FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
PORT ROYAL
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE DESIGNATION
Cooperating Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charleston District
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
Wesley B. Crum, Chief
Coastal Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia, 30303
(404)562-9352
-------
£PA lo*/- 0 «/
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PORT ROYAL
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE DESIGNATION
Cooperating Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charleston District
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
Wesley B. Crum, Chief
Coastal Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia, 30303
(404)562-9352
FOR THE
APPROVED BY:
! 9 M/xm Zoo1!
Date
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1
1.1 Major Conclusions and Findings 1
1.2 Benefits of Proposed Action 1
1.3 Areas of Controversy 1
1.4 Issues to Be Resolved 1
1.5 Relationship of Alternatives to Environmental Protection Statutes,
Executive Orders, and Other Requirements 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 2
2.1 Background 2
2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action 2
2.3 Need for the Proposed Action 3
2.4 Project Authority 3
3.0 ALTERNATIVES 4
3.1 Introduction 4
3.2 Selected Port Royal Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 4
3.3 No Action 6
3.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Study 7
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 7
4.1 Introduction 7
4.2 Geological Characteristics 8
4.3 Tides and Currents 9
4.4 Water Temperature 10
4.5 Salinity 10
4.6 Physical and Chemical Characteristics 10
4.7 Biological Characteristics 13
4.8 Threatened or Endangered Species 23
4.9 Essential Fish Habitat 25
4.10 Other Recreation 27
4.11 Shipping 27
4.12 Military Usage 27
4.13 Mineral Resources 27
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 28
5.1 Introduction 28
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Section Page
5.2 Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or
Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases
[40 CFR 228.6 9(a) 1] 28
5.3 Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas
[40 CFR 228.6 (a) 3] 28
5.4 Types and Quantities of Waste to be Disposal of and Proposed
Methods of Release, Including Methods of Packing the Waste,
If Any [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 4] 29
5.5 Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 5] 29
5.6 Dispersal, Horizontal Transport, and Vertical Mixing Characteristics
of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity,
If Any [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 6] 29
5.7 Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area (including cumulative effects) [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 7] 29
5.8 Interference With Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction,
Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special Scientific
Importance, and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean
[40 CFR 278.6(a) 8] 33
5.9 Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by
Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys
[40 CFR 228.6 (a) 9] 34
5.10 Potential for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in
the Proposed Disposal Site [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 10] 34
5.11 Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of Any Significant
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance
[40 CFR 228.6 (a) 11] 34
5.12 The Dumping of Materials into the Ocean Will be Permitted Only at Sites
Or in Areas Selected to Minimize the Interference of Disposal
Activities With Other Activities in the Marine Environment,
Particularly Avoiding Areas of Existing Fisheries or Shellfisheries,
and Regions of Heavy Commercial or Recreational Navigation
[40 CFR 228.5 (a)] 34
5.13 Locations and Boundaries of Disposal Sites Will Be So Chosen That
Temporary Perturbations in Water Quality or Other Environmental
Conditions During Initial Mixing Caused By Disposal Operations
Anywhere Within the Site Can Be Expected to Be Reached to Normal
Ambient Sea water Levels or to Undetectable Contaminant Concentrations
Or Effect Before Reaching Any Beach, Shoreline, Marine Sanctuary, or
Known Geographically Limited Fishery or Shellfishery
[40 CFR 228.5 (b)] 34
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Section Page
5.14 If, At Any time During or After Disposal Site Evaluation Studies,
It Is Determined that Existing Disposal Sites Presently Approved
On an Interim Basis for Ocean Dumping Do Not Meet the Criteria
For Site Selection Set Forth in Sections 228.5 and 228.6, the Use of
Such Sites Will Be Terminated As Soon As Alternate Disposal
Sites Can Be Designated [40 CFR 228.5 (c)] 35
5.15 The Sizes of Ocean Disposal sites Will Be Limited in Order to
Localize for Identification and Control Any Immediate Adverse
Impacts and Permit the Implementation of Effective Monitoring and
Surveillance Programs to Prevent Adverse Long-Range Impacts. The
Size, Configuration, and Location of Any Disposal Site Will Be
Determined as Part of the Disposal Site Evaluation or Designation
Study [40 CFR 228.5 (d)] 35
5.16 EPA Will, Wherever Feasible, Designate Ocean Dumping Sites Beyond
The Edge of the Continental Shelf and Other Such Sites That Have Been
Historically Used [40 CFR 228.5 (e)] 35
5.17 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 35
5.18 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 36
5.19 Environmental Justice 37
6.0 THE FOLLOWING CHART PRESENTS THE LIST OF PREPARERS 37
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 37
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
iv
REFERENCES
SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
TOTAL ABUNDANCE OF EACH SPECIES SAMPLED IN
THE PORT ROYAL ODMDS AND SURROUNDING AREA
DURING AUGUST 1997
LETTER TO INTERESTED PARTIES, SUMMARY OF
RESPONSES TO SCDNR SURVEY, MAILING LIST FROM
SCOPING OF AN EIS FOR THE DESIGNATION
OF THE OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE PORT ROYAL, SOUTH CAROLINA
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Relationship of Alternatives to Environmental Requirements 1
2 South Carolina State Ports Authority Monthly Tonnage at
Port Royal, South Carolina 3
3 Summary of the Specific Criteria as Applies to the Proposed
Port Royal Site 6
4 Summary of the Specific Criteria Under the No Action Alternative 8
5 Species List of Fishes and Macroinvertebrates Collected During
the Port Royal Sound Environmental Study (SCWRC, 1972) 14
6 Species Diversity Measures for Each Zone Within the Port Royal ODMDS 19
7 Federal Dredging History 32
8 Artificial Reefs and Wrecks in the Proposed ODMDS Vicinity 33
V
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 General Location Map of Proposed ODMDS Site 5
2 General Surface Current Rose for the Nearshore South Atlantic
Bight (adapted from Bureau of Land Management, 1981) 12
3 Mean Faunal Density 17
4 Density of the Five Most Abundant Overall Species in the Port Royal
ODMDS and Surrounding Areas 18
5 Mean Number of Species Collected in Grab Samples from the Disposal
Site and Surrounding Areas 20
6 Higher Taxonomic Composition in the Port Royal ODMDS and
Surrounding Area 21
7 Relative Abundance of Polychaetes, Molluscs, Amphipods, and Other Taxa
in the Disposal Site (DS) and Surrounding Area 22
8 Positions of Sites for the National Register of Historical Places, Artificial Reefs,
and Recreational Beaches in the Vicinity of Port Royal Sound (from Davis,
et al., 1980; South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Division,
Division of Recreational Fisheries) 30
9 State and Federal Parks, Refuges, and Wildlife Conservation Areas in the
Port Royal Sound Area (BLM, 1981; Davis, et al., 1980) 31
vi
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Major Conclusions and Findings. Investigations were conducted of the proposed Port Royal
ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) and of environmental amenities considered to be within
its zone of influence. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and their interactive effects were
analyzed. All information was compared with relevant provisions of Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), as amended. The conclusion is that the
designated site meets all evaluation criteria and is suitable for disposal of dredged material.
1.2 Benefits of Proposed Action. There is a lack of land disposal sites in the area for dredged
materials. Most nearby land is either privately owned or protected marshlands. Therefore, it is
beneficial to use a nearby ocean disposal site to dispose of materials dredged from Port Royal Harbor as
part of the ongoing maintenance of that resource.
1.3 Areas of Controversy. At this time, continued maintenance of Port Royal Harbor, South
Carolina, is warranted on the basis of project usage and indications of improved economic productivity.
In order for maintenance of the project to be continued, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
concurrence of the proposed Port Royal ODMDS will be required. Opportunities exist under sections
933 and 204 to provide beach nourishment for storm damage reduction and environmental restoration at
Hilton Head Island and Joiner Bank. Development of sections 933 and 204 projects will reduce
requirements to dispose of material in the Port Royal ODMDS and keep material in the littoral zone.
Ongoing efforts to establish sections 933 and 204 projects on Hilton Head Island and Joiner Bank are
continuing.
1.4 Issues to Be Resolved. No issues remain unresolved. Only dredged material suitable for ocean
disposal will be disposed in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS. The suitability of dredged material for
ocean disposal must be determined by the Corps of Engineers and concurred by EPA prior to disposal.
1.5 Relationship of Alternatives to Environmental Protection Statutes, Executive Orders, and
Other Requirements. Table 1 presents the status of the alternatives with environmental requirements.
Table 1. Relationship of Alternatives to Environmental Requirements
Categories
No
Action
Candidate
Site
Federal Statutes
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 USC 469, et seq., PL 93-291
F/C
F/C
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC 1987h-7, et seq., PL 91-604
F/C
F/C
Clean Water Act, as amended, (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 33 SC 1251, et seq., PL 92-500
N/A
N/A
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 USC 3501, et seq., PL 97-348
F/C
F/C
Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, 16 USC 1451, et seq., PL 92-583
TBD
TBD
Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 USC 1531, et seq., PL 93-205
F/C
F/C
Estuary Protection Act, 16 USC 1221, et seq., PL 90-454
N/A
N/A
Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, 16 USC 460-1(12), et seq., PL 89-72
F/C
F/C
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 USC 661, et seq., PL 85-624
N/A
F/C
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, 16 USC 4601-4601-11, et seq., PL 88-578
F/C
F/C
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, 16 USC 1801, et seq., PL 104-
208
F/C
F/C
Marine Mammal Protection Act 16 USC 1361, et seq., PL 92-522
F/C
F/C
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1401, et seq., PL 92-532
F/C
F/C
1
-------
Categories
No
Action
Candidate
Site
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 USC 470a, et seq., PL 89-655
F/C
F/C
National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 USC 4321, et seq., PL 91-190
F/C
F/C
Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 401, et seq.
F/C
F/C
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 USC 1001, et seq., PL 83-566
N/A
N/A
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 USC 1271, et seq., PL 90-542
N/A
N/A
Executive Orders
Floodplain Management (EO 11988)
N/A
N/A
Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990)
N/A
N/A
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514, as amended EO 11991)
F/C
F/C
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (EO 11593)
N/A
N/A
Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards
F/C
F/C
State Policies
South Carolina Coastal Management Program
TBD
TBD
F/C = Full Compliance. Having met all requirements of the statute, EO, or other environmental requirements
in the current stage of planning (either pre or post authorization).
N/A = Not applicable.
TBD = To be determined.
Source: G.E.C., Inc., 1999.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
2.1 Background. Construction of the Port Royal Harbor access channel consisting of a 24-foot
channel in the Beaufort River and Battery Creek, and a 27-foot turning basin at the head of Battery
Creek was completed in June 1956. Completion of the 27-foot entrance channel was completed in May
1959. Since then, the entrance channel to Port Royal shoals more frequently than Beaufort River or
Battery Creek. The entrance channel has been dredged nine times between 1980 and 2003. The Turning
Basin and Battery Creek have been dredged twice.
2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action. The economic importance of Port Royal Harbor is clear. The
port of Port Royal in the early 1990s saw a decline in tonnage. The lowest tonnage reported by the port
was in 1995, with a total tonnage of 62,760 tons. In 1995, the Ports Authority regained operational
control, and tonnage has increased. The commodities moved via Port Royal are comprised of cement,
clay, feldspar, and aggregate. Several long-term contracts have been put in place and these new
contracts and their associated tonnage are projected to make full utilization of the port. Existing and
historical tonnage by month from 1995 through 2002 is shown in Table 2.
2.2.1 Discontinuation of the dredging program would result in the port shoaling to 20 feet or less. If
this were to occur, the port users would have to develop alternate routes and in some cases, alternative
sources and/or distribution points for their commodities.
