000
250,000
900,000
1,892,000
4,235,000
7,277,000
1,819,300
1,091,600
10,187,900
9.26
1,100,000
250,000
900,000
ALAFIA
550,000
134,100
482,900
946,000
1,512,500
3,075,500
768,900
461,300
4,305,700
7.83
SUTTON
375,000
91,500
329,300
645,000
1,110,000
2,175,800
544,000
326,400
3,046,200
8.12
EAST BAY
100,000
24,400
87.800
172,000
335,000
619,200
154,800
92,900
866,900
8.67
1,025,000
250,000
900,000
D(HB)
175,000
123,500
370,600
301,000
514,500
1,309,600
327,400
196,400
1,833,400
10 48
SPARKMAN
150,000
105,900
317,600
258,000
555,000
1,236,500
309,100
185,500
1,731,100
11 54
YBOR
100,000
70,600
211,800
172,000
388,000
842,400
210,600
126,400
1,179,400
11.79
425,000
300,000
900,000
-------
TABLE 16
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
HYDRAULIC DREDGE ESTIMATE
SITE 1
CHECKLIST FOR INPUT DATA. BID QUANTITY 1,100,000 C.Y.
UNIT COST...
S4.50 PER C.Y.
CUT C(HB)
EXCAV. COST.
54,950,000
TIME
3.13 MONTHS
PC 1 OF 9: PROJECT TITLES
FILENAME - THF303 |
PROJECT - CUT C(HB) |
LOCATION - Tampa Harbor Disposal Area Study |
PG 5 OF 9: DREDGE SELECTION
INVIT # - Preliminary |
DATE OF EST. - 02 FEB 93 |
DREDGE SELECTED -
30 " HYDRAULIC DREDGE
EST. BY - Al Fletcher/Barbara Harrison |
COMPUTED BANK FACTOR -
0.72
TYPE OF EST. - Planning Estimate |
BANK FACTOR USED -
0.72 >
I
OTHER FACTOR -
0 >
PG 2 OF 9: EXCAVATION QTY'S |
CLEANUP -
10X More T ime
DREDGING AREA - 7,633,000 sf |
PG 6 OF 9: PROOUCTION ANALYSIS
REQ'D EXCAVATION - 1,100,000 cyds |
PAY OVERDEPTH - 0 cyds |
AVE. PIPELINE -
36,300 ft
CONTRACT AMOUNT - 1,100,000 cyds |
MAX. PIPE AVAILABLE -
52,600 ft
NOT DREDGED - 0 cyds |
MAX. POSSIBLE -
65,140 ft
NONPAY YARDAGE - 282,700 cyds |
BASED ON -
2 boosters
GROSS YARDAGE - 1,382,700 cyds |
TOTAL HORSEPOWER -
20,400 hp
NONPAY HEIGHT - 1.0 ft overdig. |
EFFECTIVE TIME -
49.3X
TOTAL BANK HEIGHT - 4.9 ft |
BASED ON -
20X Booster Losses
I
-
18 hours per day
PG 3 OF 9: MAXIMUM PIPELINE REQUIRED |
-
25 days per month
,
NET PROOUCTION -
1,226 net cy per hour
FLOATING - 1,500 ft |
PAY PROOUCTION -
351,438 pay cy per month
SUBMERGED - 44,100 ft |
SHORE - 7,000 ft |
PG 7 OF 9: HORSEPOWER CONSIDERATIONS
TOTAL - 52,600 ft |
COST CATEGORY - 2 SAND |
CHART H.P. -
5,200 hp
EQUIVALENT - 1,500 ft |
AVAILABLE H.P. -
5,200 hp
1
BOOSTER H.P. -
7,600 hp(ea)
LOSS PER BOOSTER -
10X
Mobilization: |
1
PG 8 OF 9: GROSS PROOUCTION I LOCAL AREA FACTORS
1600,000 LS 1600,000 |
$50,000 Per Booster S10Q,000 |
PROOUCTION OVERRIDE -
0
$10 Per Lf Pipe 5526,000 |
FUEL PRICE -
SO.82 /gal
1
ANNUAL PLANT USE -
10 mos/yr
Mobil: SI,226,000 |
INTEREST RATE -
7.000% /yr
1
i
TIME PERIOD -
July to December, 1992
1
PG 4 OF 9: MATERIAL FACTOR |
1
PG 9 OF 9: OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
1
DESCRIPTION FACTOR PERCENTAGE |
SPECIAL COST/MO -
A
o
I
1
1
1
I
1 1
SPECIAL COST LS -
so >
MUD & SILT 2.5 40 |
CONTRACTOR'S O.H. -
15X
LOOSE SAND 1 60 |
CONTRACTOR'S PROFIT -
10X
RESULTANT |
CONTRACTOR'S BOND -
U
MATERIAL FACTOR 1.32 |
PIPELINE DREDGE ESTIMATE
CUT C(HB)
THF303.UK1 Page
-------
TABLE 17
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
HYDRAULIC DREDGE AND UPLAND DISPOSAL COST
CUT
NAME
SHOAL
QUANTITY
(CY)
EXCAVATION
COST
PER CUT
($/CY)
MOB &
DEMOB
PER CUT
($/CY)
SUBTOTAL
PER CUT
($/CY)
CONTINGENCY
25%
($/CY)
E&D
CM
15%
($/CY)
DREDGING
COST
($/CY)
SITE 1
BIG BEND
315,000
2.31
0.98
3.29
0.82
0.49
4.61
SITE 1 (HILLSBOROUGH BAY)
C(HB)
ALAFIA
SUTTON
EAST BAY
D(HB)
SPARKMAN
YBOR
1,100,000
550,000
375,000
100,000
175,000
150,000
100,000
4.50
3.49
1.11
0.98
5.61
4.47
1.40
1.12
0.84
0.67
7.86
6.26
*
*
*
*
*
SITE 1 (PORT TAMPA)
A(HB)
GADSEN
G
K
156,000
200,000
650,000
20,000
3.40
5.23
0.98
0.98
4.38
6.21
1.10
1.55
0.66
0.93
6.14
8.70
*
*
SITE 1
(MAIN SHIPPING CHANNEL)
F
D
B
A
MULLET
EGMONT2
EGMONT1
60,000
20,000
11,000
75,000
25,000
5,000
3,200,000
16.35
0.98
17.33
4.33
2.60
24.27
•*
*
*
*
*
*
NOTES:
* - Maximum Pipeline Length (50,000 feet) Exceeded
-------
310
INITIAL COST COMPARISON
The Tampa Harbor Federal Project also includes two existing dredged
material disposal islands located in Hillsborough Bay. Disposal island 2D is just
north of the Alafia River Federal Channel and 3D is south of that channel. The
islands are currently for disposal of material dredged from the upper harbor
(north of Tampa Bay Cut F). An analysis during this study concluded that
certain cuts in the Tampa Harbor Federal Project were feasible to place in the
islands. Those cuts were from Tampa Bay Cut C northward. The remaining
cuts from Cut B to the Gulf of Mexico were more costly for upland disposal.
Dredging costs for each of the ocean disposal methods provided a base
condition for comparison with potential upland sites to determine at this level
of detail what upland areas appear feasible for future consideration. The ocean
disposal costs in tables 7 and 9 provided the base costs for comparison with
total dredging and site preparation cost on a site by site basis. Table 18 uses
site 1 as a sample comparison generated for each potential upland site. The
most economical alternative for a particular cut in that table is identified with
an If the most economical alternative for every cut was either of the two
ocean disposal methods, the site was not feasible for further consideration. A
site that had only one or two cuts feasible for upland disposal was reanalyzed to
realign the proration of mobilization costs over the feasible cuts. In some cases,
this reapportionment resulted in the site being dropped from further
consideration. Table 19 provides a list of potential sites considered infeasible
after the initial cost comparison.
REAL ESTATE VALUES
Real estate values for the each site were not included in the initial cost
comparison. The remaining evaluations involve an assessment of real estate
values on the upland sites. The real estate analysis is last because of the field
work involved in obtaining estimates for each site. Engineering and
environmental investigations reduced the number of sites prior to initiating the
real estate analysis. During the real estate analysis, site H28 was discovered to
be scheduled for residential development in the near future. This fact removed
the site from further consideration. The real estate evaluations are in
attachment A and the results are in table 20. The real estate market in the
area during the field work appeared to be in a depressed state. Numerous land
parcels were for sale in the area with some parcel sales below assessed value.
The estimated real estate values are for a fee simple purchase of the site with
any severance damage caused by the purchase and utilization of the site. The
values do not include any easements required for pipeline access to the site.
Attachment A provides details concerning the methods used to obtain the real
estate values as well as assumptions and limitations of the analysis.
33
-------
TABLE 18
TAMPA HARBOR UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
COST COMPARISON
COSTS PER DREDGE AND DISPOSAL TYPE ($/CY)
QUANTITY
CLAMSHELL
HOPPER
CUT
PER CUT
CLAMSHELL
HOPPER
HYDRAULIC
W/PUMPOUT
W/PUMPOUT
NAME
(CY)
TO OCEAN
TO OCEAN
TO SITE
TO SITE
TO SITE
SITE 1
EGMONT1
3.200.000
$4.72
$4.28 *
$11.63
$12.38
3,200,000
EGMONT 2
5,000
$6.16
$5.27 *
$12.68
$10.94
MULLET
25,000
$6.72
$6.71 *
$11.82
$10.93
A
75,000
$7.49
$7.35 *
$11.42
$10.11
B
110,000
$10.57
$10.32 *
$13.28
$11.28
D
20,000
$13.30
$13.12
$13.20
$10.35 *
F
60,000
$14.02
$13.51
$25.24
$11.67
$8.94 *
G
650,000
$12.22
$16.84
$9.60 *
$9.85
K
20.000
$14.73
$20.88
$11.22 *
$12.09
965,000
GADSEN
200,000
$12.71
$15.52
$9.67
$11.21
$8.72 *
A(HB)
156,000
$13.27
$16.09
$7.11 *
$11.28
$8.10
BIG BEND
315.000
$13.28
$16.09
$5.58 *
$11.00
$7.38
671,000
C(HB)
1,100.000
$11.79
$16.96
$8.83
$10.23
$8.15 *
1,100,000
ALAFIA
550,000
$10.78
$17.49
$7.23 *
$8.79
$8.43 .
SUTTON
375,000
$11.34
$18.36
$9.09 *
$9.44
EAST BAY
100,000
$11.78
$19.17
$9.63 *
$9.99
1,025,000
D(HB)
175,000
$14.06
$18.81
$11.44
$10.64 *
SPARKMAN
150,000
$15.10
$20.45
$12.51
$11.69 *
YBOR
100.000
$15.58
$20.97
$12.76
$11.96 *
425,000
* - Most Economical Dredging Method Per Cut
-------
TABLE 19
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
SITES REMOVED AFTER INITIAL COST COMPARISON
SITE NUMBER
H4
Ml
H7
M2
H8
M3
H9
M4
H13
M5
H14
M6
H15
M7
H16
M9
H17
M10
H18
Mil
H19
M12
H20
M13
H21
M14
35
-------
TABLE 20
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
REAL ESTATE VALUES (1)
Total
Estimated
Severance
Compensatory
Acres
Value
Cost
Value
Site No.
Required
($)
($)
($)
H1
12.7
396,900
0
396,900
H2
61.8
1,931,300
819,000
2,750,300
H3
22.4
700,600
646,000
1,346,600
H6
247.8
1,464,700
558,000
2,022,700
H10
189.4
1,119,500
318,100
1,437,600
H11
377.3
2,230,300
0
2,230,300
H12
125.3
467,200
135,400
602,600
H22
119.1
779,300
40,600
819,900
H23
56.0
832,000
45,000
877,000
H26
117.2
472,500
0
472,500
H27
379.7
2,244,400
53,200
2,297,600
1
306.4
2,005,100
0
2,005,100
2
41.3
166,400
0
166,400
3
181.8
1,074,600
299,300
1,373,900
4
238.4
1,559,900
491,500
2,051,400
6
54.0
201,400
511,500
7ia900
8
86.3
347,900
0
347,900
9A
484.3
3,169,000
41,400
3,210,400
9B
590.3
3,862,200
8,000
3,870,200
10
294.3
4,372,800
572,400
4,945,200
11
118.9
443,600
66,200
509,800
12
70.3
459,700
41,600
501,300
16
227.0
846,800
22,400
869,200
19
261.0
1,542,700
222,700
1.765,400
20A
238.8
1,411,300
2,174,100
3,585,400
20B
112.5
665,000
2,054,100
2,719,100
20C
311.0
1,838,200
1,087,100
2,925,300
23
155.0
912,900
605,800
1,518,700
24
313.0
2,048,000
0
2,048,000
25
215.9
1,412,800
17a 700
1,585,500
27
176.9
1,157,300
0
1,157,300
28
139.0
818,700
263,000
1,081,700
(1) Real Estate Values are only for Planning Purposes.
-------
314
FINAL COST COMPARISON
The estimated real estate cost were converted to a per cubic yard value for
each evaluated site. The value was added to the previously calculated total
costs for dredging and upland disposal. The resulting totals were again
compared to the ocean disposal costs for each cut. Based on the size of the sites
and relatively low real estate cost, only two sites (HI and H2) exceeded the
ocean disposal costs leaving 30 sites that are feasible for use.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
As indicated earlier, market conditions in the Tampa area indicated
depressed land prices at the time field information was obtained concerning
land values. Considering the market uncertainties involved, a sensitivity
analysis on real estate costs seemed appropriate. To assess the impact, the
final real estate cost on each site was doubled and a comparison was made with
ocean disposal. The results indicated only four upland sites would be
impractical to use. Site size and capacity on the remaining sites made the real
estate a minor factor in the overall cost for upland disposal.
SUMMARY
The initial analysis involved 77 potential upland disposal sites located in
three counties. Environmental evaluations determined that ten sites were
unsuitable for disposal. A field trip revealed development on four sites making
them unsuitable for further consideration. Three sites were inaccessible by
pipeline due to Interstate 275. Pipeline access problems to one site resulted in
unacceptable environmental impacts making it unsuitable for further study.
The initial cost comparison between ocean and upland disposal alternatives
indicated 26 sites were more costly than the ocean disposal considerations. The
final cost evaluation was a real estate analysis on the property values of the
remaining sites. During the real estate analysis, information on scheduled
development in the near future indicated one site would not be available for
use. The estimate of real estate values on the remaining sites with the
dredging and the upland site preparation costs caused two additional sites to be
more expensive that ocean disposal. Table 21 contains the final 30 sites (see
figure 5 for general locations) considered suitable along with the cuts and
dredge types used in making that feasibility determination. Disposal islands 2D
and 3D are also included in the table for comparison purposes. The results in
table 21 show no available upland disposal sites would be environmentally,
engineeringly, or economically feasible for the Tampa Harbor Federal channel
from Egmont Bar Channel through Tampa Bay Cut B (26.5 miles).
37
-------
315
During the course of this study, the preparation of over 700 cost
estimates enabled a detailed cost comparison between 5 possible dredging
techniques. This report shows only a sampling of those estimates. Detailed
documentation on the estimates is available in the Jacksonville District
Office.
RESULTS
This study indicates that 30 possible upland sites could serve as disposal
areas for portions of the Tampa Harbor Federal Project from Tampa Bay
Cut C to the northernmost Ybor Channel. Each site in table 21 would need
further, more detailed engineering evaluations on a case by case basis to
confirm that specific assumptions in this analysis are correct before
implementation.
Study findings discussed in the initial cost comparison section of this
report indicate that the existing disposal islands 2D and 3D should be
improved to increase capacity. The islands' location affords easy access and
shorter haul or pumping distances. The absence of any real estate
requirements contributes to the islands competitiveness with any potential
upland site. As stated earlier, the cost comparison demonstrates that the
existing disposal islands could serve the disposal needs of the Tampa Harbor
Federal Project from Tampa Bay Cut C to the northernmost Ybor Channel.
The results presented in table 21 demonstrate the need for an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site for the Tampa Harbor Federal Project. No
upland disposal sites were found to be environmentally, engineeringly, or
economically feasible for the Federal channel stretching from the Egmont
Bar Channel through Tampa Bay Cut B, a 26.5 mile reach of the existing
Federal channel (see figure 5).