2
-------
Table 2. South Carolina State Ports Authority
Monthly Tonnage at Port Royal, South Carolina
Month
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
January
6,632
7,753
11,018
44,270
25,467
8,271
22,014
February
4,651
21,887
5,517
24,427
23,653
14,098
8,878
March
6,703
26,055
37,457
6,804
April
6,610
30,502
18,640
27,030
40,402
483
14,306
May
7,734
7,501
40,302
29,446
3,306
7,371
36,301
June
7,739
7,777
18,162
42,494
38,594
35,571
35,415
23,803
July
14,835
27,744
66,320
48,757
15,006
14,638
August
7,741
7,768
5,704
21,668
4,970
23,582
6,722
September
7,753
16,105
5,871
2,729
28,332
13,304
14,606
October
7,729
7,720
5,454
94,402
53,954
25,053
28,613
6,903
November
6,078
7,700
13,348
9,152
29,907
2,500
14,712
December
6,578
30,103
26,639
14,800
27,648
Total
62,760
73,793
117,132
335,821
373,567
284,525
149,710
154,087
2.3 Need for the Proposed Action. Besides commodity shipping, commercial fishing and
recreational vessels also utilize the harbor. The need has arisen for a permanently designated disposal
site for dredged materials in order to ensure future viability of Port Royal Harbor through continued
dredging maintenance of its access channels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in its
dredging maintenance operations for the harbor, as well as USACE permitted private enterprises, such
as marinas and other commercial interests utilizing the harbor and channels, need an ocean disposal site
for dredged materials that is available on a long-term basis for future planning. The need for an ocean
disposal site has resulted from the extreme limitation and economic unfeasibility of upland disposal sites
available in the Port Royal area, and the limitations of nearshore disposal due to the existence of salt
marshes.
2.4 Project Authority. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended,
requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for major Federal actions that may
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This EIS has been prepared to fulfill the
NEPA requirements of the EPA and the USACE. This EIS complies with EPA's policy to prepare EISs
(30 FR 16186, May 7, 1984) as part of the ODMDS process under Section 102 of the MPRSA of 1972,
as amended. This EIS will also satisfy the requirements for NEPA documentation relating to permitting
under Section 103 of the MPRSA.
2.4.1 The dumping of all types of materials into ocean waters is regulated by the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Section 102 of the Act authorizes the EPA to designate sites
for ocean disposal pursuant to criteria established in this section. EPA's site designation does not, by
itself, authorize any dredging or dumping of dredged material. EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations
3
-------
and Criteria, as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 227 (40 CFR Part 227)
establishes procedures and criteria for selection and management of ocean disposal sites and evaluation
of permits. USACE regulations for the issuance of permits for the transport of dredged material for the
purpose of disposal in ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA are found at 33 CFR Part
324. USACE regulations for Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects involving the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. or the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of disposal into ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of MPRSA are found at 33 CFR Parts 335-338.
This discussion is derived from the Technical Framework (EPA 1992) for evaluating environmental
effects of dredged material management alternatives, the national guidance (EPA/CE 1991), and the
regional guidance (EPA/CE 1993), which provide guidance in the decision-making process and the use
of test data in decision-making.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Introduction. The proposed action is the final designation of an environmentally and
economically acceptable ocean disposal site offshore of Port Royal, South Carolina. The designation of
an ocean dredged material disposal site does not preempt any other disposal options but does ensure that
an ocean disposal option is available.
3.2 Selected Port Royal Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. The proposed site is shown in
Figure 1. The proposed Port Royal Ocean Disposal Site has an average depth of 36.0 feet with an area
of approximately 1.0 square miles. Previous concerns expressed by the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources (SCDNR) regarding the potential of live bottoms being located in the near vicinity of
the site were addressed during field investigations conducted by the EPA and SCDNR. In 1997; the
EPA recommended that the following coordinates be utilized for determining site location:
32° 05.00' N and 080° 36.47' W
32° 05.00' N and 080° 35.30' W
32° 04.00' N and 080° 35.30' W
32° 04.00' N and 080° 36.47' W
3.2.1 The proposed site meets the general criteria for selection as set forth in Section 228.5 of EPA's
Final Revision of Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR Part 228.5) of January 11, 1977.
3.2.2 The selected site also meets the 11 specific ocean disposal site criteria set forth in
40 CFR Part 228.6 (see Sections 5.4 through 5.21 and Table 3 of this document). This site has been
used, without evidence of environmental degradation, since 1980. Sediments of the selected site are
compatible with sediments from the Port Royal Harbor Entrance Channel, the materials most likely to be
disposed at the site (see Section 5.8 for a description of materials coming from the harbor). This site is
also suitable in terms of practicality and economic feasibility.
4
-------
;=•>*» . .
ilsit" ivsai-^
— -'-js®-
^T^^TTT^T:/ ,,J
Figure 1
Page 5
5
-------
Table 3. Summary of the Specific Criteria as Applied to
The Proposed Port Royal Site
Criteria as Listed in 40 CFR 228.6(a)
Proposed Port Royal Site
1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography and
distance from coast.
See Figure 1. Depths at the site average about 36 feet. The site is located on
the continental shelf. The site lies about 7.9 nmi from shore.
2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
None concentrated in or restricted to the proposed disposal site. Most
breeding, spawning, nursery, and feeding activities take place in coastal waters
or at reef areas located shoreward of the site. Passage through the proposed
ODMDS is not geographically restricted.
3. Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
The proposed site is located approximately 7.9 nmi from coastal beaches and
protected inshore waters.
4. Types and quantities of waste proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the waste,
if any.
The only material to be disposed in the proposed ODMDS will be dredged
material that complies with the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR
220-229).
S. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
A Site Management & Monitoring Plan has been developed for the proposed
Port Royal ODMDS.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any.
The nearshore areas of the South Atlantic Bight (SAB) are sufficiendy shallow
for the entire water column to behave as an Ekman surface layer, with bottom
and coastal boundary frictional effects, suggesting that bottom currents in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed ODMDS may be determined primarily by
wind stress. Tidal fluctuations are also important in determining bottom
currents in nearshore areas, and the contributions of these components has not
been reported for this area. The bottom currents were measured on the mid-
continental shelf of the SAB and found that currents there were dominated by
the local semi-diurnal tides. Another study reported that bottom currents in
the nearshore area were southerly during 60 percent of the year. Dredged
material dispersion studies have not been conducted for this site.
7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).
Two ODMDSs have been used since initial construction of the Entrance
Channel in 1959. The north ODMDS, located in an area with water depths of
less than 20 feet, has not been used since 1979 as the area became too shallow
for dredged material disposal. With water depth of 35 + feet, the south
ODMDS was last used in 1996 when 475,413 cubic yards of material was
removed from the Entrance Channel. No adverse impacts have been noted.
8. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction,
fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance, and
other legitimate uses of the ocean.
No significant interference is anticipated
9. The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by
available data, or by trend assessment or baseline surveys.
Water quality at the proposed ODMDS is variable and is influenced by
discharges from inshore systems and infrequent ocean intrusions.
Investigations have reported on the circulation of the inner continental shelf of
the SAB. Findings suggest that nearshore circulation is primarily influenced
by atmospheric conditions, and to a lesser extent by tidal cycles. Therefore,
nearshore surface currents are derived primarily from wind stress, and are
subject to extreme variability. Water and sediment samples collected from the
proposed disposal site and vicinity from the early 1970s through 1997 did not
contain elevated concentrations of pesticides, pesticide derivatives, trace
metals, PCB, or HMW hydrocarbons. The site supports a benthic and
epibenthic fauna characteristic of the continental shelf habitat.
10. Polential for the development of nuisance species in the disposal
site.
No evidence of undesirable organisms at the site noted. Disposal should not
recruit or promote the development of nuisance species.
11. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant
natural or cultural features of historical importance.
No known features.
Source: G.E.C., Inc., 1999.
3.3 No Action. The No Action alternative would not provide USACE and permittees under Section
103 of MPRSA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act a designated disposal site. Under Section
103 authority, the USACE, with EPA concurrence, has temporarily designated the proposed ODMDS
for continued maintenance and for use by several permittees. Without the Port Royal ODMDS some
private marina operators and other commercial interests with the need for marine docking facilities may
6
-------
not be able to afford the maintenance dredging that is periodically necessary to maintain operating water
depth for their activities. The USACE would also incur significantly increased costs in the disposal of
materials dredged during routine maintenance of navigation channels serving Port Royal Harbor due to
increased shipping distances to other ocean disposal sites or distant upland disposal sites.
3.3.1 This alternative may result in economic hardships placed on Port Royal commercial and private
users and create delays in maintenance dredging of the navigation channels by USACE. With the No
Action Alternative, it is estimated that sedimentation would result in shoaling of the port to 20 feet or
less.
3.3.2 As indicated in Table 4, the No Action Alternative does not completely meet the criteria
established by 40 CFR Part 228.6.
3.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Study. In the past, there have been
two ocean disposal sites with interim designation associated with Port Royal Harbor. These two sites
were designated "north" and "south" ODMDS sites. However, the nearshore or north site has an
average depth of only 14 feet. The EPA has determined that this depth is insufficient to serve as an
ODMDS. Therefore, the north ODMDS has been eliminated from further study and consideration.
3.4.1 The option of transporting dredged material to sites off the continental shelf for disposal was
considered, but this option offered no clear environmental advantage over the proposed ODMDS. There
have been fewer studies of the benthic habitat off-shelf than in areas similar to the proposed ODMDS;
therefore, less is known about the potential impacts that may occur at off-shelf sites. Also, due to
increased distances from Port Royal, utilization of off-shelf sites would result in increased shipping times
and costs. For these reasons, the option of utilizing off-shelf sites for disposal of dredged materials was
eliminated from further study.
3.4.2 Land disposal sites were also considered. However, the volume of dredged material that will be
generated is expected to be in excess of what is considered economically feasible to be transported to
even the nearest potential land disposal site. Therefore, the alternative of disposal of the dredged
material on land was dropped from further consideration.
3.4.3 Utilizing dredged sand for shore protection remains a viable consideration. However, there are
specific requirements for Federal participation in shore protection projects, including the presence of
sufficient public parking and beach access within one-quarter mile of any particular shore. Publicly-
owned beaches which are limited to use by residents of a community or group of communities are not
considered to be open to the general public and are treated as private beaches. Therefore, previous
locations which have been studied for placement of sand from the entrance channel have either not met
the Federal requirements, have not needed additional sand, or have been unwilling to contribute the
funding necessary for transportation of the dredged material to the shore.
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Introduction. This section describes the environmental characteristics of the area potentially
affected by the continued disposal of dredged materials at the Port Royal Harbor ODMDS. A general
location map of the area is presented in Figure 1.
7
-------
Table 4. Summary of the Specific Criteria Under
The No Action Alternative
Criteria as Listed in 40 CFR 228.6(a)
No Action Alternative
1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom
topography and distance from coast.
Other sites considered are either closer to shore in shallower
waters or further offshore in deeper waters. These sites were
eliminated from further study.
2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult or
juvenile phases.
Other sites considered may be nearer to breeding, spawning,
nursery, and feeding activities that take place in coastal waters
or reef areas than the proposed ODMDS. Passage through these
various sites should not be geographically restricted.
3. Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
Some of the various sites utilized will likely be nearer than 7.9
~mi from coastal beaches and protected inshore waters.
4. Types and quantities of waste proposed to be disposed
of, and proposed methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste, if any.
The only material to be disposed in the ODMDS will be dredged
material that complies with the EPA Ocean Dumping
Regulations (40 CFR 220-229)
5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
A Site Management Plan has been developed for the proposed
disposal site.
6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any.
Although some related studies have been conducted for the area,
no dredged material disposal site dispersion studies have been
conducted for the alternative sites.
7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges
and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).
Thus far, no adverse effects, including cumulative effects, have
been noted for the ODMDSs that have been utilized.
8. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special
scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the
ocean.
Currently no significant interference has occurred. However,
without a designated Port Royal ODMDS, future sites utilized
may potentially interfere with shipping, fishing, recreation, or
other legitimate uses of the ocean.
9. The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data, or by trend assessment or
baseline surveys.