38
-------
316
TABLE 21
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
POTENTIAL UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES
HARBOR CUT WITH OPTIMUM DREDGE TYPE FOR UPLAND DISPOSAL
SITE
MAIN SHIPPING CHANNEL
PORT TAMPA
HILLSBOROUGH BAY
E1
E2
M^
A
B
D
F
CUT G
CUT K
GAD
A
BB
C
ALA
SUT
EB
D
SPK
YB
H2
HP
HP
HP
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
H3
HP
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
H10
HP
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
H11
HP
HP
HP
CL
HP
HP
HP
H12
HP
HP
HP
CL
HP
HP
HP
CL
CL
CL
H22
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
H23
HP
HP
HP
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
H26
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
HP
HY
HP
CL
HP
HP
HP
H27
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
HP
HY
HP
CL
HP
HP
HP
1
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
2
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
3
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
4
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
HP
HP
HP
6
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
8
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
9A
HP
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
HP
HP
HP
9B
HP
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
HP
HP
HP
10
HP
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
11
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HP
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
12
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
16
HP
HP
CL
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
CL
CL
HP
HP
HP
19
HP
HY
HY
HY
20A
HY
HY
HY
20B
HY
HY
HY
20C
HY
HY
HY
23
HP
HP
CL
HP
HY
HY
HP
HY
HP
HP
HP
24
HP
HY
HY
HY
25
HY
HY
HY
27
HY
HY
HY
28
HY
HY
HY
HY
2D
HP
HP
HY
CL
HP
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
3D
HP
HP
HY
CL
HP
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
HY
LEGEND
MAIN SHIPPING
CHANNEL
PORTTAMPA
HILLSBOROUGH BAY
DREDGE TYPES
E1 -Egmont Cut 1
E2-Egmont Cut 2
MK-Mullet Key Cut
A-Cut A(TB)
B-Cut B (TB)
D-Cut D (TB)
F-CutF (TB)
Cut G
Cut K
QAD-Gadsen Point Cut
fli-Cut A (HB)
3B-Big Bend Channel
C-Cut C (HB)
M_A-Alafia River
SUT-Port Sutton
EB-East Bay
D-Cut D(HB)
SPK-Sparkman Channel
/B-Ybor Channel
HP-Hopper Dredge
w/Pumpout Plant
CL-Clamshell Dredge
w/Pumpout Plant
HY-Hydraulic Dredge
NOTES:
1. Main Shipping Channel cuts from Egmont Cut 1 to Cut B (TB) do not have a feasible upland site.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
319
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
REAL ESTATE SECTION
ATTACHMENT A
-------
321
REAL ESTATE SECTION FOR POTENTIAL UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES
FOR TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to investigate potential upland disposal sites to
be utilized in conjunction with the Tampa Harbor Federal Project. (Refer to
Figure 2 for the locations of potential sites considered for this study.)
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AND STUDY AREA
Tampa Harbor is located in Hillsborough County, on the Gulf Coast of
Florida. Initially there were 55 potential disposal sites identified through the
use of past studies, aerial photography and geographical limitations. An upland
disposal site must be environmentally and economically feasible to purchase,
permit construction of the necessary features, and allow for transportation of
the material to the site. Each potential site had to be open land with no
dwellings, meet a minimum size requirement of 10 acres, and be within the
limitations imposed by the geographical area. Initial geographical boundaries
were usually related to pipeline access to any potential site. Interstate 75 and
Interstate 275 were assumed to be the eastern and northern boundaries with
the Gulf of Mexico being the western boundary. The southern boundary was
defined by equipment limitations relating to pumping the dredged material to
the site. The maximum pumping distance for this study was identified as
approximately 10 miles from the hydraulic dredge plant or pump-out plant
location. These restrictions and boundaries greatly reduced the domain for
potential site locations and limited the scope of the study.
The study area consists of open agricultural and commercial parcels which
were valued in fee simple. Although 55 sites were initially targeted for study,
this number was reduced to 32 potential upland disposal sites based on site
selection criteria and other limitations as previously described.
ESTIMATES OF VALUE
Each potential site was valued in fee simple using the standard Corps estate.
The following table (Table A-l) provides the acres required, site size, estimated
value and severance damages (if any) for each of the 32 potential sites. These
indicated values are only estimates of a value range which a potential site may
have at the date of this study and are for preliminary purposes only. A more
detailed analysis of each site will be necessary if consideration is given beyond
the potential analysis stage.
A-1
-------
322
TABLE A-1
TAMPA HARBOR DISPOSAL AREA STUDY
REAL ESTATE VALUES (1)
Site No.
Acres
Required
Site
Size
Cost
Per Acre
Estimated
Value
Severance
Acres
Severance
Cost
Total
Compensatory
Value
H1
12.70
39.00
$31,300
$396,900
26.30
$0
$396,900
H2
61.80
93.00
$31,300
$1,931,300
31.20
$819,000
$2,750,300
H3
22.42
47.03
$31,300
$700,600
24.61
$646,000
$1,346,600
H6
247.80
374.30
$5,900
$1,464,700
126.50
$558,000
$2,022,700
H10
189.40
261.52
$5,900
$1,119,500
72.12
. $318,100
$1,437,600
H11
377.33
427.72
$5,900
$2,230,300
50.39
$0
$2,230,300
H12
125.25
235.31
$3,700
$467,200
110.06
$135,400
$602,600
H22
119.10
129.08
$6,500
$779,300
9.98
$40,600
$819,900
H23
56.00
60.45
$14,900
$832,000
4.45
$45,000
$877,000
H26
117.17
117.17
$4,000
$472,500
0.00
$0
$472,500
H27
379.71
395.30
$5,900
$2,244,400
15.59
$53,200
$2,297,600
1
306.44
306.44
$6,500
$2,005,100
0.00
$0
$2,005,100
2
41.27
41.27
$4,000
$166,400
0.00
$0
$166,400
3
181.81
269.57
$5,900
$1,074,600
87.76
$299,300
$1,373,900
4
238.40
359.94
$6,500
$1,559,900
121.54
$491,500
$2,051,400
6
54.00
469.84
$3,700
$201,400
415.84
$511,500
$712,900
8
86.27
86.27
$4,000
$347,900
0.00
$0
$347,900
9A
484.33
491.24
$6,500
$3,169,000
6.91
$41,400
$3,210,400
9B
590.27
591.86
$6,500
$3,862,200
1.59
$8,000
$3,870,200
10
294.32
344.72
$14,900
$4,372,800
50.40
$572,400
$4,945,200
11
118.92
172.76
$3,700
$443,600
53.84
$66,200
$509,800
12
70.25
78.50
$6,500
$459,700
8.25
$41,600
$501,300
16
227.00
324.59
$3,700
$846,800
97.59
$22,400
$869,200
19
261.00
326.29
$5,900
$1,542,700
65.29
$222,700
$1,765,400
20A
238.76
876.15
$5,900
$1,411,300
637.39
$2,174,100
$3,585,400
20B
112.50
714.69
$5,900
$665,000
602.19
$2,054,100
$2,719,100
20C
311.00
629.69
$5,900
$1,838,200
318.69
$1,087,100
$2,925,300
23
155.00
408.48
$5,900
$912,900
253.48
$605,800
$1,518,700
24
313.00
313.00
$6,500
$2,048,000
0.00
$0
$2,048,000
25
215.93
253.93
$6,500
$1,412,800
38.00
$172,700
$1,585,500
27
176.88
176.88
$6,500
$1,157,300
0.00
$0
$1,157,300
28
139.00
230.00
$5,900
$818,700
91.00
$263,000
$1,081,700
(1) Real Estate Values are only for Planning Purposes.
-------
323
The valuations as presented in this Real Estate Section are based upon
information and conditions existing during the study period and are
preliminary. A more detailed real estate study will be required to implement
any upland site recommended in this report.
A-3
-------
326
-------
327
APPENDIX F
EPA VIDEO SURVEY
REPORT
OCTOBER, 1991
-------
329
SURVEY REPORT
TAMPA, SITE IV, ODMDS
DISPOSAL CORRIDOR (PILE) VIDEO
OCTOBER 8-9, 1991
Prepared by:
U.S.E.P.A.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
COLLEGE STATION ROAD
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30613-7799
-------
331
SURVEY REPORT
TAMPA SITE IV
DISPOSAL CORRIDOR VIDEO
OCTOBER 8-9, 1991
INTRODUCTION
The Tampa Site IV, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS)
was designated on a temporary basis for the Tampa Harbor
deepening project in the mid 1980's. Disposal of material
associated with the deepening of Tampa Harbor ceased in 1985 and
the temporary designation later expired. The Corps of Engineers
has stated a continuing need for an offshore disposal site for
dredged material at Tampa and has requested that EPA redesignate
Site IV on a permanent basis. EPA, Region IV, and the
Jacksonville District, COE, are presently preparing the draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the redesignation.
Prior to completion of the draft EIS, EPA revisited the disposal
corridor (pile) during thr period October 8-9, 1991 and conducted
continuous towed «~amera video and diver inspections in order to
assess the visual status of sessile biota which have colonized
areas of the pile.
During monitoring activities conducted by Continental Shelf
Associates, under contract to EPA, during and after the disposal
operations which ended in 1985, it was evident that assemblages
of various sessile animals, such as sponges and ascidians, were
beginning to colonize some areas of the pile where larger
consolidated clay "boulders" were present. While working in the
area on another project in 1988, EPA divers made a cursory visit
to one area of the pile and conducted video recordings which
revealed that armoring of the clay boulders was still evident in
some areas but that boring by marcoinvertebrates was causing
fragmentation of the consolidated clay.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the October 1991 visit to the Tampa Site IV
dredged material disposal pile was to visually assess the extent
of fragmentation of the consolidated clay boulders and observe
the status of sessile invertebrate colonization. The record of
this visual assessment will serve as part of the draft EIS
presently in preparation for redesignation of Site IV.
TASK AND METHODS
Corner coordinates and the approximate location of the disposal
corridor for Tampa Site IV are presented in Figure 1. Initial
activities for the cruise focused on delimiting the disposal
corridor, logistically, by conducting bathymetric recordings
-------
along short transects beginning at the east end and perpendicular
to the plotted disposal corridor (Figure 1). Once the east
terminus was located, additional transects perpendicular to the
pile were used to locate the crest, north and south toe, and
western end of the disposed material.
With the disposal pile generally located through the above work,
the camera sled was deployed and bathymetry/video recordings were
conducted along transects perpendicular to the pile, and spaced
at approximately 500 feet (150 meters).
As constructed, the disposal pile at Site IV was approximately
600 feet wide and 5000 feet long. The bathymetry/video cross
section transects confirmed this to be generally correct.
Subsequently, longitudinal bathymetry/video transects along the
disposal corridor were conducted at a line spacing of
approximately 500 feet (150 meters). Orientation of these
transects allowed for observation of the crest and north and
south toe of the pile throughout its length.
During the course of the video recordings, coordinates and visual
observations of areas of the pile were verbally entered onto the
video records. Coordinates of areas exhibiting features
representative of the substrate character ere recorded for
ground truthing by divers.
On-board review of the video record resulted in four sites being
chosen for diver observation and photography. Two areas were
located along the south toe with the other two dive locations
position on the crest of the pile near the east and west ends,
respectively. Dive teams obtained 35nmi photographs and video
records of each site.
RESULTS
A total of seventeen (17) transects were navigated on October 9,
1991. Video coverage revealed the disposal area to be largely
dominated by irregular substrate consisting of a size ranging
from rubble to boulders. Interspersed throughout the corridor
were large zones (approximately 50-100 meter spans) dominated by
a mixture of fine to coarse grain sands with silt. At and beyond
the north and south toe of the pile, the seafloor consisted of
moderate to coarse grained sands with small shell hash (visual
observation). Fathometer records of each transect are appended
(Appendix 1) to this report along with logistical and descriptive
information (Appendix 2) and should be referenced to Figure 1 for
location. "Fix" numbers written on the fathometer records
(App. 1) correspond to the "fix" number on the logistical data
(App. 2) for direct reference.
Diving operations to ground-truth selected representative areas
of the pile were conducted on October 10, 1991. Examination of
the various substrate by divers revealed both the rubble and
-------
335
boulder material to consist primarily of rock with porosity
varying from limestone to solid rock. Larger boulders (three to
five feet diameter and larger) were encrusted by calcareous
algae, sponges, ascidians, and tube coral (Cladocora sp.). In
many cases, the entire surface area of the rocks was near 100%
colonized by these varying assemblages of biota. Dive location
are depicted on Figure 1. Appendix 3 is a compilation of
representative photographs of the substrate and associated biota
observed at each respective location.
Visually, fish were abundant at all dive locations and included
butterfly fish, wrasse, daroselfish, angelfish, highhats, grunts,
snapper, jacks, grouper, needlefish, and barracuda. Grouper were
the most abundant sport/commercial fish observed. Good habitat
is afforded by the rocky irregular relief of the disposed
material, providing both cover and attached food sources for the
wide variety of fishes attracted to the pile.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
EPA. Athens EPA. Atlanta EPA. HDOT
Philip Murphy Gary Collins Ed McLean
Don Lawhorn
Mel Parsons
As always, this effort could not have been accomplished without
the roost competent assistance of Captain Dwight Paine, and the
technicians and crew of the EPA OSV Peter W. Anderson.
-------
337
FIGURE 1
VIDEO TRANSECTS
TAMPA SITE IV
OCTOBER 1991
83 05.00
83 04.50
gx3
O
Plotted grid
Ship/video track
i! !::: * r ri!-.
Diver photo locations
-------
339
APPENDIX
1
-------
JLCs^r*'<&.
BB 49M D ~ 3.7 FT CI 39
-------
-------
uu
UJ
8 Cn->s)
1
J---J
I 1 l_a.
u.L 1
r_l L J_
-
, ^
f
V
5-0--
T 1 1 " ' ' '
— — fefrffc
' %=
«
, - l#=
A ,
1 SH
+3 ; 1—h j a ¦
i »?rj ^
V-ri-rii
' |0=|
L—^r .
>4^ =|
7 ,'riil'j I1""
ft
!—!£' JUf!.
' \ WmI
¦VrM "' '''¦';
iff t ,
i ¦•"
y.
%ii ,i * f 1 -~J
—rn BO- -M>" 1
ff'
¦ 1 '» « .
¦ 90- ;
SB 4800| D + 3.7 Ff~CS 3
i (jWtfWf 1 ' ' 1,1 i^'n 'T'T* IWn
-W-vV^ ^—tfrn
0 | "J se
—! ' "1 ,'l\'./l4''ui.'l^—1
1 '
3480b it 3.7 f"t cs~"
1 1
30 <#0)
-------
-------
UJ
LTI
30- i ilLs
— [ I 90-1 -—- go. _¦ ¦ ~^v'—"
3 3 0 <00 ) " " | I 1 sb" 4800 D+ |5.7"fT ' CS be "<00 )' '| 'p— --- 4 eTe ~D+] 5.7 F T' ~CS('3 0 < 00:V |
-------
-------
I
J
L
,hj._
3>(Hj+s) _ _ i_
i
SI-
L
I
¦
I
i
P
i
§
1
m
i
33-
'' OB.
i±i
I
i
±£2
S3E
M
m
3^s;
|0 D+ 5.7 FT
30 <00)
T—
-9St-
I " Sb' 4*80d D + "5.7' FI1" CS 30" <0V>
III
e^r-
SB 4e00 D + 5.7 FT CS
1 1
-------
-------
£ (
-------
-------
-------
-------
UJ
Ln
UJ
-------
-------
-------
-------
UJ
U1
93 4800
SS 4800
-------
-------
40
L
L
tCv+s,
I _ 4_3 . I
uu
U1
<£>
1
H 0.
-------
-------
£ (S-P A/)
-------
-------
APPENDIX
-------
e
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
TAPE DEPTH LATDEO LATMIH LONDEO LONMIN TIKEHOUR TIMEMIH BOTTYPE PATTERN WAVEBT WAVEWIDTB PROTO
0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0,000 0.000
72 27 31.26 03 5.46 10 52 sand-clump 0.000 0.000
70 27 31.17 83 5.46 10 55 sand-clump 0.000 0.000
73 27 31.12 83 5.47 10 56 sand-clump 0,000 0.000
70 27 31.01 83 5.45 10 59 aand-cluop 0.000 0.000
70 27 30.93 83 5.45 11 2 aand mud 0.000 0.000
76 27 31.01 83 5.37 11 8 aand mud? 0.000 0.000
9999 27 31.12 83 5.37 11 12 aand 0.000 0.000
62 27 31.19 83 5.37 11 15 clay clune 0.000 0.000
77 27 31.31 83 5.39 11 19 clay aand 0.000 0.000
0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.000 0.000
77 27 31.49 83 5.28 11 33 tsnd relit 0.000 0.000
0 27 31.36 83 5.30 11 36 aand rellf 0.000 0.000
55 27 31.36 83 5.30 11 36 fine mattr 0.000 0.000
52 27 31.20 83 5.28 11 40 fine mattr 0.000 0.000
9999 27 31.02 83 5.29 11 44 fine-clump 0.000 0.000
9999 27 31.02 83 5.29 11 44 mud 0.000 0.000
77 27 31.00 83 5.21 12 5 aand Irregular 0.000 0.000
-------
TAM 10-09-91 0 25 72
TAM 10-09-91 0 26 52
TAM 10-09-91 0 27 77
TAM 10-09-91 0 28 78
TAM 10-09-91 0 29 78
TAM 10-09-91 0 30 78
TAM 10-09-91 0 31 78
TAM 10-09-91 0 32 57
27 31.10 *3 5.19 12
27 31.21 83 5.18 12
27 31.30 83 5.18 12
27 31.40 83 5.18 12
27 31.50 83 5.17 12
27 31.50 • 3 5.05 12
27 31.40 63 5.05 12
27 31.30 83 5.07 12
9 oand
13 hard
17 hard
21 sand
25 sand
25 sand
31 sand
34 SAHD
UJ
smooth
Irregular
Irregular
dimpled
Irregular
DIMP
DIKP
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
some spoil material, coar
grain sand
smooth fine sand, coming
pile.
large clay balls, coarse
material, at peak of pile
large clay balls, coarse
material, north of main p
fine dimpled sand,
occasionally soft coral,
fine dimpled sand,
occasionally soft coral,
rubble
fine dimpled sand,
occasionally soft coral,
rubble
COARSE SAND SOME BRYZOANS
SOME RUBBLE.
COARSE SAND, SOME RUBBLE
THE UPSLOPE OF PILE.
-------
FIX
33
34
35
35
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
TAPE DEPTH LATDEQ LATMIH LONDEO LOHMIN TIMEHOUR
57 27 31.20 03 5.07 12
76 27 31.10 63 5.08 12
79 27 31.00 B3 5.07 12
0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
76 27 31.00 63 4.99 12
65 27 31.10 63 4.97 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 63 4.96 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
b5 27 31.20 63 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 63 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 63 4.96 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.98 12
65 27 31.20 83 4.96 12
54 27 31.20 63 4.90 12
BOTTYPB PATTERN WAVEHT WAVEWIDTH PHOTO
HARD/CLAY IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
SAND DIMPLED 0.000 0.000
SAHD DIMPLED 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
SAKD/SHELL DIMP/IRREO 0.000 0.000 12
SARD/FINES DIMPLED 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
BBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
RUBBLE IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000 13
TIMEMIN
34
34
42
0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
57
-------
JO
f O
I /
Jl. JU
83
4.96
13
2
RUBBLE
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
TRANSECT 0, NORTH TOE OF
CLAY BALLS, SOFT CORALS A
SPONGES.
TAM
10-09-91
0
39
78
27
31.40
i3
4.97
13
5
BAND
DIMPLED
o.ooo
0.000
TRANSECT 0, NORTH OF PILE
RUBBLE OR GROWTH.
TAM
10-09-91
0
40
76
27
31.50
63
4.96
13
9
SAND
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
END OF TRANSECT 0. NO RUB
GROWTH.
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
•0
0
o.ooo
0.000
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
TAM
10-09-91
0
41
9999
27
31.50
83
4.91
13
15
SAND SHELL
SM - DIMP
0.000
0.000
BEGIN TRANS H AT NORTH EN
SAND SHELL BOTTOM NO GRO
TAM
10-09-91
0
42
76
27
31.40
83
4.88
13
18
SARD SHELL
SM - DIMP
0.000
0.000
SAND SHELL BOTTOM NO CROW
TAM
10-09-91
0
43
56
27
31.30
83
4.88
13
20
SAND FINES
SM - DIMP
0.000
0.000
SAND AND FINES NO GROWTH
NEAR NORTH TOW GOING UP
SLOPS
TAM
10-09-91
0
44
66
27
31.20
83
4.88
13
23
RUBBLE
0.000
0.000
RUBBLE AND MUCH SHELL FRA
APPARENT BRYO OR RYDROIDS
STILL ON PILE
TAM
10-09-91
0
45
76
27
31.09
83
4.88
13
26
HUBBLE
0.000
0.000
TOE ON SOUTH SLOPE SAND A
FINES NO GROWTH AND NO
-------
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
5*
55
55
57
58
60
61
TAPE DEPTH LATDEQ LATMIN LONDEQ LONMIN TIMEHOUB TIMEMIN BOTTYPE PATTERN WAVEHT WAVEWIDTH PHOTO
78
27
30.99
83
4.88
13
28
SAND FINES
SM TO DIMP
0.000
0.000
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
75
27
30.98
83
4.79
13
35
SAND
SM
0.000
0.000
66
27
31.10
83
4.79
13
39
SAND
SM
0.000
0.000
50
27
31.19
83
4.77
13
43
CLAY CLUMP
0.000
0.000
71
27
31.30
83
4.77
13
48
CLAY CLUKP
0.000
0.000
73
27
31.41
63
4.77
13
53
SAND
SMOOTH
0.000
0.000
73
27
31.50
83
4.77
13
56
SAND
SMOOTH
0.000
0.000
0
0
O.OQ
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
70
27
31.45
83
4.64
14
1
SAND
SM
0.000
0.000
69
27
31.35
83
4.65
14
3
SAND
SM
0.000
0.000
50
27
31.30
83
4.65
14
4
S iD SHELL
IRR DIMP
0.000
0.000
50
27
31.19
83
4.68
14
7
RUBBLE
IRR
0.000
0.000
71
27
31.10
83
4.66
14
9
SAND PINES
SM TO DIMP
0.000
0.000
74
27
30.93
83
4.69
14
13
SAND FINES
SM TO DIMP
0.000
0.000
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
64
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
•and
Irregular
0.000
0.000
55
27
31.20
83
4.58
14
30
sand
irregular
0.000
0.000
-------
UJ
>4
U1
A'AM
c
i
c
i£
1
10
0
62
66
27
31.31
83
4.53
14
35
sand
irregular
0.000
0.000
21
many clumps, growth
TAM
10-09-91
0
63
68
27
31.40
83
4.55
14
39
eand
Irregular
0.000
0.000
21
mostly sand some spots of
grovth
TAM
10-09-91
0
64
69
27
31.50
83
4.59
14
44
sand
Irregular
0.000
0.000
moBtly eand, a eoroe ecatt
soft corals
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
TAM
10-09-91
0
65
66
27
31.4B
83
4.48
14
48
SAND
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
START TRANS L NORTH TO
SOUTHBRAIDED SAND PATTERN
TAM
10-09-91
0
66
66
27
31.39
83
4.41
14
51
SAND
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
APPROX 200 FT EAST OF TRA
TAM
10-09-91
0
67
67
27
31.31
83
4.44
14
53
SAND
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
NO REMARKABLE FEATURES
TAM
10-09-91
0
60
65
27
31.20
83
4.46
14
55
SAND
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
SPARSE CLUMPS OF SOFT COR
WITH FEW CLAY BALLS
TAM
10-09-91
0
69
70
27
31.09
H3
4.44
14
58
SAND
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
TOOK PHOTO 22 JUST BEFORE
SOME LARGE CLAY CLUMPS
TAM
10-09-91
0
70
75
27
31.01
83
4.45
15
0
SAND
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
SOME SPARSE SOFT CORAL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
TAM
10-09-91
0
71
75
27
30.97
83
4.36
15
14
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
START TRANS M SOUTH TO NO
TAM
10-09-91
0
72
71
27
31.08
83
4.34
15
18
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
TAM
10-09-91
0
73
67
27
31.19
83
4.35
15
23
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
TAM
10-09-91
0
74
66
27
31.29
83
4.34
15
28
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
SOME SOFT CORAL WITH FEW
-------
FIX
75
76
77
79
80
81
62
63
84
85
86
86
87
88
89
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
PTH
LATDEO
LATMIN
LONDEO
LONMIN
TIMEHOUR
TIMEMIN
BOTTYPB
PATTERN
WAVEHT
WAVEWIDTH
PHC
66
27
31.38
83
4.36
15
32
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
67
27
31.44
83
4.42
15
36
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
67
27
31.37
83
4.52
15
39
SAND-MUD
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
72
27
31.40
83
4.72
15
45
SAND-MUD
SMOO DIMP
0.000
0.000
75
27
31.40
83
4.82
15
48
SAND-MUD
SMOO DIMP
0.000
0.000
77
27
31.40
83
4.92
15
50
SAND-MUD
SMOO DIMP
0.000
0.000
23
76
27
31.40
63
5.02
15
54
SAND-MUD
SMOO DIMP
0.000
0.000
23
77
27
31.39
83
5.12
15
56
SANDRUBBLE
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
77
27
31.39
83
5.22
15
59
SANDRUBBLE
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
70
27
31.40
83
5.32
16
2
SANDHUBBLE
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
77
27
31.40
83
5.43
16
5
SANDHUBBLE
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
77
27
31.40
83
5.43
16
5
r\NDRUBBLE
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
74
27
31.38
83
5.52
16
8
SAND
DIMPLED
0.000
0.000
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.000
0.000
69
27
31.20
83
5.42
16
14
HAHD
IRREQ
0.000
0.000
74
27
31.20
83
5.32
16
19
HARD
IRREQ
0.000
0.000
48
27
31.20
63
5.32
16
19
HAHD
IRREO
0.000
0.000
48
27
31.20
83
5.22
16
28
HARD
IRREQ
0.000
0.000
56
27
31.20
63
5.12
16
38
HAHD
IRREO
0.000
0.000
27
56
47
31.20
83
5.02
16
35
CLAY BALLS
IRREO
0.000
0.000
56
47
31.20
83
5.02
16
38
CLAY BALLS
IRREO
0.000
0.000
51
47
31.20
83
4.82
16
40
CLAY BALLS
IRREO
0.000
0.000
57
47
31.20
83
4.72
16
43
CLAY BALLS
IRREQ
0.000
0.000
-------
TAH 10-09-91 0 96 59 47 31.20 63 4.62 16
TAM 10-09-91 0 99 60 47 31.20 83 4.32 16
TAM 10-09-91 0 100 66 47 31.20 63 4.42 16
TAM 10-09-91 0 101 70 47 31.20 83 4.32 16
0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
TAM 10-09-91 0 102 66 27 30.46 33 4.42 17
TAM 10-09-91 0 103 67 27 30.46 83 4.52 17
TAM 10-09-91 0 104 69 27 30.46 83 4.62 17
TAM 10-09-91 0 105 69 27 30.46 83 4.72 17
UJ
*sj
10
48 CLAY BALLS IRRBO
49 CLAY BALLS IRREG
53 CLAY BAjLS IRREO
55 CLAY BALLS IRREG
0
3 SAND
5 SAND
8 SAND
11 SATO
DIMPLED
IRREGULAR
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
LARGE CLAY BALLS, MUCH DE
COARSE MATERIAL BETWEEN.
LARGE CLAY BALLS, MUCH DE
COARSE MATERIAL BETWEEN.
LARGE CLAY BALLS, MUCH DE
COARSE MATERIAL BETWEEN.
SAND ROWS.
END TRANSECT P, ALMOST NO
CLAY BALLS, SAND ROWS, SO
HARD BOTTOM.
BEGIN TRANSECT 0, EAST TO
WEST.
TRANS 0, SANDY, SMOOTH, N
CLAY BALLS, SOME HARD BOT
TRANS 0, SANDY, COARSE, N
CLAY BALLS, SOME HARD BOT
TRANS 0, SANDY, COARSE, H
CLAY BALLS, APPARENT LIVE
BOTTOM
-------
Page No. 5
09/16/91
SURVEY
DATE
TRANS
FIX
TAPE
DEPTH
LATDEG
LATHI N
LONDEG
LONMIN
TIMEHOUR
TAM
10-09-91
0
106
75
27
30.46
83
4.82
17
TAX
10-09-91
0
107
75
27
30.46
63
4.92
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
108
75
27
30.46
83
5.02
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
109
74
27
31.27
B3
5.12
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
110
75
27
31.29
83
5.22
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
111
74
27
31.29
83
5.31
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
112
75
27
31.29
83
5.42
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
113
75
27
31.29
83
5.52
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
114
78
27
31.31
83
5.62
17
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
TAM
10-09-91
0
115
73
27
31.10
83
5.60
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
116
72
27
31.10
83
5.49
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
117
73
27
31.09
83
5.42
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
lie
73
27
31.09
83
5.30
17
TAM
10-09-91
0
120
9999
27
31.10
83
5.11
18
TAM
10-09-91
0
121
76
27
31.10
63
5.02
18
TAM
10-09-91
0
122
76
27
31.09
83
4.91
18
TAM
10-09-91
0
123
76
27
31.09
83
4.91
10
TAM
10-09-91
0
123
73
27
31.09
63
4.83
10
TAM
10-09-91
0
124
69
27
31.00
83
4.73
10
UJ
00
TIMEMIN BOTTYPE
WAVEHT WAVEWIDTH PHOTO NOTES
14 SAND
17 SAND
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
26 SAND
29 SAND
29 SAND
35 SAND
38 SAND
0
51 SAND
54 ! .fD
56 SAND
59 SAND
4 SAND
7 SAND
10 SAND
10 SAND
12 SAND
15 SAND
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
IRREGULAR
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 26/29
0.000 28/29
0.000 28,29
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 130
0.000 130
0.000
0.000
TRANS O, SANDY, COARSE, N
CLAY BALLS, APPARENT LIVE
BOTTOM
TRANS O, SANDY, COARSE, N-
CLAY BALLS , APPEARS TO BE
RUNNING ON NORTHERN TOE
TRANS O, SANDY, COARSE, N
CLAY BALLS, APPEARS TO BE
RUNNING ON NORTHERN TOE
TRANS O, SANDY, COARSE, N
CLAY BALLS, APPEARS TO BE
RUNNING ON NORTHERN TOE
SCATTERED CLUMPS, LARGE
MOSTLY SAND
SAND WITH INTERMITTENT
HARDER PATCHES SOME GROWT
SAND WITH INTERMITTENT
HARDER PATCHES SOME GROWT
SAND WITH INTERMITTENT
HARDER PATCHES SOME GROWT
IRRREGULAR SAND SOME HARD
AND SOFT CORALS
IRRREGULAR SAND SCATTERRE
HARD PARCHES SOME SOFT £
CORALS
IRRREGULAR SAND SCATTERRE
HARD PARCHES SOME SOFT fi
CORALS
IRRREGULAR SAND SCATTERRE
HARD PARCHES SOME SOFT &
CORALS
NO REMARKABLE FEATURES
SCATTERED CLUMPS WITH LIG
GROWTH
-------
UJ
00
UJ
UJ 4.UJ 10 17 SAND IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000
0 126 71 27 31.04 83 4.52 IB 20 SAND IRREGULAR 0.000 0.000 END OF Q
0 50518 3643 4023.14 10.07 639.30 1817 4052 0.000 0.000
-------
386
-------
387
APPENDIX G
TAMPA OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
FLORIDA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
Submitted by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
June 1993
-------
389
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) , has prepared an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) titled "Environmental Impact
Statement For Designation of a Tampa, Florida Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site." This EIS evaluates the environmental
conditions relevant to the designation of an ocean disposal site
offshore Tampa, Florida. Additionally, the EIS evaluates the
proposed Tampa site according to the eleven environmental criteria
required for site designations under 40 CFR 228.6 (Ocean Dumping
Regulations).
The site proposed for final designation is the Tampa site that
received an EPA designation (40 CFR 228.12) and was used for
dredged material disposal for the Tampa Harbor Deepening Project
from 1983 until 1985. The total area of the proposed site is 4
square nautical miles (nmi). The eastern boundary of this site is
located 18 nmi west of Eamont Key, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico.
Since 1985, no disposal has occurred at this site.
The site designation is needed in this area to provide an
ocean disposal option for dredging projects in the area. It should
be emphasized that final designation of the interim Tampa site does
not by itself authorize any dredging or on-site disposal of dredged
material. EPA and the CE must conduct an environmental review of
each proposed ocean disposal project. That review ensures that
there is a demostrated need for ocean disposal and that the
material proposed for disposal meets the requirements for dredged
material given in the Ocean Dumping Regulations.