Specific water quality and ecological studies have not been
conducted for the alternative sites.
10. Potential for the development of nuisance species in the
disposal site.
Although disposal of dredged material should not recruit or
promote the development of nuisance species, no such studies
have been conducted at the alternative sites
11. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical
importance.
Prior to disposal at any of the alternative sites, additional studies
will be necessary to survey the areas for significant natural or
cultural resources.
Source: G.E.C., Inc., 1999.
The information contained in this chapter was drawn from previous reports by SCDNR in 1986 and 1999
and the US ACE in 1997. These reports are listed in Appendix A and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
4.2 Geological Characteristics. Two ODMDSs have been used since initial construction of the
Entrance Channel in 1959. The north ODMDS is located approximately seven miles offshore from Bay
Point Island and contains approximately 413 acres (approximately 0.45 square nautical miles). The
south ODMDS is near the end of the authorized project about 12 miles offshore of Bay Point Island and
contains approximately 918 acres (approximately 1.0 square nautical mile). Location of the ODMDSs
relative to the authorized project and Bay Point Island are shown in Figure 1.
8
-------
4.2.1 The north ODMDS, located in an area with water depths of less than 20 feet, has not been used
since 1979 because the area has become too shallow for a hopper dredge. With water depths of
35 + feet, the south ODMDS has been altered from a rectangle to the proposed square disposal site as
shown on Figure 1. It was last used for disposal of material from the entrance channel in 2003 when
approximately 100,000 cubic yards of material were placed at the proposed disposal site following
coordination with EPA. With a limiting depth of 30 feet, the south ODMDS had an original capacity of
17 million cubic yards (MCY). The site is currently 27 percent filled and has an estimated remaining
useful life of 50 years.
4.2.2 Both the north and south ODMDSs previously received interim approval by the EPA for
dumping of dredged material. Section 506(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA
92) amended Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as follows:
"Beginning on January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to this Act or authorization for
dumping under Section 103(e) of this Act shall be issued for a site unless such site has received a final
designation pursuant to this subsection or an alternative site has been selected pursuant to Section
103(b)." Therefore, effective 1 January 1997, disposal of dredged material could no longer be placed in
the south ODMDS until it receives EPA designation.
4.2.3 In 1988, seven samples were collected from within the Port Royal Entrance Channel by Olsen
Associates, Inc. and were analyzed for grain size distribution. Data indicated that the material should be
classified as either SP or SM. SP and SM are symbols of the Unified Soil Classification System used to
describe sand. SP describes poorly graded clean sand and SM describes silty sands, both of which have
more than 50% of the coarse fraction passing the M sieve. Additionally, samples were also collected
within the navigation channel in 1995 by Olsen Associates, Inc. and again, were analyzed for grain size
distribution. The associated report indicates that samples were composed of a predominance of gray,
well-graded fine quartz sand with some shell fragments and very few fines. All sediments sampled
within the entrance channel were classified as SP. The percent fines varied from 0.3 to 4.0 with an
average of 0.8.
4.2.4 The sediments at the proposed Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area were predominately
comprised of medium to fine-grained sands (mean = 83 percent) mixed with moderate amounts of shell
hash (mean = 13 percent) and small amounts of silt and clay (mean = 4 percent). The sand component
was, on average, moderately to moderately well sorted with mean phi values ranging from 0.9-2.6 (mean
= 2.2). The organic matter found at the site and surrounding area was not significantly different (mean
= 1.5).
4.2.5 Sediment composition varied significantly at the surrounding areas. Areas to the east and south
had significantly lower sand content and higher shell hash content than other areas (<0.05 p). The
proposed ODMDS site and surrounding areas to the east and south also had significantly greater sand
grain sizes than the proposed ODMDS and areas to the north and west (<0.05 p) (Jutte, et al., 1999).
4.3 Tides and Currents. The direction and speed of oceanic currents in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed Port Royal ODMDSs have not been reported, but general circulation of shelf waters in this
region has been reported by numerous investigators (Atkinson, 1975, 1976; Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), 1981; Mathews, et al., 1980; Mathews and Passhuk, 1977, 1982; Schwing, et al.,
1983; Science Applications, Inc. 1981a,b; Texas Instruments, Inc., 1978). In addition, recent
investigations have reported on the circulation of the inner continental shelf of the South Atlantic Bight
(SAB) (Lee and Brooks, 1979; Lee and Atkinson, 1983; Schwing, et al., 1983). Their findings suggest
that nearshore surface circulation is primarily influenced by atmospheric conditions, and to a lesser
9
-------
extent by tidal cycles. Therefore, nearshore surface currents are derived primarily from wind stress, and
are subject to extreme variability. A general surface current rose for the mid-shelf currents off
Savannah, Georgia, is presented in Figure 2.
4.3.1 Stapor and Murali (1978) reported littoral drift along Hilton Head Island to be predominantly
southwestward with a northeastward drift occurring in the spring and summer months. This coincides
with the reports of Bruun (1985), BLM (1981), and others for nearshore currents in the Port Royal
Sound area. Science Applications, Inc. (1981a) found that nearshore surface currents were alongshore to
the southwest 60 percent of the year.
4.3.2 According to Schwing, et al. (1983), the nearshore areas of the SAB (<20m depth) are
sufficiently shallow for the entire water column to behave as an Ekman surface layer, with bottom and
coastal boundary frictional effects complicating the current patterns. These surface layers respond to
wind stress within a few hours, suggesting that bottom currents in the immediate vicinity of the
ODMDSs may be determined primarily by wind stress. Tidal fluctuations are also important in
determining bottom currents in nearshore areas, and the contribution of these components has not been
reported for this area. Butman, el al. (1977) measured bottom currents on the mid-continental shelf of
the SAB and found that currents there were dominated by the local semi-diurnal tides. Another study
(MMS, 1983) reported that bottom currents in the nearshore area were southerly during 60 percent of
the years.
4.4 Water Temperature. Average surface water temperature in the vicinity of Port Royal sound
ranges from 13°C in February to 28°C in August (Mathews and Pashuk, 1977, 1982). Temperatures in
the proposed Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding areas ranged among areas and depths from 27.82 to
28.42°C. The disposal site displayed the greatest range in temperature between surface and bottom
values (0.60°C) (Jutte, et al., 1999).
4.5 Salinity. Surface salinities in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS areas fluctuate only slightly
over a tidal cycle due to low river discharge into the Port Royal Sound. Average salinities within the
Sound are reported in the Port Royal Sound Environmental Study (SCWRC, 1972). Mathews and
Pashuk (1977, 1982) reported surface salinities in the area ranging from 31 to 36 ppt during 1973 and
1974. They also found bottom salinities in the nearshore area to parallel surface salinities. Their
findings correspond to those found by others during the same time frame. Salinity values in the
proposed Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area ranged from 33.28 to 34.56 ppt (Jutte, et al., 1999).
The most variation between surface and bottom measurements within the surrounding area (0.80 ppt)
was found at the area west of the proposed ODMDS.
4.6 Physical and Chemical Characteristics. Chemical and physico-chemical water quality
parameters that are relevant to the proposed Port Royal ODMDS evaluation include dissolved oxygen
(DO), suspended solids, turbidity, trace metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and high
molecular weight (HMW) hydrocarbons.
4.6.1 During the Port Royal Sound Environmental Study (SCWRC, 1972) water quality data were
collected from April through October 1970. The study included analysis of water samples for dissolved
oxygen, pH, dissolved solids, suspended solids, phosphates, nitrates, nitrites, pesticides, and heavy
metals. Analyses for pesticides and metals were also conducted on sediment samples taken in the sound
and rivers. The chemical quality of the waters of Port Royal Sound was generally good. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the Colleton River dropped below the 5.0 mg/1 South Carolina standard during
July 1970 without the influence of anthropogenic pollution. Low river discharge and oxygen-demanding
10
-------
material from peripheral marsh was cited as the causes. Comparison of the nitrogen and phosphorus
data indicated that concentrations of inorganic nitrogen were frequently undetectable, while significant
quantities of phosphorus (0.02 to 0.09 mg/1) were present. Nitrogen is apparently the major nutrient
limiting primary production. Analysis for heavy metals in solution showed levels of mercury, cadmium,
and other toxic metals to be below the detection limits of the method employed throughout the study.
Analysis for heavy metals in sediments showed cadmium to be less than 0.5 mg/kg throughout the study
and mercury levels to be less than 0.04 mg/kg. Pesticides also remained below detection limits
throughout the study.
11
-------
Figure 2
12
-------
4.6.2 The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has monitored
several sampling stations in the Port Royal Sound area, three of which were in the immediate vicinity of
the dredged channel areas. Data for sediment analysis of samples collected at these sites showed that
PCBs remained below 0.01 mg/kg from 1982 through 1985. In addition, mercury remained below 0.3
mg/kg and cadmium remained below 1.3 mg/kg dry weights. Analysis for these constituents in the
water column showed negligible concentrations. It appears from these data that water quality in Port
Royal Sound remains good and has not degraded since the Port Royal Sound Environmental Study of
1970. It also appears that sediment dredged from Port Royal Sound is free of organic and metal
pollutants.
4.6.3 Dissolved oxygen in nearshore waters off South Carolina was recorded over a 50-year period by
Churgin and Hdminski (1974). Values ranged from 3.8 to 6.1 ml/1, the highest average concentrations
observed during the winter and lowest average concentrations occurring during summer. In the vicinity
of Port Royal Sound the dissolved oxygen concentrations in surface waters ranged from 4.42 ml/1 in July
to 5.66 ml/1 in December during 1973 and 1974 (Atkinson, 1975, 1976). These findings agree with
those of Mathews and Pashuk (1978, 1982) for the same general area and period of time. Bottom
dissolved oxygen concentrations were found to parallel surface concentrations in the nearshore waters.
4.6.4 Dissolved oxygen values in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area ranged from
5.40-5.86 mg/1 (mean = 5.6). The most variation between surface and bottom measurements within the
surrounding area (0.08) was found at the area west of the proposed ODMDS (Jutte, el al, 1999).
4.6.5 According to Jutte, et al. (1999), trace metal concentrations found at the proposed Port Royal
ODMDS were below published bioeffect levels. No PAH, PCB, or pesticide contaminants were
detected in any of the samples analyzed. However, it was noted that the detection levels for most
organic analyses were above the published bioeffect levels. As a result, the report states that the disposal
site and surrounding areas have not been adequately assessed for the presence of organic contaminants
that could adversely affect biological resources.
4.6.6 There appears to be no pesticide data available for the Port Royal Sound area, but Atkinson
(1975, 1976) and Atkinson (1978) monitored nutrient concentrations (nitrates and phosphates), dissolved
organic carbon, and dissolved mercury concentrations in the shelf waters near Port Royal Sound during
1973 and 1974. Average phosphate concentrations ranged from 0.09 jj.g-at/1 in April to 0.48 (ig-at/l in
December. Average concentrations ranged from 0.02 jj.g-at/1 in September to 1.40 (j.g-at/1 in December.
Average dissolved organic carbon remained relatively constant throughout their study period. Average
dissolved mercury concentrations ranged from 22.8 ng/1 in September 1973 to 92.0 ng/1 in April 1974.
Average particulate organic carbon ranged from 0.196 mg C/l in September to 0.368 mg C/l in July
1974. Finally, average particulate nitrogen concentrations ranged from 33.8 \ig N/1 in September 1973
to 24.0 jig N/1 in December 1973, increasing again in the spring (27.0 (jg N/1) and summer (32.0 jag
N/1).
4.7 Biological Characteristics. The biological communities addressed in this section are the benthic
macroinfauna, benthic meiofauna, epibenthic invertebrates, and fish. Species of special concern that
may utilize the proposed ODMDS vicinity are also addressed. Biota restricted to the benthic
environment are of principal concern in disposal site investigations. Disposal impacts on planktonic
communities are generally considered to be temporary, while larger, motile organisms (nekton) are able
to avoid disposal operations and localized areas of poor water quality.