II. THE FLORIDA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM fCZMP)
There pre eight Florida statutes relating to ocean disposal
site designations. This assessment discusses how the referenced
EIS for the "Tampa site designation will meet the CZMP objectives to
protect coastal resources while allowing multiple use of coastal
areas. Consult the EIS for further data and information.
Although the EIS serves a dual role of NEPA documentation for site
designation and CE permitting under Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as
amended (see Section 2.01 of EIS), this CZMP consistency evaluation
is only relevant for site designation. Therefore, COE permitting
actions will need a separate CZMP consistency evaluation.
G1
-------
390
A. Chapter 161: Beach and Shore Preservation
The intent of Chapter 161 is the protection of thousands of
miles of Florida's coastline by regulating construction activities
near and within these areas. The Tampa site designation will, by
itself, require no new construction and therefore no related
support activities will be subject to the construction regulations
in this chapter.
The eastern boundary of the Tampa ODMDS is located 18 nmi from
Egmont Key, the nearest beach and shore-related amenity. Sediment
transport in the vicinity of the site is driven mainly by weather
events. Because of this, dispersion of the material can be in any
direction. Extensive monitoring of previous disposal at this site
showed that no adverse impacts occurred due to movement of dredged
material. In the event that significant accumulation of the
dredged material towards any amenity is evident, use of the site
can be modified or terminated by EPA.
B. Chapter 253: State Lands
This chapter addresses the responsibilities of the State Board
of Trustees in managing the State sovereign lands by issuing
leases, easements, rights of way, or other forms of consent for
those wishing to use State lands, including State submerged lands.
Since the Tampa site is not within State waters# Chapter 253
is not relevant.
C. Chapter 258: State Parks and Preserves
There are no State Parks or Preserves in close proximity to
the proposed Tampa site. As similarily discussed in Section A
above, the distance from these areas- to the proposed site should
prevent any impacts to these areas from use of the site.
D. Chapter 267: Historic Preservation
There are no known features of historical importance in the
vicinity of the proposed site, and therefore it is unlikely that
the proposed site designation will result in any impact to these
areas.
E. Chapter 288: Commercial Development and Capital
Improvements: Industrial Siting Act
The final designation of the Tampa site provides an
environmentally acceptable ocean location for the disposal of
dredged material that meets the Ocean Dumping Criteria. If ocean
disposal is selected as the most feasible option for a dredged
material disposal project, this site designation ensures that an
ocean disposal option is available in the area. Therefore, the
G2
-------
391
designation removes one barrier to free and advantageous flow of
commerce in the area in that dredging projects and their associated
navigational benefits cannot be halted due to the lack of an
acceptable ocean disposal site.
The Industrial Siting Act is not applicable to this proposed
site designation.
F. Chapter 370: Saltwater Fisheries
Chapter 370 ensures the preservation, management and
protection of saltwater fisheries and other marine life. Most
commercial and recreational fishing activity in the Tampa vicinity
is concentrated in inshore and nearshore waters. No natural
hardbottom areas are known to occur in close proximity to the
proposed site. The Tampa site does not represent a unique habitat
for any of the important commercial or recreational fisheries. Use
of the site will smother the non-motile or slow moving benthic
organisms at the site. However, the ability of these organisms to
recolonize in similar sediments renders this impact short-term and
insignificant. Should the disposed material differ in grain-size,
other benthic organisms would likely colonize the area. The EIS
will serve as the Biological Assessment from which the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and, as appropriate, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) can determine any adverse impacts of the
proposed EIS action on threatened and endangered species under
their purview.
G. Chapter 376; Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal
Possible effects associated with the use of this site are
local mounding, temporary increases in turbidity and the smothering
of benthic organisms. The effect on the benthos should be minor as
discussed in Section F above. Turbidities resulting from use of
the site will be temporary. Any suspended sediments remaining in
the water column will be diluted and dispersed so that the long
term effect would not be greater than ambient suspended solids
concentrations.
Any material proposed for ocean disposal must meet the
criteria given in 40 CFR Part 227 (Ocean Dumping Criteria). EPA
and the CE will continue to monitor the site as long as it is used
to detect movement of the material and any associated impacts. The
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Tampa ODMDS is
included in the EIS (see Appendix C).
H. Chapter 403; Environmental Control
The principle concerns raised in this chapter are similar to
those addressed in many of the chapters discussed above; pollution
control, *'aste disposal and dredging.
G3
-------
39 2
The CE and EPA will evaluate all federal dredged material
disposal projects in accordance with the EPA criteria given in the
Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Sections 220-229), the CE
regulations (33 CFR 209.120 and 209.145), and any state
requirements. The CE will also issue permits to private dredged
material disposal projects after review under the same regulations.
EPA has the right to disapprove any ocean disposal project if, in
its judgement, all provisions of the MPRSA and associated
implementing regulations have not been met.
III. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information presented in the EIS and the above
summary, EPA concludes that the proposed designation of the Tampa
ODMDS is consistent with the Florida CZMP to the extent feasible.
G4
-------
393
-------
APPENDIX H
SHORT-TERM TRANSPORT
AND DEPOSITION EVALUATION
-------
397
PREFACE
The following evaluation was conducted prior to the development of the current Site
Management and Monitoring Plan. The Site Management and Monitoring Plan and
disposal requirements referenced in the evaluation are those presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation l-i mi Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Located Offshore Tampa, Florida.
-------
399
TAMPA ODMDS DREDGED MATERIAL SHORT-TERM TRANSPORT AND
DEPOSITION EVALUATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of
designating an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) offshore Tampa Bay,
Florida. The proposed site is square-shaped, covers 4 square nmi, and its boundary
coordinates are as follows:
NW 27°32'27"N, 83°06'02"W
NE 27°32'27"N, 83°03'46"W
SW 27°30'27"N, 83°06'02"W
SE 27°30'27"N, 83o03'46"W
The site is 18 nmi west-southwest of the mouth of Tampa Bay in water depths of about 22
meters.
Previous disposal of consolidated materials within the site has created communities
that have colonized the disposal mound. Therefore, the draft Site Management and
Monitoring Plan requires: 1) no disposal directly on any portion of the mound; 2)
restriction within the area of the mound to disposal of material that consists of at least
90% gravel or larger grain size; 3) restriction of disposal of sand-sized material to those
areas within the site north and south of the mound; and 4) allows the disposal of any
material meeting EPA ocean disposal criteria within the northernmost sector of the site.
The site and the restriction areas are shown in figure 1-1.
During a meeting held in Tallahassee, Florida in September 1993 between die State
of Florida, Jacksonville District Army Corps of Engineers and EPA Region IV, concerns
were raised regarding possibilities of initial deposition of fine material on the mound and
on previously unmapped areas to the north of the site boundaries. It was decided to use
the Army Corps of Engineers STFATE (Short-Term Fate of dredged material disposal in
open water) model to determine the deposition distribution due to disposal of fine grained
dredged material under a worst case scenario.
This study examines the hydrography of the Tampa ODMDS area, disposal
operational data, and dredged material characteristics for input into the STFATE model
and describes the predicted results of both deposition of material and suspended sediment
concentrations. It does not address long-term dispersal of material. Modelling of long-
term dispersal of material at the Tampa ODMDS can be found in Tampa Bay Dredged
Material Disposal Site Analysis, October 1983, by David T. Williams.
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Malen&l Shorl-Tenn Transport and Deposition Analysis
400
August 1994
83*06'02"
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
27°32'27"
NO SIZE RESTRICTIONS
27®32'07"
SAND-SIZED
27031-45"
> SAND-SIZED
27*30'57'
SAND-SIZED
27030-27'
SITE 4
83#03'46"
Figure 1-1
2
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
2.0 HYDROGRAPHY
2.1 Currents
Currents in this area are primarily influenced by detached cyclonic eddies from the
Gulf loop current, tides and by wind inducement. Average circulatory current direction
has two seasons, summer and winter. Circulatory currents are generally southward in the
winter and northward in the summer. Tidal currents are generally in the east-west
direction. Bottom currents are generally parallel in direction to the surface currents,
however they can occasionally differ by 180° (Williams, 1983). The Loop Current front
will reach the Tampa ODMDS with a frequency of less than 5% as seen in Figure 2-1.
The frontal eddies associated with the Loop Current are rotating (period=10 to 15 days),
westward translating (approximately 3 to 7 km/day) masses of relatively warm water
(SAIC, 1989). The loop current eddy intrusions onto the shelf generally stay outside of
the 20 meter isobath (Danek, 1986).
2.1.1 ODMDS Field Measurements and Analysis
The physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico has been extensively studied.
However, most of the studies have focused on the uu and gas bearing areas in the central
and western Gulf. The Eastern Gulf and especially as far shoreward as the Tampa
ODMDS has had limited study. Therefore limited measured current data is available for
the vicinity of the Tampa ODMDS. Two field studies have been undertaken that included
measurements of currents. From March 9, 1983 to May 12, 1983 the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) and the Jacksonville District of the Army
Corps of Engineers (SAJ) deployed four current meters at the site. Two were deployed at
the center of the site 3ft and 9ft from the bottom and two were deployed lnmi from the
site at 3ft and mid-depth. Unfortunately, the one at mid-depth was lost. During this study
99% of the recorded velocities were below 20cm/sec and 76% were below lOcm/sec. The
average was 6.9cm/sec. A majority of the current measurements from all meters were in
the southerly direction, with the predominant direction being towards the southeast
(Williams, 1983).
From April 1984 to May of 1985 a more extensive study was conducted by Battelle
Ocean Sciences for EPA. Currents were measured based on hourly averages. Results of
the 13 month data set indicate that currents flowed predominately toward the east during
spring and early summer 1984, then shifted toward the southeast and south during fall,
winter and spring of the following year. The strongest currents occurred during late fall
and winter and were directed due south. Most current velocities were less than lOcm/sec,
and only rarely did they exceed 20 cm/sec. The mean velocity during all quarters was
between 5 and 8 cm/sec (Battelle, 1987). Frequency distribution plots at station 5 for
magnitude and direction are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-4 respectively. These show that
for all seasons, the most probable current magnitude lies between 5 and lOcm/sec and the
current direction varies. However, direction is predominately towards the south and east.
3
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
402
August 1994
LOOP CURRENT STATISTICS
1/ 1/76 TO 12/31/85
90 U97 U96 U95 V94 U93 U92 U91 U90 ^89 U88 U87 U86 U85 U84 U83 U82 U8I V
31 N 1 1 1 I—I—I TV—I rT—I—I—I—I—i 1 tr. I 1 1—r—l 31 N
18 N
18 N
98 U97 U96 U95 U94 1/93 V92 U9I U90 U89 U60 U87 U86 U85 U84 U83 U82 Ufll U
PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF FRONT
Figure 2-1 Isopleths of the relative frequency that the Loop Current
Front was observed in the indicated 1/2* squares. The
arrows show the mean east-west and northern LC boundary
location as determined from SOOP transects. (SAIC, 1989)
4 EPA Region IV
-------
403
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Tera Tramport and Depoahion Analyiia
Angiot 1994
25°/e
Frequency Distribution for Tampa ODMDS
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Current Magnitude (cm/sec)
Spring: MAR-MAY 1985; SummBr. APR-AUG1984; Fal: AUGOEC
1984; Winter. DEC1984-MAR 1985
Fig. 2-2
Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Tampa ODMDS
Near Bottom Currents for April 1984 thru May 1985
-i. ,no/
Current Magnitude (cm/sec)
5
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Shon-Teim Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994 4®4
A cumulative probability plot for current magnitude at station 5 is shown in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-3 shows that 95% of the current measurements had magnitudes less than
15cm/sec.
A progressive vector diagram for the data set is shown in Figure 2-5. The diagram
is intended to show the theoretical trajectory of a particle in suspension. The total
distance travelled and the location of the endpoint should not be considered realistic since
the diagram does not take into account the spatial variations in the current. Instead, the
direction of transport is the important feature to notice. Figure 2-5 indicates that material
transport would be primarily toward the southeast. Similar calculations were made for the
seasonal intervals. Results for spring indicate transport toward the southeast, for summer
toward the west, for fall toward the east and for winter toward the south.
A more meaningful estimation of material advection than the progressive vector
diagram that can be derived from this data set is the streakline. As described in Fischer et
al., this concept assumes that the ocean current is spatially homogeneous but temporally
variable. Using measured current velocity data, the location of the eerier of the suspended
material plume during advective transport can be shown to be:
m
x(x, T) = J u{t)dc
T
where: u(t) is the measured current velocity
T is the time of travel
t is the release time
For each travel time (T) and release time (i), the values of x(x,T) can be
determined by integrating the current data and then tested for whether or not it is beyond
some imaginary line (such as the berm or ODMDS boundary). By varying T and x
throughout the range of available current data, this would provide some measure of the
probability of transport to the area of concern for various travel times. The estimates of
the probabilities become progressively worse for longer travel times. It should be noted
that this type of analysis is subject to the assumption that the ocean current is spatially
homogenous. (Fischer et al., 1979)
Estimated probabilities of transport using the Battelle data to two distances north
and south for the four seasons separately and the complete data set as a whole are shown
in figures 2-6 through 2-9. Due to the predominately southerly current, the probabilities
are much greater for the southern boundaries.
6
EPA Region fV
-------
405 Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Teim Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
Frequency Distribution for Tampa ODMDS
Current Direction (Degrees fro.... 'orth Clockwise)
Spring MAR-MAY 1985; Sunmr AFR-AUG1984; Fall: AUG- Rg- 2-4
EEC 1984; Witter DEC 1984-MAR1985
Progressive Vector Diagram for Tampa ODMDS
Near Bottom CurrcnU for April 1984thniM«y 1985
West<—(ft)—>East
7
EPA Region IV
-------
406
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Traiuport and Deposition Analysis Aigist 1994
Probability of Transport South 1.0 Nmi
C
CO
Probability of Transport South 0.5 Nmi
C
CO
8
EPA Region TV
-------
407
Tunpi ODMDS Dredged Material Sbort-Tenn Truuport And Deposit iod Anilyiii
Aoguvt 1994
Probability of Transport North 1.0 Nmi
C
<0
E 8%
a>
U
CD
e
p
c
©
o
c
(0
w
b
1/1
a>
jr
o
re
a>
0C
03
E
ja
Q.
a>
E
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Materia] Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
408
August 1994
2.1.2 Other Studies
Other studies have been conducted in the vicinity of the Tampa ODMDS. The
Minerals Management Service conducted a five year survey, Southwest Florida Shelf
Benthic Communities Study, south of Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Based on two years of
current data, surface currents at the shallower stations (near the 20 meter isobath)
exceeded 20 cm/sec 4.6% of the time with an average speed of 8.4 cm/sec. Net currents
at the shallower stations (using a progressive vector diagram) exhibited considerable
constancy at velocities less than 2 cm/sec and setting toward the south or southeast
(Danek, 1986). Ichiye et al. estimated yearly average surface ekman currents (wind
currents) for the Tampa ODMDS vicinity at 3 cm/sec with a maximum monthly average
of 8.6 cm/sec for October in the westerly direction (Ichiye et al, 1973).
2.1.3 Tides
Tides along the east coast of Florida consist of semi-diurnal and diurnal tides.
From measurements taken for about a week in June 1972 about 120 nuatical miles west of
Naples, Florida (26° 03.1'N, 83°49.4'W and 25°57.6'N, 83°49.9'W) the tidal current
amplitudes reach 15cm/sec at mid-depth (Ichiye et.al., 1973). Also, Dr. Norrran Scheffner
of WES predicted peak surface tidal velocities at 15cm/sec for the Tampa ODMDS
location using a tidal prediction computer program. These values indicate that tides can
be a significant periodic component of the total current.
2.1.4 Storms
The most severe current effects detected during any study in the vicinity of the
Tampa ODMDS occurred during the Southwest Florida Shelf Benthic Communities Study,
during Tropical Storm Bob in July 1985. The current speeds increased nearest the center
of the storm at the stations in approximately 20 meters of water from an average of less
than 10 cm/sec to peak speeds of approximately 60 cm/sec (Danek, 1986).