13
-------
4.7.1 The Port Royal Sound Environmental Study (SCWRC, 1972) provided an intensive baseline
study of the biological resources present within Port Royal Sound. The report includes data on gross
ecological characteristics of the sound as well as detailed descriptions of individual components such as
phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, vascular marsh plants, and fish. The only data
presented here is a species list in Table 5. A more complete listing of fauna and flora present in Port
Royal Sound has not been published; however, it is clear that Table 5 does not provide a complete list of
all species likely present in the sound, especially with respect to the invertebrates.
Table 5. Species List of Fishes and Macroinvertebrates Collected During the
Port Royal Sound Environmental Study (SCWRC, 1972).
Fishes
Acipenseridae - sturgeons
Opisthonema oglinum - Atlantic thread herring
Acipenser oxyrhynchus - Atlantic sturgeon
Cynoglossidae - tonguefishes
Anguillidae — freshwater eels
Symphurus plagiusa - blackcheek tonguefish
knguilla rostrata - American eel
Cypinodontidae - killifishes
Antherinidae - silversides
Cyprinodon variagatus - sheepshead minnow
Membras martinica - rough silverside
Fundulus heteroclitus - mummichog
Menidia menidia - Atlantic silverside
Fundulus majalis - striped killifish
Ariidae - sea catfishes
Dasyatidae - stingrays
Bagre marinus - gafftopsail catfish
Dasyatis americana - southern stingray
Galeichthys felis - sea catfish
Dasyatis sagina - Atlantic stingray
Balistidae - triggerfishes and filedfishes
Dasyatis sayi - southern stingray
Alutera schoepfi - orange filefish
Gymnura micrura - butterfly ray
Monocanthus hispidus - planehead filefish
Diodontidae - porcupine fishes
Monocanthus setifer - pygmy filefish
Chilomycterus schoepfi - striped burrfish
Stephanolephis hispidus - triggerfish
Echeneidae - remoras
Batrachoididae - toadfishes
Echeneis naucrales - sharksucker
Opsanus tau - oyster toadfish
Elopidae - tarpons
Belonidae - needlefishes
Elops saurus - ladyfish
Strongylura marina - Atlantic needlefish
Megalops atlantica - tarpon
Blenniidae - combtooth blennies
Engraulidae - anhovies
Hypsoblennius hentzi - feather blenny
Anchoa hepsetus - striped anchovy
Bothidae - lefteye flounders
Anchoa mitchilli - bay anchovy
Ancylopsetta quadrocellaia - ocellated
flounder
Ephippidae — spadefishes
Citharichthys spilopeterus - bay whiff
Chaetodipterus faber - Atlantic spadefish
Etropus crossotus - fringed flounder
Gadidaae - codfishes and hakes
Paralichthys albigutta - Gulf flounder
Urophycis regius - spotted hake
Paralichthys dentatus - summer flounder
Urophycis tenuis - white hake
Paralichthys lethostigma - southern flounder
Gerreidae - mojarras
Paralichthys squamilentus - broad flounder
Eucinostomus argenteus - spotted hake
Scophthalmus aquosus - window pane flounder
Eucinosiomus gula - silver jenny
Carangidae - jacks, scads, and pompanos
Gobiesocidae
Caranx hippos - crevalle jack
Gobiesox strumosus - cling-fish
Caranx latus - horse-eye jack
Gobiidae - gobies
Chloroscombrus chrysurus - bumper
Gobiosoma bosci - naked goby
14
-------
Oligoplites saurus - leatherjacket
Microgobius gulosus - clown goby
Selene vomer - lookdown
Microgobius thalassinus - green goby
Trachinotus carolinus - Florida pampano
Hemiramphiade - halfbeaks
Trachinotus falcatus - round pampano
Hyporhamphus unifasciatus - halfbeak
Trachinotus goodei - great pampano
Labridae
Vomer setapinnus - Atlantic moonfish
Halichoeres bivittatus - wrasse fish
Carcharhinidae - requiem sharks
Lepisosteidae - gars
Apriondon isodon - finetooth shark
Lepisosteus osseus - longnose gar
Negaprion brevirostris - lemon shark
Lutjanidae - snappers
Clupeidae — herrings
Lutjanus grisseus - grey snapper
Alosa aestivalis - summer herring
Mugilidae — mullets
Brevoortia tyrannus - Atlantic menhaden
Mugil cephalus - striped mullet
Dorosoma cepedianum - gizzard shad
Mugil curema - white mullet
Ophichthidae - snake eels
Syngnathus louisianae ~ chain pipefish
Ophichthus gomesi - sea serpent (shrimp eels)
Synodontidae - lizardfishes
Ophidiidae - cusk-eels
Synodus foetans - inshore lizardfish
Rissola marginata - striped cusk-eel
Tetraodontidae - puffers
Poecilidae - livebearers
Sphoeroides maculatus - northern puffer
Poecilia letipinna - sailfin molly
Trichiuridae - cutlassfishes
Pomadasyidae - grunts
Trichiurus lepturus - Atlantic cutlassfish
Orthopristis chrysopterus - pigfish
Triglidae - searobins
Pomatomidae - bluefishes
Prionotus carolinus - northern searobin
Pomatomus saltatrix — bluefish
Prionotus scitulus - leopard searobin
Rajidae - skates
Prionotus tribulus - searrobin
Raja eglanteria clearnose skate
Uranoscopidae - stargazers
Rhinobatidae - guitarfishes
Astroscopus y-graecum - southern stargazer
Rhinobatos lentiginosis - Atlantic guitarfish
Macroinvertebrates
Sciaenidae - drums
Class Pelecypoda
Bairdiella chrysura - silver perch
Crassostrea virginica - Atlantic oyster
Cynoscion nebulosus - spotted seatrout
Modiolus demissus - Atlantic ribbed mussel
Cynoscion nothus - bastard weakfish
Mercenaria mercenaria - hard shell clam
Cynoscion regalis - weakfish
Class Gastropoda
Larimus fasciatus - banded drum
Littorina irrorata - common marsh periwinkle
Leiostomus xanthurus - spot
Meealamnus lineatus - snail
Menticirrhus americanus - sand whiting
Nassarius obsoleta - eastern mud snail
Menticirrhus littoralis - surf whiting
Class Asteroidea
Menticirrhus saxatilis - northern kingfish
Asterias fobesi - starfish
Micropogon undulatus - Atlantic croaker
Luidia sp. - starfish
Pogonias cromis - black drum
Class Cephalopoda
Sciaenops ocellata - red drum
Loligo sp. - squid
Stellifer lanceolatus - star drum
Loliguncula brevis - squid
Scombridae - mackerels and tunas
Class Merostomata
Scomberomorus maculatus - Spanish mackerel
Limulus polyphemus - horseshoe crab
Serranidae - sea basses
Class Polychaeta
Centropristis striata - black sea bass
Diopatra cupred
15
-------
Soleidae - soles
Goniada maculata
Trinectes maculatus - American sole
Glycera dibranchiata
Sparidae - porgies
Laeonereis culveri
Archosargus probatocephalus - sheepshead
Lumbrinereis tenuis
Lagodon rhomboides - sailor's choice
Nereis succinea
Sphyraenidae - barracudas
Phyllodoce fragilis
Sphyraena barracuda - great barracuda
Scoloplos fragilis
Sphyrnidae - hammerhead sharks
Class Crustacea
Sphyma lewini - scalloped hammerhead
Callinectes ornatus - swimming crab
Sphyrna tiburo - bonnethead shark
Callinectes sapidus - blue crab
Squalidae - sharks
Cancer irroratus - cancer crab
Squalus acanthias - dogfish shark
Chthamalus fragilis - barnacle
Stromateidae - butterfishes
Clibanarius vittatus - hermit crab
Peprilus alepidotus - southern harvestfish
Cyathura carinata - marine Isopod
Peprilus triacanthus - butterfish
Eurypanopeus depressus - hermit crab
Poronotus triacanthus - butterfish
Libinia dubia - spider crab
Syngnathidae - pipefishes and seahorses
Menippe mercenaria - stone crab
Hippocampus erectus - seahorse
Pagurus spp. - hermit crab
Syngnathus fuscus - common pipefish
Palaemonetes spp. - grass shrimp
Panopeus herbstii - mud crab
Squilla empusa - mantis shrimp
Penaeus aztecus - brown shrimp
Talorchestia longicornis - beach flea
Penaeus duorarum - brown spotted shrimp
Trachypenaeus constrictus - shrimp
Penaeus setiferous - white shrimp
Uca pugilator - sand fiddler crab
Sesarma cinereum - wharf crab
Uca pugnax - mud fiddler crab
Sesarma reticulatum - square back crab
Upogebia affinis - burrowing shrimp
Source: G.E.C., Inc., 1999.
4.7.2 An Assessment ofBenthic Infaunal Assemblages and Sediments in the Vicinity of the Port Royal
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site was conducted in 1997 (Jutte, et al., 1999). Benthic invertebrate,
sediment, and contaminant samples were collected using a stratified random sampling design. Two areas
(disposal site and border areas) formed five discrete sampling zones. The central disposal site (DS) was
surrounded by a border area to the north (BN), south (BS), east (BE), and west (BW). AH sampling
areas were comparable in size, approximately 1.3 square miles.
4.7.3 More than 25,000 individuals representing 385 taxa were collected from the 50 stations sampled.
Mean faunal densities ranged from over 4,000 individuals/m2 to more than 20,000 individuals/m2
(Figure 3). Disposal site faunal abundance values were not significantly different from the BN, BW, or
BE zones, although significantly fewer organisms were found at the disposal site than the BS zone. The
five overall most abundant organisms collected were the annelid Polygordius sp., the bivalve Ervilia
concentrica, the polychaete Prionospio cristata, annelids in the class Oligochaeta, and the bivalve
Crassinella lunulata (Figure 4). These five taxa made up over 40 percent of the total number of
individuals collected. The most abundant organism in the BS zone was Ervilia concentrica. Polygordius
sp. was the most abundant organism in the BE, BW zones and disposal site, and the mollusk Tellina sp.
was most common in the BN zone. A complete listing of all taxa, including abundance per zone and
overall abundance, is presented in Appendix C.
16
-------
23963
Figure 3. A. Mean faunal density per m2 at the disposal site and
surrounding areas.
B. Results of post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test.
Overlapping circles represent the degree that means are
different from each other. Circles that do not overlap are
significantly different (p<0.5). (Jutte, efc al., 1999).
-------
14000 r
;
12000 •
„ 10000
E
§_ 8OQ0
¦5 6000
c
D 4000
2QDO
0
BM
! ~ Crassinelto tun uSaca ;
¦ Cigochaeta
¦ P.nbnospjo cristate
¦ ErAUa ccnccntncQ
is Polyga diui sp.
BW
DS
Figure 4. Density of the five most abundant overall species in the
Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding areas. (Jutte, efc al.,
1999) .
-------
4.7.4 The benthic assemblages found in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding zones were
diverse, with the mean number of species per grab (0.04 m2) ranging from 40 to 87 species. The mean
number of species collected per grab showed significant differences among the zones sampled (Figure 5).
Significantly fewer species were collected in the DS zone than the BE and BS zones, but there were no
significant differences between the DS zone and the BN or BW zones. Diversity indices also showed
some variability among zones (Table 6). Species richness was highest in the BE and BS zones, and the
highest diversity value was found in the BE zone. Evenness was highest in the BN zone. Diversity
indices at the disposal site and the BW zone were identical.
Table 6. Species Diversity Measures for Each Zone Within the Port Royal
ODMDS. Each Zone Contains 10 Replicate Samples. H1 = Shannon-
Weiner Index (Calculated with Log Base 2); J1 = Evenness = H'/Hmax,
Where Hmax = In (# of taxa in sample). The Margalef Index is Used for
Species Richness: R = Total Number of Species in Community - 1/In (sample size)
Mean Number
Number of
Species
Zone
of Species
Individuals
H1
J1
Richness
BE
84.6
6,562
5.9
0.73
31.5
BN
39.5
1,765
5.4
0.78
16.3
BS
87.1
9,585
5.1
0.64
27.9
BW
67.9
3,950
5.8
0.74
27.2
DS
52.1
3,377
5.8
0.74
27.2
Source: Jutte, et al., 1999.