2.2 Current Analysis for STFATE Input
The STFATE module requires current data at two depths. The current throughout
the water column is then interpolated based on this input. For the bottom depth, the 95
percentile current magnitude (ie. 95% of the currents measured were less than this value)
from the Battelle 84/85 study will be used (15cm/sec). This current input will be
designated as 3 meters off the bottom. At the surface a current magnitude of 20cm/sec
will be used. Surface currents are typically greater than those near the bottom (although
they usually vary in magnitude and direction) and the Minerals Management Service study
discussed above indicated that 95.4% of the surface current measurements were less than
20cm/sec. Currents due to tides and wind will not exceed either of these values and are
considered a component of these values. Disposal will not occur during storm conditions.
10
EPA Region IV
-------
409
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
2.3 Water Temperature and Salinity
The water column over the shallow shelf generally exhibits very weak temperature
and/or salinity stratification. Peak temperature stratification may result in a temperature
differential of 5°C between surface and bottom waters. The mean vertical temperature
differentials measure by JRB Associates was 0.3°C. Surface and bottom water
temperatures may reach 30°C in summer and decrease to 17°C in winter. Salinity
stratification is greater during the summer. The mean salinity gradient measured by JRB
Associates was 0.2 ppt. (EPA, 1993). Winter and summer temperature and salinity
measurements taken by Molinari et al. are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7 in the Tampa
ODMDS EIS.
Other studies in the Southwest Florida Shelf indicate similar values. The Southwest
Florida Shelf Benthic Communities Study reported near bottom salinities in the range of
34.8 to 36.0 parts per thousand and temperature in the range of 20.3° to 29.6°C at the
station in 20 meters of water offshore Charlotte Harbor (Danek, 1986). The Southwest
Florida Shelf Ecosystem Study - Year 2 reported temperatures at the surface from 30.6°C
during summer to 24.5°C during the winter and 20 meter temperatures from 26°C during
summer to 20°C during winter offshore Charlotte Harbrtr. Salinities were reported for the
surface ranging from 35.6 to 36.4 parts per thousand in the summer and winter
respectively and for 20 meter depth from 36.0 to 36.5 per thousand in summer and winter
respectively (MMS, 1985). Molinari et al. reported temperatures in the ODMDS vicinity
at 19°C and 30°C for winter and summer respectively. Salinities were in the range of 35.6
parts per thousand for winter and 36.2 parts per thousand for summer (Molinari et al.,
1975).
2.4 Water Density Analysis
For short term plume transport analysis, a conservative density gradient will be
used. The greater the gradient, the more likely the turbidity plume will remain suspended
longer. For maximum stratification, summer temperature conditions are assumed with a
5°C differential selected, ie. temperature at surface equals 30°C and at bottom equals 25°C.
Also the greatest salinity stratification is assumed with the surface at 35.6 and the bottom
at 36.0 parts per thousand. Density is a function of both temperature and salinity and can
be expressed as a sigma-t value. For a small range of salinities such as found in sea
water, linear interpolation suffices to a high degree of accuracy using the equation:
o t (T, S) «o t (T, S0) +5o t/ds (T, S) [S-S0]
and tables as developed in Fischer et al. (1979) where S0 is some reference salinity (in this
case S0=34 narts per thousand). Using this method, the conservative densities are: density
at bottom=1024.117kg/m3 and density at surface=1022.196kg/m3.
11
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Matenal Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
410
August 1994
2.5 Turbidity
Suspended sediment concentrations were measured in an EPA study in
September/October 1979 and January 1980. Concentrations were taken at three depths
approximately 3 nautical miles inshore from the current Tampa ODMDS. Surface total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations ranged from 0.61 to 2.87 mg/1 in
September/October, and from 1.08 to 2.97 mg/1 in January, bottom TSS concentrations (10
to 15 meters in depth) ranged from 0.55 to 2.53 mg/1 in September/October and from 0.76
to 2.97 mg/1 in January (EPA, 1993). No other TSS data was found for the vicinity of the
site, however, TSS concentrations are generally higher in coastal than offshore waters and
can be expected to be slightly lower at the current ODMDS than those measured.
3.0 DISPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS
The dredging season is generally from February/March to August although there
are no seasonal restrictions on dredging in the Tampa vicinity. However, disposal
activities would be halted during significant meteorological events such as frontal systems,
tropical storms, and hurricanes. The dredged material to be disposed of at the ODMDS
will be collected either by clamshell and loaded for transport into scows or by hopper
dredge. The dump scow would have a capacity of approximately 3,000 cubic yards and
on a busy day (two clamshell dredges operating) be able to dispose of 24,000 cubic yards
with dumps occurring approximately every 2 hours. The hopper dredge on the other hand
would have a capacity of approximately 3,600 cubic yards and could dispose of a total of
18,000 cubic yards per day with dumps occurring approximately every 4 hours.(Miller,
J AX, 1993/94)
The split-hull barge with a capacity of 3600 cubic yards with dimensions of 280 ft
by 50 feet wide will be assumed for the simulation. The freeboard is 3ft and it will draw
17 to 19 feet. If speed is not restricted, the barges speed at disposal is about 6 knots.
Disposal will occur every two hours. These assumptions are conservative, using the
greater volume of material per dump and the greater dump rate. The total time for
disposal is 5 minutes where most of the material is disposed of within 20 seconds.
(Miller, J AX, 1993/94) Disposal of fine material will occur in the ODMDS north of the
areas identified as having live bottom habitat. This is the area designated for fine material
as shown in the Draft Monitoring and Management Plan and figure 1-1. This disposal will
occur approximately 1/6 nmi south of the north border of the ODMDS (Collins, 1993).
12
EPA Region IV
-------
Tvnpa ODMDS Dredged Matenil Short-Term Transport ind Deposition Analysis
August 1994
4.0 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Core boring data was supplied by the Jacksonville District of the Corps of
Engineers for a core in the Egmont Bar Channel (Sample #24, 1992). This core was
chosen for its poor quality of material, ie large percentage of fines. The finer material is
more likely to be transported a greater distance. The characteristics of the material is
given below:
Characteristic
Weight Fraction of Total
Solids
Volumetric Fraction
Silt or Clay
60%
27.0%
Fine Sand
37%
16.7%
Medium Sand
3%
1.35%
Coarse Sand
0%
0.0%
Water
54.9%
Specific Gravity of Solids = 2.66 Percent Solid = 45.1%
Bulking Factor = 2.21 Percent Moisture Content = 45.6%
Pore Water Density = 1017.5 kg/m3
Adamec et al. reported typical silt/clay characteristics for dredged material as consisting of
3lr7c clumps, 65% flocculated as cohesive material and 5% as individual non-cohesive
particles (Adamec, 1987). For this simulation, since long-term diffusion of fines is of
major concern, 50% of the silt/clay is assumed to be non-cohesive. The cohesive fraction
settling velocity is computed as a function of the suspended sediment concentration of that
type. The non-cohesive fraction will fall at a slower rate than the individual settling
velocity of the particles. Therefore, by assuming a greater fraction of non-cohesive
material, more material will remain suspended for a longer period of time and
consequently be transported a greater distance.
The density of the pore water of the dredged material was estimated from
temperature and salinity measurements taken in Tampa Bay as given in "Surface Water
Quality, Hillsborough County, Florida 1990, 1991." (Boler, 1991) An average temperature
of 24.5°C and a salinity of 27 parts per thousand where used to obtain a density of 1017.5
kg/m3.
Characteristics of material more likely to be disposed at the ODMDS (too fine for
beneficial beach renourishment) is given below:
13
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
412
August 1994
Characteristic
Weight Fraction of Total
Solids
Volumetric Fraction
Silt or Clay
25%
16.9%
Fine Sand
67%
45.4%
Medium Sand
7%
4.7%
Coarse Sand
1%
0.7%
Water
32.3%
Specific Gravity of Solids = 2.66 Percent Solid = 67.7%
Bulking Factor = 1.48 Percent Moisture Content =18%
5.0 STFATE MODEL
5.1 Description
The behavior of dredged material during disposal is assumed to be separated into
three phases: convective descent, during which the disposal cloud falls under the influence
of gravity and its initial momentum imparted by gravity; dynamic collapse, occurring
when the descending cloud either impacts the bottom or arrives at a level of neutral
buoyancy where descent is retarded and horizontal spreading dominates; and passive
transport-dispersion, commencing when the material transport and spreading are
determined more by ambient currents and turbulence than by the dynamics of the disposal
operation. See figures 5-1 and 5-2. (Inland Testing Manual-Draft, 1993)
The numerical model used in this short t°rm transport analysis is the STFATE
(Short-Term Fate of dredged material disposal in open water) model. It is a module of the
Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System (ADDAMS)
(Schroeder and Palermo, 1990). The STFATE module was developed from the DEFID
(Disposal From an Instantaneous Discharge) module.
The model run discussed here is not intended to simulate typical disposal at the
Tampa ODMDS. Instead, it is intended to simulate a worst case condition for short-term
transport of fine material away from the site. Worst case material assumptions have been
made based on sediment core data provided by the Corps of Engineers Jacksonville
District and previous work done in this field with some added factors of safety as
discussed in previous sections. Worst case spatially homogeneous and temporally constant
oceanographic conditions have also been assumed based on field collected data in the
vicinity of the Tampa ODMDS as discussed previously.
14
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Malenal Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
rcVi))
CONVECTIVE
DESCENT
DYNAMIC COLLAPSE ON
BOTTOM
LONS-TERM PASSIVE
DIFFUSION
BOTTOM
ENCOUNTER
DIFFUSIVE SPREADING
GREATER THAN
DYNAMIC SPREADING
Figure 5-1 Idealized illustration of phases of dredgea material
after instantaneous disposal (From Brandsma and Divoky 1976)
wMWMMMMwrnmMMmmMmmMmwmmammMMMM!
Figure 5-2 Idealized illustration of phases of dredged material with
dynamic collapse above sea floor (From Brandsma and Divoky 1976)
15
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Materia] Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
414
August 1994
5.2 Input
Model input data is given in Appendix A. Default model coefficients were used
due to the absence of calibration data. Current values and density structure were used as
discussed in sections 2.2 and 2.4 respectively. Operational data values were used as
determined in section 3.0 and sediment characteristics as determined in section 4.0.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Disposal Mound
A mound is formed consisting of all material not in the turbidity plume that has
settled after the passive dispersion phase. The extent of the mound depends on various
factors such as water depth, volume of release, ambient currents, and composition of
material being released. As the dredging project proceeds, successive disposals will
increase the size of the mound. For the situation modelled, the extent of deposition is of
concern for extreme conditions.
Figure 5-3 shows the qualitative spatial extent of the disposal mound for a single
dump. Quantitatively the mound is shown in figure 5-4 and in cross-section in Figure 5-5.
The deposition thickness is less than 0.05 inches 2430 feet from the disposal point and has
a maximum thickness of 7.4 inches. The side slopes range from 0.1% at the center to
.003% near the outer edges. At the Tampa alternative site A used previously, 13nmiles
offshore and in 10 to 17 meters depth, the slope of the deposits ranged from 0.3 to 1
percent (Williams, 1983). The slopes predicted by the model are gentler likely due to the
assumed finer than average material and stronger currents causing the mound to be more
spread out.
Figure 5-6 shows the distribution of material on the bottom as a percentage of the
total material disposed. As can be seen, 90 percent of the material is deposited within 945
feet down current of the disposal point.
5.3.2 Turbidity Plumes
The turbidity plume consists of the transport-diffusion of the collapsed dredged
material cloud and fine material lost to the water column at the top of the collapsing
cloud. Centerline concentration in mg/l are plotted in figures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 for
depths of 15, 30, 45 and 65 feet for times from 300 to 1200 seconds. Shaded contour
plots are shown in figures 5-10 through 5-15 to give a better conceptual representation of
the plume movement. As expected, concentrations are greatest near the bottom and
decrease towards the surface. In addition, the plume is transported more quickly near the
surface than along the bottom due to the current gradient. The time from disposal and
distance from disposal at which peak suspended sediment concentrations fall below
ambient levels (0.5 to 3.0 mg/l) are given below:
16
EPA Region IV
-------
r»
-------
416
Tampi ODMDS Dredged Muenil Short-Term Transport *nd Depoiition Aniiyiis August 1994
4050-
3780-
3510-
3240-
£
c
2970-
"o
Cu
13
2700-
t/i
o
cx
t/5
2430-
5
E
g
2160-
V
o
1890 -
i
ir.
<5
1620-
¦s
s
<—J
1350-
on
1080-
o
810-
540-
270-
0-
270-
II I I I
1890 1620 1350 1080 810 540
"Thickness Cinches)
270 0 270
East/West Distance from Disposal Point (ft)
I i i i i
540 810 1080 1350 1620 1890
4590-
4320-
Tampa ODMDS Disposal Mound from Single Dump
Note Sdid icpresats a thickness greater tten 1.00 in±es.
18
EPA Region IV
-------
Timpa ODMDS Dredged Material Shorl-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
Tampa ODMDS Single Disposal Mound
-ft—
-*-1
¦*1
-^-1
-•h
-*-1
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o r-
oo — Tt o\
— N .(N N CM
East/West Distance from Disposal Point (ft)
fig 5-6
19
EPA Region A7
-------
418
Twnpt ODMDS Dredged Mucnil Short-Term Trvupon and Deposition Anilym August 1994
Tampa ODMDS Predicted Maximum Suspended Sediment
Concentrations
%
£ 1.8-
At Depth of 15 ft
o 1.6 —
A
•a
S 1.4-
1
§ 1.2-
9 1
g 0.8-
1
Jl 0.6-
I
1
r
}
04-
1
•o
•a 0.2-
I
1
r
J\
8, o
1
1
J
V) v
3
c/o
1620 J
o
OO
o
540 J
©
540 J
o
00
o
o
-------
419
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
Tampa ODMDS Predicted Maximum Suspended Sediment Concentrations
At Depth of 45ft
60
-
-
- \
¦
1
\
-
1
r
¦
1
1
i
%
-
1
I
J
I
u
f
\
*
itr
y
50-
40-
I 3°"
a
-ivo
—-i-^r~ao4f^>ro-^-Tj-ioio>or~-t^oocc
Distance from Disposal Location (ft)
fig. 5-10
21
EPA Region IV
-------
to
ro
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1 \ 1
270 0 270 540 810 1080 1350 1620 1890 2160 2430 2700 2970 3240 3510 3780
Distance from Disposal (ft)
Na erSdidrepreserts concentrations greater than 500mg/l
fig. 5-12
Tfcmpa ODMDS Suspended Sediment Concentration Profile
Ume=2100 sec
Note: Solid represents a
concentration greater than 50 mgfl fig. 5-11
Concentration at Time =4200 sec
540 270 0 270 540 810
—1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1080 1350 1620 1890 2160 2430 2700 2970 3240 3510 3780 4050
Distance from Disposal (ft)
-------
Tampa ODMDS Suspended Sediment Concentration Profile
Concentration at Time = 6600sec
15
g 30-]
¦S
o.
8 45 —(
65
"i r
T
i i i i i T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
270 0 270 540 810 1080 1350 1620 1890 2160 2430 2700 2970 3240 3510 3780 4050 4320 4590 4860 5130 5400 5670 5940
Distance from Disposal (ft)
0
50
100
150 200 250 300 350
400
450
500
1
i
i - '
1
1
Nate; Sdidrepresertsccncertraiiais
greater than 500mgfl
Rg. 5-13
K>
OJ
Concentration at time = 9000sec
rn
-u
i.
o o o
r-» ^ «-«
(N m 00
o o o o o
»/¦> tN On VO fn
cn \o oo —i tj-
-I ^ N M
o o o o o
Tf -h oo m cs
rJ m o en
cn <*"> cn - m
CN
vo
o o o o
OO VO CN On
Tt O fcte: Sdidrepresents concentrations
greater than 100mg/l
Rg. 5-14
>
c
"S
rvi
H
i
o
5
0
1
o-
00
s.