4.7.5 Cluster analysis of the station groups, formed by similarities in species composition and
abundance, indicated that zones BE and BS were very similar, as were zones BW and DS. Zones BE,
BS, BW, and DS were more similar to one another than to the outlier, the BN zone.
4.7.6 The overall composition of the fauna with respect to major taxonomic groups represented in the
Port Royal ODMDS study is shown in figures 6 and 7. Assemblages present in zones BE, BN, and BS
were dominated by polychaetes and mollusks, with high concentrations of the spionid Prionospio cristata
found in these zones. At the disposal site and BW zone, organisms falling in the "other taxa" category
were the most abundant, predominately the annelids Polygordius sp. and Oligochaeta, and tanaids in the
family Apseudidae.
4.7.7 Polychaete abundances in the BS zone were significantly greater than abundances in the disposal
site and zones BW and BN. Abundances of species in the "other taxa" category at the disposal site were
significantly greater than abundances found in the BN zone, but significantly lower than abundances
found in the BS zone. Mollusk abundances in the disposal site were not significantly different from any
other area sampled, although significant differences in mollusk abundance values occurred among the
other zones. No significant differences were found in amphipod abundances between zones.
4.7.8 Relative abundances of the higher taxa groups are presented in Figure 7. In the BN and BS
zones, polychaetes and mollusks were found in roughly similar proportions, and represented the
dominant taxa in these zones. Zones BW, DS, and BE were dominated by polychaetes and organisms in
the other taxa category, with mollusks representing the third most abundant taxonomic group.
19
-------
84.6
M
O
B
Figure 5. A. Mean number of species collected in grab samples from
the disposal site and surrounding areas.
Results of post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test.
Overlapping circles represent the degree that means
are different from each other. Circles that do not
overlap are significantly different (p<0.5). (Jutte,
et al., 1999) .
-------
t"0
25000
E
o> 2000D
Q.
«
15C00
;>
'•5
c
Z 10000
o
Wb
5
J2
| 500D -
Z
0
BBS
ESZZl
~ Am phi pods
- Other taxa
H Molluscs
D Polychaetes
BESSa
BN
BE
BS
BW
DS
Figure 6. Higher taxonomic composition in the Port Royal ODMDS and
surrounding area. (Jutte, et al., 1999).
-------
BN
aAmphipods '
E Molluscs
:' Other taxa i
I
!
; - Polychaetes !
j
Figure 7. Relative abundance of polychaetes, molluscs, amphipods,
and other taxa in the disposal site (DS) and surrounding area.
(Jutte, et a.1. , 1999).
22
-------
4.7.9 Wenner, et al. (1979 a, b, c, 1980) characterized the demersal finfish communities of the SAB
during 1973, 1974, and 1975. The lizard fish (Synodus foetens), sand perch (Diplectrumformosum), and
southern porgy (Stenotomus aculeatus) were found to be present during all samplings. According to
Wenner, et al. (1980), these three species represent the three most abundant species of demersal fish
found in the depth range 9-18m throughout the South Carolina coastal area.
Powles and Stender (1976) reported on the ichthyoplankton in the SAB and found juvenile fish of the
following families in the Port Royal Sound area: Clupeidae, Sciaenidae, Bothidae, Gadiade, Carangidae,
Mugilidae, and Triglidae.
4.7.10 Commercially important species of shellfish occur in abundance in the Port Royal Sound area,
including shrimps, crabs, whelks, and oysters. The Beaufort County coastal area is responsible for 40 to
50 percent of the statewide landings of shellfish on a dollar basis. On the other hand, commercial fin
fisheries in Beaufort County are responsible for only a small percentage of the statewide finfish landings.
4.7.11 Disposal of sediments in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS is unlikely to have any effect on
oyster and clam fisheries in the area, nor on the sparse fin fisheries of the area. Commercial shrimping
occurs primarily within three miles of shore in South Carolina, and the disposal site does not occur
within the three-mile limit. Shrimp populations may be altered during disposal operations, but the
effects of offshore disposal on shrimp populations have not been adequately studied.
4.7.12 It is unlikely that disposal activities would have a significant effect on larval and post larval
shrimp movements due to the relatively small size of the disposal site and the location relative to the
Sound entrance.
4.7.13 Recreational finfish catches in the Port Royal Sound area are primarily from head-boat charters
to offshore reefs, fishing on private boats for reef fishes and large pelagic species, and pier fishing
(Moore, 1977; Hammond and Cupka, 1978). Most recreational finfish catches would not be influenced
by disposal activities in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS since piers and reefs do not occur in the
immediate vicinity.
4.8 Threatened or Endangered Species. Marine or other species classified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as endangered or threatened
and found in Beaufort County or in coastal waters off Port Royal are listed in the following section.
4.8.1 The following Federally listed species are known to occur or possibly occur in Beaufort County
or offshore of Port Royal as of February 2002 (FWS) and September 2002 (NMFS):
E = Federally endangered
T = Federally threatened
C = The FWS or the NMFS has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s)
to support proposals to list these species.
CH = Critical Habitat
SC = Federal Species of Concern. These species are rare or limited in distribution but are not
currently legally protected under the Endangered Species Act.
23
-------
Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Occurrence
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) E Known
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T Known
Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus forficatus) SC Known
Wood stork (Mycteria americana) E Known
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E Known
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) T, CH Known
Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) T Known
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) E Known
Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) E Possible
Chaff-seed (Schwalbea americana) E Known
Cupgrass (Eriochloa michauxii) SC Known
Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) SC Known
Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) SC Known
Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) C Possible
Sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) C Possible
Night shark (Carcharinus signatus) C Possible
Speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi) C Possible
Jewfish (E. itijara) C Possible
Warsaw grouper (E. nigritus) C Possible
Nassau grouper (E.striatus) C Possible
Marine Mammals
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) E Known
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) E Known
Northern Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) E Known
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) E Known
Sperm whale (Pkyseter macrocephalus) E Known
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) E NA
Turtles
Green sea turtle (Chelonia my das) T Known
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)* E Known
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)* E Known
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) T Known
Hawksbill sea turtle {Eretmochelys imbricata) E NA
Fish
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) * E Known
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus) C NA
4.8.2 Disposal in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS should have no effect on these species with,
perhaps, the exception of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). The loggerhead turtle nests on the
beaches of Hilton Head Island and St. Phillips Island, on either side of the entrance to Port Royal Sound.
In South Carolina, adult females come ashore to nest from mid-May to mid-August, and many use the
waters in the vicinity of the proposed Port Royal ODMDS during their migrations (Hopkins and
Murphy, 1981).
24
-------
4.8.3 The Corps follows established precautions during dredging operations to avoid any impacts to
sea turtles, manatees, and whales (northern right whale) through visual and scheduling measures.
Dredging specifications include avoidance and notification of sighting requirements based on the
potential presence of these species. None of these species are known to have been adversely impacted in
the past nor are any adverse impacts expected in future work.
4.9 Essential Fish Habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976 requires that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of Commerce and Fishery Management
Council, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to actions taken that may affect essential fish
habitat (EFH). The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 amended and renamed that Act to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and requires cooperation among Federal agencies to stop or reverse the continued loss of
fish habitat. On December 19, 1997, an interim final rule was published in the Federal Register to
implement the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This rule establishes guidelines to assist
the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the Secretary in the description and
identification of EFH in fishery management plans (FMPs), including identification of adverse impacts
from both fishing and non-fishing activities on EFH, and identification of actions required to conserve
and enhance EFH. The intended effect of the rule is to promote the protection, conservation, and
enhancement of EFH.
This EIS initiates the EFH consultation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 1.5 square miles
of marine water column (average depth 36 feet) and non-vegetated bottoms utilized by various life stages
of species comprising the red drum, shrimp, and snapper-grouper, coastal migratory pelagic, spiny
lobster and calico scallop management complexes. The initial determination is that the proposed action
will not have a substantial individual or cumulative adverse impact on EFH or fisheries managed by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Our
final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review
by and coordination with the NMFS.
4.9.1 One effort of the FMPs is to identify threatened and endangered marine species and habitats
critical to their existence. The Proposed Project is within the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's (SAFMC) area of jurisdiction, which extends from the Florida Keys to the north coast of
North Carolina. In October 1998, the SAFMC released the "Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic
Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council" (Final Habitat Plan) (SAFMC, 1998). One June 3, 1999, the Final
Habitat Plan was approved by the Department of Commerce.
The Final Habitat Plan identifies the following as managed EFH within the South Atlantic region:
Estuarine emergent wetlands
Marine Areas
Estuarine scrub/shrub mangroves
Sea grass
Oyster reefs and shell banks
Intertidal flats
Palustrine emergent and forested wetlands
Aquatic beds
Live/hard bottoms
Coral and coral reefs
Artificial/man-made reefs
Sargassum
Marine water column
Estuarine water column
25
-------
Species under the jurisdiction of the SAFMC include many of those listed in Section 4.8.1. In addition,
the SAFMC lists the following species as candidate species worthy of monitoring.
Species
Scientific Name
dusky shark
Carcharhinus obscurus
Odontaspis taurus
Carcharhinus signatus
Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus
Rivulus marmoratus
Epinephelus drummondhayi
Epinephelus nigritus
sand tiger shark
night shark
Atlantic sturgeon
mangrove rivulus
speckled hind
Warsaw grouper
4.9.2 In addition to animal species listed by NMFS as threatened and endangered, NMFS also lists
Johnson's seagrass as a threatened plant species worthy of protection.
4.9.3 The SAFMC designates the area between approximately the mouth of the Altahama River,
Georgia, to approximately Jacksonville, Florida, and from the coast to about 15 nautical miles offshore;
and from Jacksonville to approximately Sebastian Inlet, Florida, to about five nautical miles offshore as
critical right whale habitat.
4.9.4 The Regional FMPs sets forth fishery species that are to be included as Managed Species. The
following group management plans and species are included in the South Atlantic FMP as critical right
whale habitat.
Shrimp Fishery Management Plan
brown shrimp - Penaeus aztecus
pink shrimp - P. duorarum
rock shrimp - Sicyonia brevirostris
royal red shrimp - Pleoticus robustus
white shrimp - Penaeus setiferus
Red Drum Fishery Management Plan
red drum - Sciaenops ocellatus
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan
blackfin snapper - Lutjanus buccanella
blueline tilefish - Cauloatilus microps
gray snapper - L. griseus
greater amberjack - Seriola dumerili
jewfish - Epinephelus itajara
mutton snapper - L. analis
red porgy - Pagrus pagrus
red snapper - L. campechanus
scamp - Mycteroperca phenax
silk snapper - L. vivanus
snowy grouper - E. niveatus
26
-------
speckled hind - E. drummondhayi
vermilion snapper - Rhomboplites aurorubens
yellowedge grouper - E. flavolimbatus
Warsaw grouper - E. nigritus
white grunt - Haemulon plumieri
wreckfish - Polyprion americanus
Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan
dolphin - Coryphaena hippurus
cobia - Rachycentron canadum
king mackerel - Scomberomorus cavalla
Spanish mackerel - S. maculatus
Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan
golden crab - Chaceon fenneri
Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan
spiny lobster - Panulirus argus
Coral and Coral Reef Fishery Management Plan
varied coral species and coral reef
communities comprised of several hundred species
Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan
calico scallop - Argopecten gibbus
Sargassuni Habitat Fishery Management Plan
Sargassum (and associated fauna) where it occurs in the EEZ and state waters
4.10 Other Recreation. Beaufort County's waters support a wide variety of recreational activities.
Fishing has been addressed previously in this document. Coastal waters are also used for swimming,
skiing, sailing, boating, surfing, skin diving, and SCUBA diving. Few of these activities occur in, and
none is restricted to, the proposed ODMDS.
4.11 Shipping. The proposed Port Royal ODMDS is located just to the south and west of the
entrance channel to the Port of Port Royal. While there are no designated shipping lanes beyond the
entrance channel, the general area experiences heavy commercial shipping traffic.
4.12 Military Usage. While the Atlantic Ocean off Port Royal may be used by the United States
Armed Forces for training, testing, and research activities, the proposed ODMDS does not lie within any
designated fleet operating area.
4.13 Mineral Resources. Mineral resources in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS vicinity are not
actively mined.
27
-------
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
5.1 Introduction. Criteria promulgated in 40 CFR Parts 228.5 and 228.6 deals with the evaluation
of ocean disposal locations and requirements for effective management to prevent unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment. These criteria have been used as the basis of an environmental
assessment of impacts at the candidate site. Criteria in 40 CFR Part 228.5 are titled General Criteria for
the Selection of Sites, and those in Part 228.6 are titled Specific Criteria for Site Selection. Evaluation of
the proposed Port Royal ODMDS utilized the literature base, interviews, and baseline data collected at
the site to assess compliance with both the general and specific criteria of 40 CFR. Table 2 summarizes
the application of the specific criteria to the site. Each of the general and specific criteria is addressed in
this section as it relates to the site's suitability as a disposal site.
5.1.1 Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography and distance from coast [40 CFR
228.6 (a) 1]. The proposed Port Royal ODMDS is approximately 918 acres in area with the following
corner coordinates:
32° 05.00' N, 080° 36.47' W
32° 05.00' N, 080° 35.30' W
32° 04.00' N, 080° 35.30' W
32° 04.00' N, 080° 36.47' W
5.1.2 The center coordinates are: 32° 04.50' N and 080° 35.38' W. The general location of the
candidate site is shown in Figure 1. The shoreward boundary of the disposal site is located
approximately 10.4 nautical miles from Bay Point Island and 7.9 nautical miles from the northern end of
Hilton Head Island.
5.1.3 The proposed ODMDS is situated on the continental shelf. Depths at the site average 36 feet.
5.2 Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage Areas of Living
Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 1]. The most active breeding and nursery
areas are located in inshore waters, along adjacent beaches, or in nearshore reef areas. While breeding,
spawning, and feeding activities may take place near the proposed ODMDS, these activities are not
believed to be confined to, or concentrated in, this area.
5.2.1 While many marine species pass through the proposed ODMDS, passage is not geographically
restricted to this area. The probability of significant impact on any marine species from dredged
material disposal is negligible. The proposed project will not affect any managed essential fish habitat
(EFH).
5.3 Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 3]. Beaches
and inshore resources are outside the area to be affected by disposal in the proposed ODMDS. These
amenity areas lie approximately 8 to 12 miles inshore of the designated disposal site.
5.3.1 Numerous recreational beaches exist on the coastal and barrier islands in the Port Royal Sound
Area (Figure 8). Based on Bruun's (1985) conclusions, although the proposed ODMDS is out of the
Port Royal littoral zone, the disposal of relatively clean sand from the entrance channel into the ODMDS
may actually help to nourish recreational beaches on Hilton Head Island through migration due to current
and wave action. There are also numerous state and Federal parks, preserves, and sanctuaries in the
28
-------
area (Figure 9), but it is unlikely that disposal in the ODMDS will affect these. National historical and
archeological sites in the area are shown in Figure 8. None are close enough to the Port Royal ODMDS
to be affected by disposal activities similar to those that have occurred in the past. The ODMDS is out
of the littoral zone of the Port Royal and coastal South Carolina area.
5.4 Types and Quantities of Waste to be Disposal of and Proposed Methods of Release,
Including Methods of Packing the Waste, if any [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 4]. The only material to be
disposed of in the proposed Port Royal ODMDS will be dredged material that complies with EPA Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229). The site is expected to be used for routine maintenance of the
authorized Federal channels and all activities permitted under Section 103.
5.5 Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 5]. Bottom contours in the area
can be monitored through bathymetric survey methods. Monitoring of the proposed Port Royal ODMDS
is discussed in the Dredge Material Management Plan (1997) prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Charleston District. This plan is intended to be flexible and may be modified by the
responsible agency for cause. A site management and monitoring plan has been developed for the Port
Royal ODMDS. The draft plan can be found in Appendix B of this EIS.
5.6 Dispersal, Horizontal Transport, and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of the Area,
Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, If Any [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 6]. Nearshore
surface circulation is primarily influenced by atmospheric conditions and to a lesser extent by tidal
cycles. Therefore, nearshore surface currents, are derived primarily from wind stress, and are subject to
extreme variability.
5.6.1 The littoral drift along Hilton Head Island is reported to be predominantly southwestward with a
northeastward drift occurring in the spring and summer months. Nearshore surface currents in the Port
Royal Sound were found to be alongshore to the southwest 60 percent of the year.
5.6.2 The nearshore areas of the South Atlantic Bight are sufficiently shallow for the entire water
column to behave as an Ekman surface layer, with bottom and coastal boundary frictional effects
complicating the current patterns. These surface layers respond to wind stress within a few hours,
suggesting that bottom currents in the immediate vicinity of the ODMDS may be determined primarily
by wind stress. Tidal fluctuations are also important in determining bottom currents in nearshore areas,
and the contributions of these components has not been reported for this area. The bottom currents were
measured on the mid-continental shelf of the SAB and found that currents there were dominated by the
local semi-diurnal tides. Another study reported that bottom currents in the nearshore area were
southerly during 60 percent of the years.
5.6.3 A review of bathymetry data from 1991 to present in the vicinity of the proposed Port Royal
ODMDS has revealed that no significant accumulation of disposed dredged materials has occurred.
5.7 Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping in the Area
(including cumulative effects) [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 7]. Two ODMDSs have been used since initial
construction of the Entrance Channel in 1959. The north ODMDS, located in an area with water depths
of 20 feet, has not been used since 1979 as the area became too shallow for a hopper dredge.
With water depth of 35 feet, the south ODMDS continues to be used and was last used in 1996 when
475,413 cubic yards of material was removed from the Entrance Channel.
29
-------
30
-------
co
Gillisorwille
oosawhatchic
B?.ir Island
Wildlife M|ltt Arc;i
dgefand
Laurel Bay
Beaufort
St Helena Island
Victoria Bluff
Wild'.ifj Nfriril. Alvj
i Pincleicy [ilnnd N.-.t"
f Wv.dliSr Rrfiii'C
Pritchardville
Bluffton
SL Helena Suund
¦ W Idlit'c M&mr Area*
Figure a. Slate and Federal parka, Kulugi™, and
wildlife conservation arons in the Port Royal ar«u,
(--ul • tM-ltf. 1961 ; Dovls, u; al., 10*0)
-------
5.7.1 Construction of the portions of Port Royal Harbor providing for the 24-foot channel in Beaufort
River and Battery Creek and the 27-foot turning basin at the head of the project in Battery Creek was
completed in June 1956. The Entrance Channel leading to Port Royal shoals in more frequently than
Beaufort River or Battery Creek. In the interval between 1980 and 1996, the Entrance Channel required
dredging six times with an average of slightly more than 771,000 cubic yards being removed during each
event. Maintenance material removed from the Entrance Channel was disposed of in the south ODMDS.
Battery Creek and the Turning Basin were dredged in 1995 with the removal of 144,734 cubic yards of
sandy material by means of a clamshell dredge. Disposal of this material was placed in the south
ODMDS, as an acceptable upland site was not available. Prior to 1995, Battery Creek and the Turning
Basin were last dredged in November 1969 when 53, 578 cubic yards were removed and placed in
unconfined wetland disposal areas. Maintenance dredge quantities removed from the project during the
past five years is shown in Table 7. No incidents of adverse impacts from these disposal actions are
known. Several private users of these waterways, including marinas at Hilton Head, have also utilized
the Port Royal ODMDS in the past for disposal of dredge material from their maintenance activities.
Table 7. Federal Dredging History
Year
Dredging History 1,2,3
(Thousand CY per year)
Reach or Segment
Primary Dredging
Method
Disposal Site(s) Used
(Identifier)
1992
816.0
Entrance Channel
Hopper Dredge
Ocean Disposal
1993
1994
339.4
Entrance Channel
Hopper Dredge
Ocean Disposal
Battery Creek
Mechanical
1995
144.7
(includes Turning Basin)
(Clamshell)
Ocean Disposal
1996
475.4
Entrance Channel
Hopper Dredge
Ocean Disposal
1997
1998
263.0
Entrance Channel
Hopper Dredge
Ocean Disposal
1999
2000
162.3
Entrance Channel
Hopper Dredge
Ocean Disposal
2001
2002
2003
100.0
Entrance Channel
Hopper Dredge
Ocean Disposal
Notes:
1 Amount dredged by year for each of last 12 years. No data posted if not dredged. Beaufort River last dredged
in 1956 when project was being constructed.
2 All quantities are based on required pay quantities.
3 Computed average per year of dredged material from the Entrance Channel = 179.7 cu.yds.
Computed average per year of dredged material from Battery Creek = 12.1 cu.yds.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997 & 2003
32
-------
5.8 Interference With Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral Extraction, Desalination, Fish
and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special Scientific Importance, and Other Legitimate Uses of the
Ocean [40 CFR 278.6 (a) 8]. The proposed ODMDS is located just south and west of the entrance
channel to the Port of Port Royal, an area of infrequent commercial shipping traffic. Most heavy
commercial traffic passes further to the south and east of the proposed disposal area. The infrequent use
of this site should not significantly disrupt either commercial shipping or recreational boating.
5.8.1 Commercial and recreational fishing activity is concentrated in inshore and nearshore waters or
at offshore artificial reefs and ship wrecks; however, many sites other than the artificial reefs and wrecks
are used for fishing. The use of the proposed ODMDS is not expected to impact fishing in any way.
The proposed ODMDS lies about 10.4 miles from Baypoint Island. Artificial reef sites and shipwrecks
in the vicinity of the proposed ODMDS are listed in Table 8. No significant mounding of dredged
materials at the proposed ODMDS site is expected.
Table 8. Artificial Reefs and Wrecks in the
Proposed ODMDS Vicinity
Reef/Wreck
Bearing/Distance
GPS Location
Fripp Island Reef
140°/5.8 nm from Fripp Inlet
N32° 15.421'
W80° 22.465'
Hunting Island Reef
144°/8.5 nm from Fripp Inlet
N32° 13.055'
W80° 20.494'
Fripp Island Drydock Wreck
150°/3.0 nm from Fripp Inlet
N32° 17.112'
W80° 24.905'
Parris Island Reef
Located in Broad River, between Parris Island and Daws
Island
N32° 18.865'
W80° 42.520'
General Gordon Wreck
090°/2.0 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 14
N32° 10.115'
W80° 33.225'
Fish America Reef
105°/8.4 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 2PR
N32° 03.427'
W80° 24.851'
Gaskins Bank Wreck
273°/5.7 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 5
N32° 06.010'
W80° 42.185'
Betsy Ross Reef
105°/8.4 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 2PR
N32° 03.427'
W80° 24.851'
Hilton Head Reef
195°/5.0 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 2PR
N31° 59.948'
W80° 35.928'
Eagle's Nest Reef
13375.5 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 2PR
N32° 01.160'
W80° 30.300'
Whitewater Reef
25578.5 nm from Port Royal Sound Channel Buoy 2PR
N32° 03.089'
W80° 45.003'
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 1999
5.8.2 No mineral extraction, desalination or mariculture activities occur in the immediate area.
Recreational and scientific resources are present through the area but area not geographically limited to
the proposed Port Royal ODMDS or nearby waters.
33
-------
5.9 Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by Available Data or by
Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 9], Water quality at the proposed ODMDS
is variable and is influenced by discharges from inshore systems and infrequent ocean intrusions.