1
3.
fiL
3
•8
3
5
o-
5?
f
£
fcL
-------
Tfcmpa ODMDS Suspended Sediment Concentration Profile
Concentration at Time = 12000sec=3.3hrs
§
s
o
D
O
3
to
•iMS.. '-M,
¦
WmM
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
§
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
r-
r-
oo
in
CM
o\
vc
CO
o
£
oo
v~>
(N
On
SO
cn
o
00
«r>
e
<9
NJ
NJ
-------
423 Tampa ODMDS Dredged Materia] Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
Depth (ft)
Time
(minutes)
Distance
(nmiles)
15
<35
<0.22
30
180
1.01
45
243
1.36
65
375
0.97
During heavy use of the site, disposal actions may occur so that turbidity plumes
from successive dumps will overlap. The most frequent interval between disposal actions
was determined to be two hours as discussed in section 3.0. For this assumption,
suspended sediment concentrations versus time has been plotted for two distances from the
disposal point at a depth of 65 feet in figures 5-16 and 5-17. The concentrations at the
other depths were computed, but are not shown. At both locations, the ambient conditions
are not exceeded at depths of 15 and 30 feet. At 0.5 nmile from the disposal point,
concentrations reach 15rr.g/l periodically at a depth of 45 feet ajid fluctuate between 60
and 120 mg/1 near the bottom (65 feet). At 1.0 nmile from the disposal point,
concentrations reach 2.8 mg/1 periodically at a depth of 45 feet and fluctuate between 5
and 13 mg/1 near the bottom (65 feet). These results are for the assumptions of successive
dumps of worst case material, a busy disposal day and temporally and spatially constant
currents that are exceeded only 5 percent of the time.
6.0 SUMMARY
The currents used in the STFATE deposition analysis can be assumed to be in
either he northerly or southerly direction. A northerly oriented current can be assumed
for examining impacts to the north and the southerly for impacts to the berm. If disposal
is assumed to occur at the center of the "no size restriction area" of the ODMDS, the berm
of concern is 1.0 nmi (6076 feet) to the south and the northern ODMDS boundary is 1/6
nmi (1013 feet) to the north.
Assuming the current is to the south, 97.5% of the dredged material will reach the
bottom within 2160 feet of the disposal, one third of the distance to the berm, and there
would be no measurable deposition of material at the berm. Peak suspended sediment
concentrations along the bottom at the berm would be 7.4 mg/1. On the other hand,
assuming the current is to the north, 90% of the dredged material will reach the bottom
within the northern boundary of the ODMDS.
The STFATE analysis assumes the currents are constant with time and spatially
homogenous. The streakline analysis discussed in section 2.1, assumes only that the
currents are spatially homogeneous. Considering the streakline analysis, the probabilities
that the plume will reach the areas of concern can be estimated. Figures 6-1 and 6-2
25
EPA Region IV
-------
424
Ttnpa ODMDSDredg*dMateriftl9tort*T«Qn'&BiupoittiidD«po*it0aAn*|)n0 August 1994
Maximum Suspended Sediment Concentration tor
Successive Dumps at 65 ft Depth
0.5 nmiles from disposal location
Maximum Suspended Sediment Concentration for
Successive Dumps at 65 ft Depth
1.0 nmiles from disposal location
26
EPA Rtport IV
-------
425
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Matenal Short-Term Ihupoct and Depostx>n Ananas
Auguit £94
$ Probability of Transport North for Two Travel Times
o
CL
Probability of Transport South for Two Travel Times
w
o
Q.
£L
27
SPA RtgnnlV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
426
August 1994
show, based on streakline analysis, the probabilities that the center of a disposal plume
will reach distances for travel times of three hours and nine hours. After three hours the
STFATE deposition analysis predicts that 97% of the dredged material has settled to the
bottom. After nine hours, based on settling velocities, 100% of the material has settled to
the bottom. For a three hour travel time, figures 2-6, 2-9, 6-1 and 6-2 show that the
probability that the plume would move as far south as the berm or as far north as 0.5 nmi
for any disposal would be less than 2%. For a nine hour travel time the probability would
be less than 15%.
28
EPA Region /V
-------
427 Tampa ODMD5 Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
REFERENCES
Adamec, Stephen A., Jr., et al. 1987. "Technical Supplement to Dredged Material
Disposal Study US Navy Home Port, Everett, Washington." Technical Report HL-87-12.
US Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Battelle Ocean Sciences, 1987. "Synthesis Report: Tampa Harbor Dredged Material
Disposal Site Monitoring Study." Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C.
Boler, Richard, ed. 1991. "Surface Water Quality Hillsborough County Florida, 1990-
1991." Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, Tampa, Florida.
Collins, Gary. Tampa Bay ODMDS Manager, US EPA Region IV. Personal Interview on
Dredge Material Placement. 1993.
D^r.ek, L. J., and G. S. Lcbwel, editors. 1986. "Southwest Florida Shelf Benthic
Communities Study Year 5 Annual Report." A final report by Environmental Science and
Engineering, Inc. and LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. (Contract No. 14-12-
0001-30211) submitted to the Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana. 3
vol.
Ichiye, T., Han-Hsiung Kuo, and M. R. Carnes. 1973. "Assessment of Currents and
Hydrography of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico." Contribution No. 601. Department of
Oceanography, College of Geosciences, Texas A&M University.
Miller, ^latt. Jacksonville District Army Corps of Engineers. Personal Telephone
Interview on Dredge Disposal Operation and Dredge Material Characteristics. Septembu
14, 1993 and January 31, 1994.
Molinari, R.L., D. Cochrane, and G.A. Maul. 1975. "Deep Basin Oceanographic
Conditions and General Circulation." In: Compilation and Summation of Historical
Existing Physical Oceanographic Data from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in Support of the
Creation of a MAFLA Sampling Program. BLM 08550-CT-16. State University System
Florida Institute of Oceanography (SISIO).
Schroeder, P.R. and M.R. Palermo. 1990. Automated dredging and disposal alternatives
management system, User's Guide. Technical Note EEDP-06-12, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
29
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
Science Applications International Corporation, 1989. "Gulf of Mexico Physical
Oceanography Program, Final Report: Year 5. Volume I: Executive Summary." OCS
Report/MMS - 89-0067, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of
Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. 14pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Located Offshore Tampa,
Florida, June 1993." U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps Engineers, 1993. "Draft
Inland Testing Manual." Appendix C: Numerical Model for Initial Mixing Evaluations.
U.S. Minerals Management Service, 1985. "Southwest Florida Shelf Ecosystem Study"
Contract 14-12-0001-29144, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Metairei, Louisiana.
Williams, David T. 1983. "Tampa Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site Analysis," Misc.
Paper, HL-83-8, US Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
30
EPA Region IV
-------
429 Tampa ODMDS Dredged Materia! Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
APPENDIX A
STFATE MODEL INPUT DATA
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged MaienaJ Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
August 1994
MODEL: SHORT-TERM FATE OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM SPLIT HULL BARGE OR HOPPER
DREDGE
(PC Version 5.01 MAY, 1993)
TITLE: Tampa Bay ODMDS 20/15cm/sec current to the north-unidirect
RLE: TAMPA2 .DUE
AREA: THE PROJECT AREA IS DESCRIBED BY A 45 X 45 GRID.
THERE ARE 45 GRID POINTS (NMAX) IN THE Z-DIRECTION (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT)
AND 45 GRID POINTS (MMAX) IN THE X-DIRECTION (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM).
EXECUTION PARAMETERS:
MODEL COEFFICIENTS SPECIFIED IN INPUT DATA (KEY1 = 1).
VERTICAL DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT (AKYO) COMPUTED FROM PRITCHARD EQUATION
(LPRIT = 1).
PERFORM COMPLETE ANALYSIS INCLUDING DESCENT, COLLAPSE, AND
TRANSPORT-DIFFUSION (KEY2 = 0).
PERFORM LONG-TERM DIFFUSION COMPUTATIONS FOR A CONSERVATIVE TRACER
(KEY3 = 1).
PRINTING OF CONVECT1VE DESCENT RESULTS REQUESTED (1PCN = 1).
PRINTING OF CONVECTIVE DESCENT RESULTS REQUESTED (IPCN = 1).
PRINTING OF DYNAMIC COLLAPSE RESULTS REQUESTED (IPCL = 1).
PRINTING OF LONG-TERM TRANSPORT DIFFUSION RESULTS REQUESTED AT 12 TIME
PERIOD(S) (IPLT = 12).
LONG-TERM TRANSPORT DIFFUSION RESULTS REQUESTED AT THE FOLLOWING 5
DEPTH(S):
5.00 FT
15.00 FT
30.00 FT
45.00 FT
65.00 FT
GRID: NUMBER OF LONG TERM GRID POINTS IN Z-DIRECTION (NMAX) = 45
NUMBER OF LONG TERM GRID POINTS IN X-DIRECTION (MMAX) = 45
A-l
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Traniport and Deposition Analysis
432
August 1994
GRID SPACING IN Z-DIRECTION (DZ) = 270.00000 FT
GRID SPACING IN X-DIRECTION (DX) = 270.00000 FT
CONSTANT DEPTH GRID SPECIFIED HAVING A DEPTH (DEPC) OF 70.00000 FT.
DISPOSAL LOCATION:
THE DUMP LOCATION IS 9114. FT (XBARGE) OR ABOUT GRID POINT #35 FROM THE
TOP OF THE GRID
AND 6076. FT (ZBARGE) OR ABOUT GRID POINT #24 FROM THE LEFT EDGE OF THE
GRID.
THE BOTTOM SLOPE IN THE X-DIRECTION AT THE DUMP SITE (SLOPEX, POSITIVE IF
DEPTH INCREASES
FROM TOP OF GRID TO BOTTOM OF GRID) IS 0.00 DEGREES.
THE BOTTOM SLOPE IN THE Z-DIRECTION AT THE DUMP SITE (SLOPEZ, POSITIVE IF
DEPTH INCREASES
FROM LEFT SIDE OF GRID TO RIGHT SIDE OF GRID) IS 0.00 DEGREES.
THE DISPOSAL LOCATION IS NOT AT A HOLE OR DEPRESSION. (DHOLE = 0.0)
AMBIENT DENSITY PROFILE:
DEPTH (FT) DENSITY (G/CC)
0.0000E+00 1.0222
70.00 1.0241
COMPUTED DEPTH:
THE DEPTH AT THE DUMP LOCATION WAS INTERT DLATED TO BE 70.00 FT.
VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION:
TWO-VELOCITY PROFILES ARE SPECIFIED IN BOTH X AND Z DIRECTIONS FOR USE AT
ALL GRID POINTS PROVIDING "QUICK LOOKS".
DEPTH IN FT IS ASSUMED CONSTANT AND VELOCITIES IN FPS ARE CONSIDERED
STEADY IN TIME.
VELOCITY PROFILE PARAMETERS FOLLOW...
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM ON GRID FROM
LEFT TO RIGHT ON GRID
UPPER: DEPTH, DU1 = O.OOOE+OO X-VELOCITY, UU1 = -0.652 DEPTH, DW1 =
0.0O0E+00 Z-VELOCITY, WW1 = 0.000E+00
LOWER: DEPTH, DU2 = 60.0 X-VELOCITY, UU2 =-0.492 DEPTH, DW2 = 60.0
Z-VELOCITY, WW2 = 0.000E+00
A-2
EPA Region IV
-------
433
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis August 1994
TIME PARAMETERS:
DURATION OF THE DISPOSAL, TREL = 20.00 SECONDS
DURATION OF THE SIMULATION, TSTOP = 12000 00 SECONDS
LONG-TERM TIME STEP USED IN THE SIMULATION, DTL = 300.00 SECONDS
BARGE DESCRIPTION:
LENGTH OF BARGE, BARGL = 0.28E+03 FT
WIDTH OF BARGE, BARGW = 50. FT
DRAFT OF LOADED BARGE, DREL1 =18.0 FT
DRAFT OF UNLOADED BARGE, DREL2 = 5.00 FT
MODEL COEFFICIENTS READ FROM INPUT:
TURBULENT THERMAL ENTRAINMENT ALPHA0 = 0.2350
SETTLING COEFFICIENT BETA = O.OOOu
APPARENT MASS COEFFICIENT CM = 1.0000
DRAG COEFFICIENT FOR A SPHERE CD = 0.5000
RATIO-CLOUD/AMBIENT DENSITY GRADIENTS GAMA = 0.2500
FORM DRAG FOR COLLAPSING CLOUD CDRAG = 1.0000
SKIN FRICTION FOR COLLAPSING CLOUD CFRIC = 0.0100
DRAG FOR AN ELLIPSOIDAL WEDGE CD3 = 0.1000
DRAG FOR A PLATE CD4 = 1.0000
ENTRAINMENT IN COLLAPSE ALPHAC = 0.1000
FRICTION BETWEEN CLOUD AND BOTTOM FR1CTN = 0.0100
4/3 LAW HORIZ. DIFF. DISSIPATION FACTOR ALAMDA =: 0.0010
UNSTRATTFTED WATER VERT. DIFF. COEF. AKY0 = 0.0190
STRIPPING COEF. OF FINES DURING CONVERTIVE DESCENT^ 0.0030
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: 2 LAYERS OF DREDGED MATERIAL WITH 4 SOLIDS FRACTIONS
VOLUMETRIC CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS FRACTIONS DO NOT VARY FROM LAYER TO
LAYER.
A-3
EPA Region IV
-------
Tampa ODMDS Dredged Material Short-Term Transport and Deposition Analysis
434
August 1994
LAYER 1
SPEC. GRAV. VOLUMETRIC FALL DEPOSITIONAL
DESCRIPTION OR DENSITY CONCENTRATION VELOCITY VOID RATIO CHARACTER
(GM/CC) (VOL/VOL) (FPS)
SILT 2.650 0.1350 0.01000 4.500 NONCOHESIVE
CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS FOR DEPOSITION = 0.9000E-02 LBS/SQ. FT.
SEDIMENT FRACTION WILL BE STRIPPED DURING CONVECTIVE DESCENT.
MEDIUMS 2.700 0.1350E-01 0.10000 0.6000 NONCOHESIVE
CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS FOR DEPOSITION = 0.2000E-01 LBS/SQ. FT.
SEDIMENT FRACTION WILL BE STRIPPED DURING CONVECTIVE DESCENT.
FINE S 2.700 0.1670 0.02000 0.7000 NONCOHESIVE
CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS FOR DEPOSITION = 0.1500E-01 LBS/SQ. FT.
SEDIMENT FRACTION WILL BE STRIPPED DURING CONVECTIVE DESCENT.
CLAY 2.650 0.1350 0.00200 7.000 NONCOHESIVE
CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS FOR DEPOSITION = 0.2000E-02 LBS/SQ. FT.
SEDIMENT FRACTION WILL BE STRIPPED DURING CONVECTIVE DESCENT.
SPEC. GRAV. VOLUMETRIC
DESCRIPTION OR DENSITY CONCENTRATION
(GM/CC) (VOL/VOL)
FLUID 1.000 0.5495
DISCHARGE PARAMETERS:
VOLUME OF LAYER 1 = 2400. CU YD
INITIAL RADIUS OF CLOUD, RB = 31.39344
INITIAL DEPTH OF CLOUD CENTROID, DREL =
INITIAL CLOUD VELOCITIES...
X-DIRECTION (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM OF GRID), CU(1)= -1.680 FPS
Y-DIRECTION (FROM SURFACE TO BOTTOM), CV(1) = 0.4090 FPS
Z-DIRECTION (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT OF GRID), CW(1) = 0.0000E+00 FPS
BULK PARAMETERS:
BULK DENSITY, ROO = 1.752350 G/CC
AGGREGATE OR BULK VOIDS RATIO, BVOID = 3.724
FT
27.73 FT
A-4
EPA Region IV
-------
436
-------
APPENDIX I
COMMENT LETTERS TO THE DRAFT EIS
AND RESPONSES, WHERE APPROPRIATE
AUGUST 1994
-------
439
Section I
Comment letters, with responses from EPA and CE
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
LINDA LOOMIS SHELUY
LAWTON CHILES-
Govprnor
Secretary
October 15, 1993
Mr. Wesley B. Crum
Chief, Coastal Programs Section
Region IV, Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 303 65
RE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of
an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Located
Offshore Tampa, Florida
SAI: FL9306170872C
Dear Mr. Crum:
The State of Florida has completed its review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
designation of an approximately 4 sguare nautical mile
area, located 18 nautical miles west of Egmont Key in the
Gulf of Mexico, as an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS) . The DEIS has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the
lead federal agency for designation of the ODMDS and the
Corps of Engineers (COE) will be the primary user of the
proposed site. The COE, a cooperating federal agency in
the preparation of the DEIS, has proposed that the site be
used for the disposal of spoil from maintenance dredging of
federal navigation channels and berthing sites in greater
Tampa Bay. The COE has stated that the ODMDS is required
because most of the dredged material will not be suitable
for use in beach nourishment.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
442
Mr. Wesley B. Crum
October 15, 1993
Page Two
The Department of Community Affairs (Department), as
the lead coastal agency for the State of Florida, pursuant
to section 306(c) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act, 16 U.S.C. section—1456(c), and sectipn 380.22, Florida
Statutes (F.S.), hereby notifies the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that the State of Florida cannot support
the recommended permanent Site 4 ODMDS designation as
described in the DEIS. The state's objections are based on
(1) the lack of project justification, (2) the lack of
complete information, and (3) the inadequacy of the site
management and monitoring plan.