Investigations have reported on the circulation of the inner continental shelf of the South Atlantic Bight
(SBA) (Lee and Brook, 1979; Lee and Atkinson, 1983; Schwing, et al., 1983). Findings suggest that
near shore circulation is primarily influenced by atmospheric conditions, and to a lesser extent by tidal
cycles. Therefore, nearshore surface currents are derived primarily from wind stress, and are subject to
extreme variability.
Some bottom habitat and benthic species will be impacted by the deposition of the dredged materials at
the proposed ODMDS site. However, this effect is temporary as the benthic species are expected to re-
establish on the deposited material within a relatively short time.
5.9.1 Water and sediment samples collected from the proposed disposal site and vicinity from the early
1970s through 1977 did not contain elevated concentrations of pesticides, pesticide derivatives, trace
metals, PCB, or HMW hydrocarbons.
5.10 Potential for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the Proposed Disposal
Site [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 10]. The disposal of dredged materials should not attract or promote the
development of nuisance species. No pre-disposal nuisance organisms were identified in the 1997
investigation conducted by SCDNR of the proposed disposal site and none has been reported to occur at
previously utilized disposal sites in the vicinity.
5.11 Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of Any Significant Natural or Cultural
Features of Historical Importance [40 CFR 228.6 (a) 11]. No natural or cultural features of historical
importance are known to occur at or in close proximity to the site.
5.12 The Dumping of Materials Into the Ocean will be Permitted Only at Sites or in Areas
Selected to Minimize the Interference of Disposal Activities With Other Activities in the Marine
Environment, Particularly Avoiding Areas of Existing Fisheries or Shellfisheries, and Regions of
Heavy Commercial or Recreational Navigation [40 CFR 228.5 (a)]. The proposed Port Royal
ODMDS does not support an active commercial or recreational fishery. Fishery and shellfishing
resources are not concentrated in, restricted to, or dependent on the proposed disposal site vicinity.
5.12.1 There are no specially designated shipping lanes in the proposed disposal site vicinity. The
candidate ODMDS is located seaward and slightly south of the entrance channel to the Port of Port
Royal, and is an area of infrequent commercial shipping traffic. It is not anticipated that future,
intermittent use of the site would result in a level of activity that would significantly disrupt shipping.
5.13 Locations and Boundaries of Disposal Sites Will Be So Chosen That Temporary
Perturbations in Water Quality or Other Environmental Conditions During Initial Mixing Caused
By Disposal Operations Anywhere Within the Site Can Be Expected to Be Reduced to Normal
Ambient Seawater Levels or to Undetectable Contaminant Concentrations or Effect Before
Reaching any Beach, Shoreline, Marine Sanctuary, or Known Geographically Limited Fishery or
Shellfishery [40 CFR 228.5 (b)]. Any temporary perturbations in water quality resulting from disposal
operations should be reduced to ambient or undetectable levels within a short distance of the release
point. Prevailing currents at this site are along shore and to the southwest 60 percent of the year. The
proposed ODMDS lies about 7.9 nautical miles from the nearest landfall. At this location, the likelihood
34
-------
of impacts to nearshore amenities and protected areas is small. The proposed disposal site does not lie in
the vicinity of geographically limited fishery or shellfishery resources.
5.14 If, At Any Time During or After Disposal Site Evaluation Studies, It is Determined that
Existing Disposal Sites Presently Approved on an Interim Basis for Ocean Dumping Do Not Meet
the Criteria for Site Selection Set Forth in sections 228.5 and 228.6, the Use of Such Sites Will be
Terminated As Soon As Alternate Disposal Sites Can Be Designated [40 CFR 228.5 (c)]. The
proposed site meets the cited criteria.
5.15 The Sizes of Ocean Disposal Sites will be Limited in Order to Localize for Identification
and Control Any Immediate Adverse Impacts and Permit the Implementation of Effective
Monitoring and Surveillance Programs to Prevent Adverse Long-Range Impacts. The Size,
Configuration, and Location of any Disposal Site Will be Determined as Part of the Disposal Site
Evaluation or Designation Study [40 CFR 228.5 (d)]. A limited area of about 918 acres
(approximately 1.0 square nautical mile) has been proposed as the ODMDS. Bottom contours in the
area can be monitored through bathymetric survey methods. Management of the proposed Port Royal
ODMDS is discussed further in the Dredge Material Management Plan prepared by the Charleston
District. This plan is intended to be flexible and may be modified by the responsible agency for cause.
5.16 EPA Will, Wherever Feasible, Designate Ocean Dumping Sites Beyond the Edge of the
Continental Shelf and Other Such Sites That Have Been Historically Used [40 CFR 228.5 (e)]. The
proposed ODMDS is located on the continental shelf in approximately 36 feet of water. The edge of the
continental shelf is many miles seaward of the proposed ODMDS and is not economically feasible to
utilize. Environmental effects to off-shelf sites in the Port Royal vicinity have not been studied and are
largely unknown. Historically used sites are on the shelf. No incidents of adverse impacts from the use
of these disposal sites are known.
5.17 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity. Use of the proposed
ODMDS in the manner described should have no effect on long-term productivity.
5.17.1 The disposal of dredged materials at the proposed Port Royal ODMDS would not result in
significant long-term water quality degradation. Water quality impacts of concern with regard to
dredged material disposal include those associated with increased turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen
levels, and the release of sediment-bound contaminants such as heavy metals, nutrients, and
hydrocarbons, including pesticides and PCBs. Generally, contaminants bound in sediments are not
released under conditions normally occurring at open water disposal sites (Burks and Engler, 1978;
Saucier, 1978). Most potential contaminants remain sorbed on sediments or are readily scavenged from
the water column by particulate matter and metal oxides and precipitated. In addition, only material
meeting ocean disposal criteria will be disposed at the site. Further, as noted in Section 4.2.3, the grain
size analysis of the dredged material from the entrance channel indicates that the material is
predominantly sand and shell, to which contaminants do not generally bind, and therefore would not be
found.
5.17.2 Increased turbidity resulting from dredged material disposal is generally short-term and transient
(Windom, 1976). Elevated turbidity levels occur during dredged material disposal, but decrease rapidly
as suspended sediments settle or disperse.
35
-------
5.17.3 Temporary decreases in dissolved oxygen would occur during disposal. Given the depth of the
well-mixed portion of the water column at the proposed ODMDS, significant off-site impacts are not
expected and on-site impacts should be of short duration.
5.17.4 Nutrients bound in sediments would be released to the water column during disposal. Soluble
phosphorus would be temporarily released but would be rapidly scavenged from the water column
(Burks and Engler, 1978). Soluble nitrogen compounds, particularly ammonia, would also be released
during disposal. Ammonia, which is toxic in high concentrations, should be rapidly reduced below
harmful concentrations by dilution (Burks and Engler, 1978).
5.17.5 The potential for water quality impacts resulting from the release of trace metals is minor. Most
heavy metals are poorly soluble and are readily sorbed by suspended matter and precipitated (Windom,
1976; Burks and Engler, 1978). Hydrocarbons, such as pesticides and PCBs, are generally poorly
water-soluble. These substances generally remain sorbed on sediments and are not released during
disposal (Windom, 1976; Burkes and Engler, 1978).
5.17.6 The disposal of uncontaminated sediments in compliance with EPA's Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229) would not be expected to result in sediment quality
degradation. Periodic bioassay testing (toxicity/bioaccumulation) of proposed dredged material is
required to ensure compliance unless the sediments meet the criteria of 40 CFR 227.13 which provides
specific standards exempting sediments from testing. The material from the Port Royal Entrance Channel
meets these criteria.
5.17.7 Impacts of dredged material disposal upon organisms in the water column are difficult to assess
but are generally considered to be minimal and temporary (Pequegnat, et al., 1981). Most motile
organisms (nekton) can avoid disposal operations and localized areas of poor water quality. Non-motile
(planktonic) organisms such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton entrained within the
disposal plume would be directly affected. The impacts of disposal on these organisms are difficult to
assess in light of the high natural variability of planktonic communities. Significant long-term impacts
are not anticipated.
5.17.8 Sedentary and slow-moving benthic and epibenthic biota could be impacted both directly and
indirectly by dredged material disposal. Direct impacts would result from the smothering of bottom-
dwelling organisms under varying depths of dredge material. These impacts would result in the loss of
some of the disposal site biota and the resultant alteration of benthic community structure. The high
reproductive potential of most benthic infuana should reestablish predisposal conditions rapidly unless
sediment characteristics are significantly different.
5.17.9 Direct impacts would occur at the specific sites of disposal. Recolonization from both the
vertical migration of resident infaunal species and the recruitment of species from nearby areas would
occur rapidly after completion of disposal operations.
5.18 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. Resources irreversibly or
irretrievably committed through use of the proposed site will include: (1) loss of fuel for the dredges to
transport any dredged material to the site; (2) loss of some potentially recyclable material (i.e., sand for
alternative uses); and (3) loss of some benthic organisms that will be smothered during disposal
operations.
36
-------
5.19 Environmental Justice. In consideration of directives set forth by Executive Order
(EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations, February 11, 19994, the proposed action will not substantially affect human health or the
environment to create disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or low-income populations.
6.0 THE FOLLOWING CHART PRESENTS THE LIST OF PREPARERS
The following prepared, provided information, or reviewed information for the preparation of this Final
Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Name
Cade E. Carter, Jr., P.E.
Jeffrey Robinson, EI
Karl F. Rothermel, EI
Discipline
Environmental
Engineer
Environmental
Engineer
Environmental
Engineer
Agency
GEC, Inc.
GEC, Inc.
GEC, Inc.
Role
EIS Project Manager/
Engineering
Engineering/
Physical Imp
Engineering
Patrick S. McDanel
Biologist
Michael S. Loden, Ph.D. Biologist
Robin Coller-Socha Biologist
Mark A. Purcell
Gary Collins
Wildlife Biologist
Oceanographer
GEC, Inc
GEC, Inc.
USACE, Charleston
USACE, Charleston
USEPA
EIS Coordinator/
Natural Resource
Analysis
EIS QA Review
EIS Coordinator/
Reviewer-Civil Works
Reviewer-Regulatory
Reviewer
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Potentially interested individuals, agencies, and organizations were invited to attend a scoping meeting
for the project at the Town Hall Council Chambers, located in Port Royal, South Carolina, on July 10,
1997, at 7:00 p.m. An informal format was designed to provide an interactive forum for concerned
individuals to discuss the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the draft EIS.
The topics discussed at the meeting are of major importance in determining the significant issues to be
analyzed in the depth in the EIS. To complete the scoping process, the Corps of Engineers provided a
Scoping letter, dated June 9, 1997, to interested parties. Also included was a survey developed by the
SCDNR to identify sensitive bottom habitats that are productive as fishery habitats. Over 750 letters
with survey forms were mailed. Responses were requested by July 7, 1997. Only 19 responses were
received.
Appendix D contains the Letter to Interested Parties, a summary of responses to the SCDNR survey, and
the list of addressees to whom letters were mailed during the conduct of the scoping process.
37
-------
Appendix A
REFERENCES
38
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
Atkinson, L. P. 1975. Oceanographic Observations in the Georgia Bight. Georgia Marine Science
Center Technical Report Number 75-6, Skidaway Island, Georgia, 156 pp.
Atkinson, L. P. 1976. Oceanographic Observations in the Georgia Bight. Georgia Marine Science
Center Technical Report Number 76-1, Skidaway Island, Georgia, 124 pp.
Bruun, P. 1985. Cost-effective Coastal Protection with Reference to Florida and the Carolinas, U.S.A.
Journal of Coastal Research, 1:47-55.
Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed 1981 Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 56. Department of the Interior. New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Burks, S. A. and R. M. Engler. 1978. Water Quality Impacts of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal
(Laboratory Investigations). U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Technical report DS-
78-4.