As explained in the attached correspondence, the
proposed ODMDS designation is inconsistent with the
following specific provisions of the Florida Coastal
Management Program: sections 161.042 and 161.142;
253.03(1); 370.025; 373.414; and 403.021, 403.061, 403.062,
and 403.161, F.S. and Rule 17-312, Florida Administrative
Code (sections 403.918 and 403.919, F.S, have been repealed
and are now codified in sections 373.414, F.S. and Rule 17-
312, F.A.C., pursuant to Florida House Bill 1751).
In order for the state to reconsider its findings, the
EPA will need to modify the DEIS to address the concerns
contained in the enclosed October 7, 1993 letter from the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The required
information must be submitted to the Stat«=» Clearinghouse
for review.
The state acknowledges that significant progress has
already been made toward the resolution of these issues.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV and the
Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, has participated
in meetings with the state which helped to clarify project
related issues and establish the scope of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
In accordance with 15 CFR 930.42(c), a copy of this
letter has been sent to the U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
Mediation by the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce,
may be sought pursuant to 15 CFR 93 0, subpart G, for
serious disagreements between the state and a federal
agency taking direct action governed by 15 CFR 930,
subpart C.
-------
443
Mr. Wesley B. Crum
October 15, 1993
Page Three
We will continue to work closely with your staff to
resolve the identified issues prior to the submittal of the
Final -Environmental Impact Statement for the permanent
designation of the referenced ODMDS.
LLS/dh
Enclosures
cc: Virginia Wetherell, DEP
Ben Watts, DOT
Dr. Russell Nelson, MFC
Colonel Brantly, GFWFC
Greg Farmer, FDC
Estus Whitfield, OPB
Frank Maloney, OCRM, NOAA
Colonel Rock Salt, COE
Very truly yours,
Linad boomis sneney
Secretary
-------
444
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-3000
Virpnia B Uelherell
Sfcrnar\
October 7, 1993
Estus Whitfield
Executive Office of the Governor
Office of Planning and Budgeting
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Dear Mr. Whitfield:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
Tampa, Florida
SAI FL9 3 0617 08 7 2C
On August 23, 1993, we provided comments on the
referenced designation and notified you that the designation,
as proposed, is inconsistent with the department's statutory
authorities in the Florida Coastal Management Program.
Subsequently, the department participated in a meeting with
the EPA and the Corps to discuss the issues addressed in our
letter. At this meeting, we made considerable progress
toward resolution of the department's objections. We would
like to summarize our understanding of the conclusions of
those discussions and clarify the department's position on
the proposed designation.
Our determination of inconsistency is based on three
main issues: a lack of project justification,* incomplete
information; and the adequacy of the site management and
monitoring plan. Regarding the first issue, we agreed that
"the need for using an ocean disposal site will be determined
through the cooperative development of dredged material
disposal plans for Tampa Harbor federal dredging projects.
These plans will be developed by the state and the Corps and
will establish criteria for placement of material which
prioritize beneficial use and upland disposal over ocean
disposal where those options are viable. The final
designation rule will include a condition requiring the
disposal of material in the site to be in accordance with
approved dredged material disposal plans. To provide a basis
for the development of project-specific plans, the Corps will
expand its discussion in the final EIS to better address the
need for the ocean disposal site and will provide additional
IVinir.l Of, ri-r-i i |r«j y»\>rr
-------
Mr. Estus Whitfield
October 7, 1993
Page Two
information on material quantities, qualities, and available
and proposed disposal locations throughout the reaches of the
federal project. We are confident that these actions will
resolve the department's objection to this designation based
on a lack of demonstrated need for the site.
Regarding the other issues of incomplete information and
adequacy of site management and monitoring, the Corps and EPA
agreed to provide supplemental information to address the
points made in our comments. Notably, dredged material
dispersion will be modeled and EPA will try to complete
supplemental video scans of the northern section of the
^proposed site.
Between now and publication of the final EIS, the state
will work with the Corps and EPA as needed to complete these
tasks. In particular, the department and the Corps need to
develop the language of the condition to be included in the
designation rule. Draft language has been provided by the
Corps and is being reviewed at this time.
We appreciate the cooperation of the EPA and the Corps
in resolving the department's concerns for this site
designation. If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact Lynn Griffin at 488-0784.
LG/1
cc: George Henderson
Kirby Green
John Abendroth
Richard Garrity
Fritz Wettstein
Frank Votra
-------
446
1. The language agreed to by the State of Florida and the Corps
of Engineers concerning the dredged material disposal plan
for Tampa can be found in Section 2.2.3. This language will
also be included in the rulemaking for site designation.
The expanded discussion on need is included in the
introductory paragraphs of Section 2.2. Information
concerning material qualities and quantities proposed for
ocean disposal can be found within the Site Management and
Monitoring Plan in Appendix C. Available disposal locations
throughout the federal project can be found in Appendix E.
(Mr. Dichiara, CESAJ-CO-ON)
2. The problem with pages missing from Appendix E has been
corrected. An updated draft Site Management and Monitoring
Plan has been provided, and further modifications may be
made by the team prior to final rulemaking to designate the
site. The dispersion model requested by the State is
provided in Appendix B. Supplemental video of the area
outside the northern boundary of the site has been done and
copies ~f the tapes have been provided to the State. (Mr.
Collins, USEPA-4)
3. The language included in Section 2.2.3 is that provided by
the State to the CE District office. (Mr. Schuster, CESAJ-
PD-ES)
-------
447
lampo bay r«9tenol pJofwUog council
ogcncyoftbdy
management
9455 Koger Boulevard
St Petersburg. FL 33702-2491
(813) 577-5151/Tampa 224-9380
Sunoom 586-3217
An Alliance of Agencies,
Organizations and
Interest Groups for the
Management of Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Florida Senate
Florida House of Representatives
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Florida Department of Natural
Ftesouroes
Florida Department of Transportation
"'orida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission
Florida Marine Patrol
Florida Department of
Community Affairs
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Florida Sea Grant
Florida Phosphate Council
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
MacDill Air Force Base
Tampa Port Authority
Manatee Port Authority
St. Petersburg Port Authority
Hillsborough County
Pinellas County
Manatee County
Pasco County
City of Tampa
City of St. Petersburg
City of Clearwater
City of South Pasadena
City of Oldsmar
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission
Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce
Florida Power Corporation
Tampa Electric Company
Florida Conservation Association
Organized Fishermen of Florida
Mote Marine Laboratory
National Audubon Society
Manasota 68
Hillsborough Environmental Coalition
League of Women Voters
University of South Florida
Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium
July 21, 1993
Mr. W. Bowman Crum
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Tampa
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Dear Mr. Crum:
T' z Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's Agency on Bay
Management reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Designation of the Tampa Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS) during the July, 8, 1993 Executive Steering Committee
meeting. The Agency recommended that based upon available
information provided within the Environmental Impact Statement and
with the understanding that site specific information will be developed
on the type of material to be disposed of on Site 4, conceptual
approval should be given to the long-term use of Site 4 as the
approved EPA ODMDS.
The Agency had several question during its review of the Draft EIS,
which include:
Q • What is the composition c f materials which will be disposed of
at the designated site?
(^) • What are the locations of the natural and artificial reefs in
proximity to the recommended site. Will there be any
perturbations to these important communities?
• What is the expected life of the project?
(2) • What was the impact of recent storms on the existing materials
on Site 4, including Hurricane Elena and the March 13, 1993
storm?
-------
448
It is strongly recommended that if the spoil material is appropriate for
beach nourishment or for habitat restoration projects the material
should be used for such purposes. Clean sand material is an important
resource in the Tampa Bay region. A list and map of habitat
restoration projects that will benefit by receiving clean spoil material
should be developed with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
The Agency would like to request a representative of the project
attend the next committee meeting of the Agency on Bay Management
on September 9,1993 to address the questions and recommendations
for the proposed ODMDS. To arrange a presentation or if you have
any additional questions feel free to contact me or Mr. Peter Clark at
(813) 577-5151.
Sincerely,
Jan K. Piatt, Chairman
Agency on Bay Management
-------
449
1. The composition of the materials proposed for disposal in
the ODMDS can be found in the SMMP (Appendix C).
2. The locations of the natural and artificial reefs in
proximity to the site are discussed throughout Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 discusses the monitoring efforts throughout the
1980's that concluded that impacts to these communities
could not be discerned.
3. The expected life of the project is unbounded. The CE does
not anticipate a closing of Tampa Harbor or the navigation
channel. (Mr. DiChiara, CESAJ-CO-ON)
4. We believe that the impact of severe storms, such as
hurricanes, on the natural habitats that occur offshore
Tampa is such that the presence of disposed dredged material
is inconsequential.
5. EPA supports the beneficial use of material whenever
appropriate. The language found in Section 2.2.3 addresses
how the State and the CE will address this issue on a
project by project basis. According to Mr. DiChiara of the
District office, the CE is not aware of any habitat
restoration projects planned or underway that would desire
or could benefit from the use of this material.
-------
Florida Department of
e Environmental Protection
Lawton ChiJes
Governor
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
July 19, 1993
Virginia B. Wetherell
Secretar)
Mr. W. Bowman Crum, Chief
Coastal Programs Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 3 03 08
Dear Mr. Crum:
We have reviewed the draft EIS for an Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site offshore Tampa, Florida. The location of the
disposal site for sediments dredged from Tampa Bay appears to be
»opropriate based on past studies.
'a concern of the Florida DEP pertains to possible ocean disposal
of contaminated sediments from Tampa Bay that were not evaluated
in past studies. Data collected by DEP and NOAA indicate high
sediment concentrations of metals (e.g. cadmium, copper, lead and
zinc) and organic compounds (e.g. PAHs and PCBs), particularly in
areas of the lower Hillsborough River and Hillsborough Bay.
Plans to dredge the shipping channels of Hillsborough Bay and
dispose of the material should be evaluated in light of the
^sediment contamination.
'Page 20 of the EIS states, "The ocean disposal option for
material of all types has been determined by the CE to be
essential.". The concentrations of potentially toxic compounds
vary greatly within Tampa Bay sediments and consequently could
lead to varying concentrations in the dredged material. Dredged
material evaluations should be of sufficient detail to determine
the potential for biological impacts in areas where sediment
contamination exists. If sediments are found to be toxic, ocean
disposal at the designated site may not be the best alternative
since sediment analysis suggested transport of dredged material
outside the site boundary (page 36).
If further information is needed concerning these comments you
may contact Kevin Petrus at 904/488-0780.
Sincerely
A1 Bishop, P.E.,
Environmental Administrator
Point Source Evaluation Section
AB/kp
Printed on recycled paper
-------
452
1. and 2. The evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean
disposal addresses the physical, chemical and
biological nature of the material. Material that fails
any of •'"he criteria for ocean disposal cannot be
disposed without a waiver. Further discussion on this
issue is provided throughout Chapter 1.
-------
453
COMMISSION
PHYLLIS BUSANSKY
JOE CHIllURA
SYLVIA KIMBELL
LYDIA MILLER
JIM NORMAN
JAN KAM1NIS PLATT
ED TURANCHIK
FAX (813) 272-5157
ROGER P STEWART
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
AND
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1900 - 9TH AVENUE
TAMPA FLORIDA 33605
TELEPHONE (813) 272 5960
AIR MANAGEMENT DIVISION
TELEPHONE (013) 272-SS30
WASTE MANAGEMENT OlVlSlON
TELEPHONE (613) 272 5768
ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
TELEPHONE (013) 272-71CW
July 22, 1993
W. Bowman Crum
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coastal Programs Section
34 5 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
SUBJECT: EPC REVIEW OF THE DEIS, DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE (ODMDS), OFFSHORE TAMPA BAY DATED
JUNE, 1993, RECEIVED JUNE 18, 1993
Dear Mr. Crum:
The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County
recognizes the need to designate a permanent ODMDS offshore of
Tampa Bay. Of the alternatives presented within the Draft EIS
(DEIS), Site 4 (the proposed site) appears to present the best case
scenario for disposal of the sediments accumulating within the
shipping lanes of Tampa Bay. There are several concerns which EPC
staff feel need to be addressed before a full agency approval can
be given.
1. The 1987 sediment mapping technique (CAIS, 1988) results
suggested that transport of dredged materials to areas outside
of the site boundary may be occurring. The DEIS also reports
©that long term water movement measured in the area of the
proposed disposal site is consistent dth the potential for
distribution of dredged material outside the site. What
methods are to be taken to control this spoil from being
transported offsite, and to minimize potential environmental
impacts from occurring outside of the target area?
2. It is unclear to EPC staff after reviewing the DEIS as to
whether the spoil generated from individual dredging events is
s n to be tested as to potential contaminants before deposition at
the ODMDS. The EPC will recommend that before disposal is to
occur, that the sediments be subjected to testing as to
possible contaminants (including bioassay testing) before
disposal is to occur. Sediments which are proven to be
contaminated should be disposed of in contained upland areas.
An Affirmative Action - Equal Opportunity Employer
Dnnied on recycled p£
-------
454
Mr. Bowman Crum
July 22, 1993
page two
3. As two spoil disposal islands currently exist within Tampa Bay
to receive materials from Tampa Port Authority and Army Corps
of Engineers dredging projects within the Bay, the need for
ocean dumping should be clearly demonstrated with each permit
application for ocean disposal. The potential for upland
disposal (concerning individual dredging events) should be
explored at the time of permit application also.
4. The EPC concurs with Mr. Robin Lewis1 recommendation in his
/7T\ correspondence to you of June 23, 1993, that any surveillance
(Q) and monitoring program of the ODMDS be placed in the hands of
the natural resource management and protection agencies.
EPC staff will strongly recommend that all mitigation measures as
outlined in Section 4.3.7 of the DEIS be implemented as permit
conditions in the final designation of the ODMDS. These measures
include:
a. site specific management
b. sediment mapping
c. the determination of the significance of any biological
impacts of dredged material outside ODMDS boundaries (if
needed)
d. the avoidance of hard bottom
e. the protection of existing communities on site (even
those communities resulting from previous disposal)
f. the use of monitoring to define the maximum discharge
rate of dredged materials that would not result in
excessive mortality due to burial and/or smothering
g. the deposition of spoil material during appropriate
weather conditions and times of the year
h. periodic bioassay and bioaccumulation testing of dredged
materials.
-------
455
Mr. Bowman Crum
July 22, 1993
page two
With the satisfactory address of these issues and/or inclusion of
these recommendations, the EPC will endorse the use of Site 4 as an
ODMDS. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please
feel free to contact me at this agency.
[
Environmental Protection Commission
of Hillsborough County
Pf
cc: Roger Stewart, EPC
Chuck Cou "~ney, EPC
Chris Dunn, EPC
Tom Cardinale, EPC
Peter Clark, TBRPC/ABM
Dave Parsche•, TPA
Robin Lewis, Lewis Environmental
-------
456
1. Based upon the monitoring done subsequent to the referenced
sediment mapping, impacts to the benthic communities could
not be discerned. At this time, management of the material
to inhibit offsite migration is not deemed necessary.
However, the SMMP (Appendix C) is a 'living' document and
such measures can be implemented should monitoring show that
they are necessary.
2. Each project, regardless of the its frequency, is evaluated
for suitability for ocean disposal. If the material fails
the criteria, it cannot be placed in the ocean (see Chapter
1). If material from a project has been determined to be
suitable and is disposed of in the site, it will be re-
evaluated on a 3-year cycle or when proposed for disposal,
which ever is longer (see Appendix C) .
3. The State of Florida and the CE has agreed that each project
and its proposed disposal location will be reviewed
according to the language provided in Section 2.2.3.
4. The SMMP team will review the data and recommend appropriate
management and/or monitoring measures to the CE and EPA. It
is our intention that the natural resource management and
protection agencies be part of this team.
-------
457
9455 Koger Boulevard July 26, 1993
SI Petersburg, FL 33702-2491
(813) 577-5151/Tampa 224-9380
Suncom 586-3217
officers ^ Bowman Crum, Chief
chairman Coastal Programs Section
ncuman Robert b. Stewart y 5 Environmental Protection Agency
Vice-Chairman Region IV
>r Charles A. Mcintosh. Jr. 345 0,^^ Street, N.E.
secretaryn-reasurer Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mayor Barbara H. Gllberg
Officers
Chairman
Councilman Robert B. Stewart
Vice-Chairman
Mayor Charles A. Mcintosh, Jr.
Executive Director
Julia E Greene
Subject:
Recommended for APPROVAL. IC&R #140-93,/Tampa Ocean
Material Disposal Site Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee Counties
Dear Mr. Crum:
The enclosed agenda item regarding the above-referenced matter was
considered and staff comments approved by the Clearinghouse Review
Committee of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council at its July 26, 1993
meeting.
Please contact me, or Sheila Benz of our. Council staff, if further information
regarding this item is desired.
Sincerely,
J
Intergovernmental Coordination & Review
JKV/bj
Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Rea Boothby, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-------
458
Agenda Item 15.
CRC - 7/26/93
TAMPA OCEAN MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, HILLSBOROUGH, PINELLAS AND MANATEE COUNTIES, 1C&R
#140-93
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), has requested review and comment on a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS) located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee
counties. The proposed action is the permanent designation of an offshore ODMDS which
will be managed by EPA. The proposed site (Site 4) is square-shaped, covers four nautical
miles (nmi) squared and is located 18 nmi from Egmont Key. The proposed disposal site
will be designated to receive suitable dredged materials resulting from the Tampa Harbor
Federal Project and potentially receive disposal materials from other government or private
dredging projects in the greater Tampa Bay area.
The purpose of this action is to recommend an environmentally acceptable ocean location
for the disposal of dredged materials that comply with the environmental impact criteria of
the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229). Ultimately this process
is intended to result in the final designation of an acceptable ODMDS. The Council's
Agency on Bay Management also reviewed the EIS during its July 8, 1993 committee
meetings.
Based on the need to continue dredging projects in the Tampa Bay area, the EPA originally
designated two ODMDSs offshore Tampa Bay. These sites included Site A (13 nmi ofT
Egmont Key) and Site B (9 nmi off Egmont Key). In May 1982, action was brought in
Federal District Court by Manatee County which ultimately halted disposal of dredged
material at Site A as of December 1982. In 1983, EPA recommended a site (Site 4) located
18 nmi from Egmont Key for dredge material disposal on an interim basis. During the
period of interim designation, additional information was compiled at other potential sites
25 to 35 nmi from shore. Site 5 is 30 nmi offshore Egmont Key.
The suitability of permanent designation of Site 4 and a site within Site 5 is evaluated In this
EIS. Site 5 was excluded from additional review since the COE has indicated the distance
from shore was unacceptable to transport spoil material. Site 5 also appears to contain
more hard bottom habitats than Site 4 making it more environmentally sensitive to disposal
activities. Therefore, Site 4 is being forwarded as the selected site for permanent disposal
Council Comments/Concerns
9455 Koaer Boulevard SI Petersbura FL 33702 • (813) 577-5151 /Tampa 224-9380
-------
IC&R #140-93
Page 2
of dredged material by the EPA. Unless this action is taken by EPA, an EPA-designated
ODMDS will not be available for the disposal of suitable dredged material for the Tampa
Bay area.
EPA describes the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action as follows:
• mounding,
• smothering of bottom habitats,
• possible habitat alteration of the site, and
• temporary water quality perturbations.
Adverse impacts within the site are unavoidable, but the disposal operations will be
regulated to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts outside site boundaries.
Several questions need to be addressed by the EPA ar. J other reviewing agencies. These
questions include:
• What is the composition of materials which will be disposed of at the designated
site?
• What are the locations of the natural and artificial reefs in proximity to the
recommended site. Will there be any perturbations to these important communities?
• What is the expected life of the project?
• What was the impact of recent storms on the existing materials on Site 4, including
Hurricane Elena and the March 13, 1993 storm?
The following concerns have been identified:
• potential impacts to water quality and adjacent habitats due to disposal of
contaminated or inappropriate material,
• long-term stability of the spoil material, and
• alternative uses of appropriate dredge materials for other activities have not been
identified.
-------
460
1C&R #140-93
Page 3
The following recommendations should be included in the project design:
• All material placed in the designated site should be thoroughly evaluated to' ensure
that the material will not degrade water quality. Contaminated material should be
disposed of in upland contained areas that prevent reintroduction of contaminants
into the environment.
• Spoil material that is appropriate for beach nourishment or for habitat restoration
projects should be used for such purposes. Clean sand material is an important
resource in the Tampa Bay region. A list and map of habitat restoration projects
that will benefit by receiving appropriate spoil material should be developed with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
• Disposal of dredged material should be timed to coincide with periods of calmer
weather and Gulf currents to prevent additional losses of disposed spoil material
outside of the designated ODMDS.
• Proper construction procedures and techniques (Best Management Practices) should
be implemented during all construction activities to reduce turbidity and other
pollution discharged to surface waters.
• Dredging activities must be timed to prevent impacts to West Indian manatees, sea
turtles and any bird nesting or foraging activities. The applicant, or contractor, must
conform with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (formerly
Department of Natural Resources) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requirements
for construction activities within areas providing habitat for listed species.
Based upon available information provided within the Environmental Impact Statement and
with the understanding that site specific information will be developed on he type of
material to be disposed of on Site 4, conceptual approval should be given to the long-term
use of Site 4 as the approved EPA ODMDS.
-------
461
IC&R #140-93
Page 4
Recommendation
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council recognizes the need to designate a permanent
Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site offshore Tampa, and concurs with the recommenda-
tions in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with the proviso that the aforementioned
questions be fully addressed and recommendations be included in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Site 4 ODMDS.
Further, it is recommended that any additional comments addressing local concerns be
considered prior to final action.
Committee adopted July 26, 1993.
Sh
Charles A. Mcintosh, Jr., Chairman
Clearinghouse Review Committee
This project has been reviewed for consistency with the Council's adopted growth policy,
Future of the Region. A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bav Region.
Upon inclusion of the aforementioned recommendations, this proposal will be consistent
with Council policy 9.5.11 and 9.5.13.
Local Comments Requested From:
Agency Request
Date
. Manatee Co.Environmental Action Commission 7/13/93
Hillsborough Co. City-County Planning Commission 7/13/93
Hillsborough Co. Environmental Protection Commission 7/13/93
Hillsborough Co. Planning & Development Management 7/13/93
Pinellas Co. Environmental Management 7/13/93
Pinellas Co. Permit Coordinator 7/13/93
Pinellas Co. Planning Department 7/13/93
PLEASE NOTE: Unless notified of additional consideration by the full Council, action by
the Clearinghouse Review Committee is final. Please append a copy to your application to
indicate compliance with clearinghouse requirements. The Committee's comments
constitute compliance with Florida's Intergovernmental Coordination and Review process
only.
-------
462
All comments and concerns expressed by the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council are duplicated throughout the
previous letters. For the sake of brevity, responses will
not be repeated.
-------
463
Section II
Comment letters which do not need any response
-------
465
:fT&Ty;.
Vr/.-.-
Lewis Environmental Services. Inc
/r/nri'"/
June 23, 1993
W. Bowman Crum
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coastal Programs Section
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Re: DEIS, Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS),
Offshore Tampa Bay
Dear Bo:
1 would like to endorse the designation of a new ODMDS (Site 4) in the Gulf of Mexico
offshore of Tampa Bay.
Having spent 26 years researching the biology of Tampa Bay and having dived offshore
of Tampa Bay on many of the general habitat types discussed in the DEIS and
specifically in the area in the vicinity of Site 5,1 am convinced that offshore disposal of
dredged material from Tampa Harbor is the only viable option to achieve both continued
necessary maintenance dredging of the Tampa Harbor channels and the protection of the
essential marine resources of Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
As a professional environmental consultant and researcher, it is my professional opinion
that neither in-bay disposal nor on-shore disposal of dredged material from Tampa
Harbor ofl *rs any real alternative to resolve the future long-term problems of
maintenance-dredged material.
The record of activities related to the planning, implementation and monitoring of the
two diked disposal areas in Hillsborough Bay (2D and 3D) by the Corps of Engineers and
the Tampa Port Authority represents the epitome of "too little, too late" and "if done,
done wrong".
For this reason, any surveillance and monitoring program of the ODMDS must be placed
in the hands of dedicated natural resource management and protection agencies. Neither
(continued)
PO. BOX 20005 • TAMPA, FL 33622-OOCD5 • [B13] 889-96B4
-------
466
W. Bowman Crum
-2-
June 23, 1993
the Corps of Engineers nor the Port Authority has the will or the natural resource
protection commitment to genuinely protect even the offshore QDMDS site that is the
subject of this document (Site 4). Therefore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (with appropriate funding provided by the
Corps and Port Authority) should be the primary agencies responsible for any permit
iVionitoririg and enforcement.
Roy R. Lewis III, CEP
President/Principal Ecologist
LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
cc: Sally Thompson, Hillsborough Environmental Coalition
Richard Paul, National Audubon Society
Frank Dunstan, National Audubon Society
Richard Eckenrod, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
National Marine Fisheries Service (Panama City and St. Petersburg)
Rea Boothby, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jacksonville)
David Farrell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife £ .-i %ace (Vero Beach)
Roger Johansson, City of Tampa Bay Study Group
Nanette Hoiiand, The Tampa Tribune
David Parsche, Tampa Port Authority
Virginia Wetherall, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
Sincerely,
RRL/sft
-------
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
R A Cray Building
500 South Bronough
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0250
Director s Office Telecopier Number (FAX)
(904) 488-1480 (904) 488-3353
July 15, 1993
Mr. Patrick M. Tobin
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
Coastal Programs Section
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Geor^-a 30365
In Reply Refer To:
Denise M. Breit
Historic Sites
Specialist
(904) 487-2333
Project File No. 931817
RE: Cultural Resource Assessment Request
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of
an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Located Offshore
Tampa
Hillsborough County, Florida
Dear Mr. Tobin:
In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R., Part
800 ("Protection of Historic Properties"), we have reviewed the
referenced-project(s) for possible impact to historic properties
listed, or eligible for 1:'sting, in the National Register of
Historic Places. The authority for this procedure is the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665),
as amended.
It is the opinion of this agency that the continued use of Site 4
as an offshore dredge disposal site will have no effect on any
historic properties. In addition, if any of the alternatives,
whether they be offshore or in the uplands, are selected as
dredge disposal sites, because of their nature, they will rlro
have no effect on cultural resources. Therefore, it has been
determined by this office that the proposed project will have no
effect on any sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register. The project may proceed.
Archaeological Research Florida lolklife Programs Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History
<004l487-22°o I0Q41 307-2 W2 (004)487-2333 (0041 48?-1484
-------
468
Mr. Tobin
July 15, 1993
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not
hesitate to contact us. Your interest in protecting Florida's
historic properties is appreciated.
Sincerely,
/^"George W. Percy, Director
U Division of Historical Resources
and
State Historic Preservation Officer
GWP/Bdb
-------
469
D.S. DEPARTMENT OP BOGSHC AND URBAN DBVELOPKBHT
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE, REGION IV
Richard B. RuBBell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.w.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3388
June 18, 1993
Mr. W. Bowman Crum, Chief
Coastal Programs Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Crum:
This refers to your memorandum dated June 11, 1993,
transmitting the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) offshore Tampa,
Florida.
Our review indicates there will be no significant adverse
impact on any HUD programs as a result of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your
proposed project.
Sincerely
Director,
Program Support Division
-------
471
Q
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Southern Region
P.O. Box 20636
Atlanta, Georgia 30320
Federal Aviation
Administration
July 9, 1993
W. Bowman Crum
U.S. EPA
Coastal Programs Section
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Located Offshore, Tampa, Florida
Dear Mr. Bowman:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposed project and determined that it will not
impact any civil aviation operations or facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Partners In Creating Tomorrow's Airports
-------
473
FLORIDA W DEPARTMENT OF TRAINSPORTATIOI
LAWTOn CHILIS I BE" ° WATTS
GOVUtriOR 7 'E^ SECRET ART
PD&E Department, MS 7-500
11201 N. McKinley Drive
Tampa, FL 33612-6403
July 14, 1993
Mr. W. Bowman Crum
US EPA
Coastal Programs Section
34 5 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation
of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Located Offshore
Tampa, Florida
Dear Mr. Crum:
The Project Development and Environment staff has reviewed the EPA
Draft EIS for the designation of an ocean dredged material disposal
site located offshore Tampa, Florida.
The Department raises no concerns that would prevent the selection
of Site 4 for use in the ODMDS program. As long as the existing
permitting process continues to address concerns about
toxins/contaminants in dredged material there is no need to raise
these concerns in connection with selection of a site.
There are occasions which involve the Department of Transportation
with dredging and the ocean disposal of materials. Structural
materials from bridge replacements can be used to create or enhance
artificial reefs. Channel realignments due to bridge construction
and/or replacement sometimes require dredge work. These types of
projects are evaluated during permitting and thus have no effect on
the selection of a disposal site.
Thank you for ncluding the Department of Transportation in the
review process. If we may be of further assistance please feel free
to contact us.
Sincerely,
Richard Darden
Environmental Specialist
RD/ck
cc: M. Coleman
R. Adair
eis.off
-------
475
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta GA 30333
July 16, 1993
W. Bowman Crum
U.S. EPA
Coastal Programs Section
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Crum:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Located
Offshore Tampa, Florida. We are responding on behalf of the U.S. Public
Health Service.
^"e note that the ocean dumping alternative has beeri determined by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers as essential to meeting their obligations to maintain
navigation. Based on the information reviewed, we concur with the preferred
alternative. We understand that designation of an ODMDS by the Environmental
Protection Agency does not by itself authorize the disposal of dredged
material at that site. The need for ocean dumping must be demonstrated with
each permit application for ocean disposal. These procedures, along with
routine monitoring of potential impacts, should help ensure that impacts will
be minimized during the implementation of the proposed plans. Continued
monitoring is important because long-term effects of ocean dumping are the
most difficult to assess, therefore, adjustments to mitigation efforts may
need to be made in the future.
Although we were able to complete our review, we would like to mention that
the DEIS sent to us was missing the following information: (1) in the table
of contents, sections 3.1.4.2 through 4.3.6; and (2) pages ii, iv, and vi.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this docum nt. Please
ensure that we are included on your mailing list to receive a copy of the
Final EIS, and future EIS's which may indicate potential public health impact
and are developed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth W. Holt, M.S.E.H.
Special Programs Group (F29)
National Center for Environmental Health
-------
477
©fftce of tljc (Soterntfr
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001
STATE OF FLORIDA
Lawton Chiles
GOVERNOR
July 19, 1993
Mr. W. Bowman Crum
Water Management Division
Coastal Programs Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RF: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of an Ocean Dredge
Material Disposal Site Located Offshore Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida
SAI: FL9306170872C
Dear Mr. Crum:
The Florida State Clearinghouse is awaiting additional comments from our reviewing
environmental agencies, therefore, we are requesting an additional fifteen (15) days for
completion of the consistency review in accordance with 15 CFR 930.41 (b). Our reviewing
agencies have indicated that August 30, 1993 would be a more suitable completion date if
possible.
We will make every effort to conclude the review and forward comments to you on or
before August 30, 1993 if thij date meets with your approval.
Sincerely,
Janice L. Alcott
State Clearinghouse
JLA/bl
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:
ER 93/507
AUG 3 1993
Mr. W. Bowman Crum
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coastal Program Section
34 5 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Crum:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
designation of an ocean-dredged material disposal site offshore
Tampa, Florida. We have no comments to offer.
^hank you for th_ opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
-------
Y /
Punching Our Second Century
Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock
Company
9218 CYPRESS GREEN DRIVE
JACKSONVILLE. FL 32256
904-737 2739 • 600-223-4697
FAX 904-737-1815
August 2, 1993
Mr. Wesley B. Crumb
Chief of Coastal Program Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Embassy
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Subj: Offshore Dredge Material Disposal Site - Tampa
Dear Mr. Crumb:
We have read with interest your progress on designation of an
offshore disposal area for dredged material in the Gulf of Mexico.
As the nations largest dredging contractor, we can appreciate the
need for comprehensive studies of all issues involved with
selecting such a site. We would be pleased to provide any
technical or historical data relative to our operations for either
typical or unusual dredging applications. It is our belief that an
accurate portrayal of dredging processes alleviates much of the
negative concerns.
We also request that you place our name on your mailing list for
public information regarding plans for offshore disposal of dredge
materials from Tampa Bay.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (904) 737-2739.
•Sincerely,
'illiam H. Hanson
WHH/mt
------- |