Burman, B., D. W. Folger and S. Pfirman. 1977. Bottom Currents and Bottom Sediment Mobility in
the Offshore Southeast Georgia Embayment. In: USGS Environmental Studies Southeastern
United States Atlantic OCS. 1977. Geology. Chapter 4.
Churgin, J. and S. J. Halminski. 1974. Temperature, Salinity, Oxygen and Phosphate in Waters Off
the United States. Volume I, Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service.
Davis, Kevin B. and Robert F. Van Dolah. August 1986. A Survey of Existing Information On the
Physical, Chemical, and Biological Conditions in the Vicinity of the Port Royal Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Departments - Marine
Resources Research Institute.
Hammond, D. L. and D. M. Cupka. 1978. An Economic and Biological Evaluation of the South
Carolina Pier Fishery. South Carolina Marine Resources Technical Report Number 20. 14 pp.
Hopkins, S. R. and T. M. Murphy. 1981. Reproductive Ecology of Caretta caretta in South Carolina.
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of Wildlife and
Freshwater Fisheries. Project No. E-l, Study No. VI-A1. 96 pp.
Jutte, P.C., Robert F. Van Dolah, G. W. Eason, Jr., and M. V. Levisen. March 1999. An Assessment
of Benthic Infaunal Assemblages and Sediments in the Vicinity of Port Royal Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources - Marine Research
Institute.
Lee, T. N. and D. A. Brooks. 1979. Initial Observations of Current, Temperature and Coastal Sea
Level Response to Atmospheric and Gulf Stream Forcing on the Georgia Shelf. Geophysical
Research Letters, 6:321-324.
39
-------
Lee, T. N. and L. P. Atkinson. 1983. Low-frequency Current and Temperature Variability From Gulf
Stream Frontal Eddies and Atmospheric Forcing Along the Southeast United States Outer
Continental Shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88(c8):4541-4567.
Mathews, T. D. and O. Pashuk. 1977. A Description of Oceanographic Conditions Off the Southern
United States During 1973. South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical Report Number
19. 105 pp.
Mathews, T. D. and O. Pashuk. 1982. A Description of Oceanographic Conditions Off the Southern
United States During 1974. South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical Report Number
50. 114 pp.
Mathews, T. D., F. W. Stapor, Jr., C. R. Richter, et al., eds. 1980. Ecological Characterization of the
Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia. Volume I: Physical Features of the
Characterization Area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/40. 212 pp.
Minerals Management Service. 1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed 1983 Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale, offshore the South-Atlantic states, OCS Sale No. 78.
U.S. Department of the Interior, New Orleans, 231 pp.
Moore, C. J. 1977. A Guide to Saltwater Recreational Fisheries in South Carolina. Recreational
Fisheries, Office of Conservation, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,
51 pp.
Pequegnat, W. E., L. H. Pequegnat, B. M. James, E. A. Kennedy, R. R. Fay, and A. D. Fredericks.
1981. Procedural Guide for Designation Surveys of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites.
Final report by TerEco Corporation. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Technical
report EL-81-1.
Powles, W. and B. W. Stender. 1976. Observations on Composition, Seasonally and Distribution of
Ichthyoplankton From MARMAP Cruises in the South Atlantic Bight in 1973. South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Technical Report Number 11, 47 pp.
Ransom, Camille and Mike Waddell. November 1991. Evaluation of Water Quality Changes in the
Upper Unit of the Floridian Aquifer Resulting From Dredging in the Turning Basin at the Port
of Port Royal and Nearby Shipping Channels. South Carolina Water Resources Commission.
Saucier, R. T., C. C. Calhoun, R. M. Engler, T. R. Patin, and H. K. Smith. 1978. Executive
Overview and Detailed Summary; Dredged Material Research Program. U.S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station. Technical report DS-79-22.
Schwing, E. B., b. J. Kjerfive, and J. E. Sneed. 1983. Nearshore Coastal Currents on the South
Carolina Continental Shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88:4719-4729.
Science Applications, Inc. 1981a. South Atlantic OCS Physical Oceanography. Final progress report.
Volume II: Technical Report. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
D.C., 354 pp.
40
-------
South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1972. The Port Royal Sound Environmental Study. The
State Printing Company, Columbia, South Carolina, 555 pp.
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1979. Benthic and Sedimentologic Studies
on the Charleston Harbor Ocean Disposal Area, Charleston Harbor Deepening Project.
SCWMRD Marine Division for the Charleston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 193 pp.
Stapor, F. W. and R. S. Murali. 1978. Computer Modeling of Littoral and Transport (shore-parallel)
for Coastal South Carolina. South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute Technical
Report Number 29, 9 pp.
Texas Instruments, Inc. 1978. South Atlantic OCS Benchmark Program 1977 Report, Volume III:
Results of studies of Georgia Bight of North Atlantic Ocean. Draft prepared for Bureau of Land
Management, 440 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District. June 1997. Dredged Material Management Plan,
Preliminary Assessment, Port Royal Harbor, South Carolina.
Wenner, C. A., C. A. Barans, B. W. Stender and F. H. Berry. 1979a. Results of MARMAP Otter
Trawl Investigations in the South Atlantic Bight. I Fall 1973. SCWMRD Technical Report
Number 33. 72 pp.
Wenner, C. A., C. A. Barans, B. W. Stender and F. H. Berry. 1979b. Results of MARMAP Otter
Trawl Investigations in the South Atlantic Bight. II Spring 1974. SCWMRD Technical Report
Number 40. 64 pp.
Wenner, C. A., C. A. Barnas, et al. 1980. Results of MARMAP Otter Trawl Investigations in the
South Atlantic Bight. V. Summjer, 1975. South Carolina Marine Resources Center Technical
Report Number 45. 57 pp.
Windom, H. L. 1976. Environmental Aspects of Dredging in the Coastal Zone. CRC Critical Reviews
in Environmental Control. Volume 6, No. 2. CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio.
41
-------
DRAFT
Appendix B
PORT ROYAL
SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE PORT ROYAL
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
42
-------
DRAFT
Site Management Plan
Port Royal
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
43
-------
DRAFT
The following Site Management Plan for the Port Royal ODMDS has
been developed and agreed to pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, for the management
and monitoring of ocean disposal activities, as resources allow, by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Alvin B. Lee Date
Lieutenant Colonel, EN
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer District
Charleston, South Carolina
James D. Giattina Date
Director
Water Management Division
U.S.EPA, Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia
44
-------
DRAFT
Site Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
It is the responsibility of EPA under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) of 1972 to manage and monitor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs)
designated by the EPA pursuant to Section 102 of MPRSA. As part of this responsibility, a
management and monitoring plan has been jointly developed by EPA/Region 4 and the
Charleston District Corps of Engineers (CE) to specifically address the deposition of dredged
material into ODMDSs. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the
South Carolina State Ports Authority (SPA) have been represented during discussions on the
requirements for the Port Royal ODMDS and will continue to be represented on the ODMDS Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) Team along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The SMMP Team will meet annually to discuss
upcoming disposal activities, suitable management practices, and monitoring efforts for all the
ODMDSs in the Charleston District. Each of these agencies has had opportunity to review and
comment on the Environmental Assessment and this associated site management plan for Port
Royal.
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 Documentation of disposal activities at the ODMDS.
The following sections provide the framework for meeting these objectives to the
greatest extent possible.
Material volumes. No restrictions are presently placed on disposal volumes. Disposal of
unrestricted volumes is dependent upon results from future monitoring surveys.
45
-------
DRAFT
Material suitability. There is no general restriction regarding the type of material that may be
placed at the site at this time. However, the suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal
must be verified by the CE and agreed to by EPA prior to disposal. This verification will be valid
for three years. The 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 (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. As part of this determination,
modeling may be necessary. Input parameters for modeling at the Port Royal ODMDS are
included in Appendix B.
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 CE and EPA.
Should EPA conclude that reasonable potential exists for contamination to have occurred,
acceptable testing will be completed prior to use of the site. Testing procedures to be used will
be those delineated in the EPA/CE testing manual ('1991 Green Book1) and the Regional
Implementation Manual. Only material determined to be suitable through the verification
process by the CE 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 within the site. However,
dredging projects which utilize hopper dredges are restricted to operating between November
1st to May 31st due to sea turtle restrictions. 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. However, it is the
intent of this plan to maximize any advantages of strategic placement of materials. 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.
Placement of Materials. Prior to any disposal of dredged materials, an agreement between EPA
and CE will be reached concerning the exact placement of these materials. Permits/contracts
will specify exact locations for the disposal of any material from the project.
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.
46
-------
DRAFT
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. Accuracy and precision of the
locational system will be at least as good as provided by GPS. Required header file field labels
to be recorded daily include the following:
(a) Current Date: Month-Day-Year
(b) Contract Number: DACW60-
(c) Vessel Name: Name of Vessel
(d) Vessel Captain: Captain's Full Name
(e) Volume of load: Cubic Yards
(f) Distance of Scow From Tow Vessel: Stern of Tow
Vessel to Bow of Barge
(g) Disposal technique: Bottom Dump, Pumpout, etc.
(h) Draft-empty: Feet rounded up at 0.5 ft.
(i) Datum: SC State Plane NAD83, etc.
(j) Phase I: Save data every 60 seconds
(k) Phase II: Save data every 06 seconds
Required digital data to be recorded daily are as follows:
(I) Time;
(m) Julian date;
(n) State plane coordinates;
(o) Lat/Long
(p) Compass Heading
(q) Draft
(r) Depth of cut
(s) Pump Drive (RPM)
(t) Pump Discharge Pressure
(u) Pump Vacuum
Within sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of some disposal operations, a baseline
bathymetric survey may be conducted of the disposal area and adjacent areas. The survey will
be taken along lines spaced on 400-foot intervals and be of sufficient length to adequately cover
the area. Accuracy will be + 0.5 foot. The survey will be referenced to MLLW and corrected for
tide conditions at the time of the survey. As a follow-up to the baseline bathymetric survey, the
CE or other site user may also be required to conduct a survey after disposal. The number of
transects and accuracy required will be the same as in the baseline survey.
The user will be required to prepare and submit to the CE monthly report of operations for each
month or partial month's work.
47
-------
DRAFT
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 on to 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.
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."
The monitoring plan for the Port Royal ODMDS does not involve a specific action plan at this
time; however, a benthic infaunal survey has been performed by the South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources. The results have been documented in a report entitled An Assessment of
Benthic Infaunal Assemblages and Sediments in the Vicinity of the Port Roval Ocean Dredged
48
-------
DRAFT
Material Disposal Site. 1999. Previous baseline site work and subsequent monitoring at this and
other ODMDSs to date is sufficient to meet the management objectives for this site.
Should a specific action plan be deemed necessary, it will be described and attached as
Appendix A. This specific monitoring plan would be implemented in accordance with the
availability of funding. Should shortfalls in funding occur, the SMMP team will recommend which
aspects of the monitoring plan should receive priority. Results of monitoring will be reviewed by
the SMMP team and recommendations made to the CE and EPA on appropriateness and detail of
future monitoring efforts.
Modification of ODMDS SMMP. 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 will be
modified.
49
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
GENERIC SPECIAL CONDITIONS
FOR MPRSA SECTION 103 PERMITS
PORT ROYAL, SC ODMDS
I. DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
A. For this permit, the term disposal operations shall mean:
navigation of any vessel used in disposal of operations,
transportation of dredged material from the dredging site to the
Port Royal, SC ODMDS, proper disposal of dredged material at the
disposal area within the Port Royal, SC ODMDS, and transportation
of the hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow back to the
dredging site.
B. The Port Royal, SC ODMDS is defined as the rectangle with
center coordinates of 32°04.50' North by 80°35.88' West and
corner coordinates of:
32°05 . 00 1 North by 80°36.47' West
32°05.001 North by 80°35.30' West
32°04 . 00 1 North by 80o35.30I West
32°04 . 00 1 North by 80°36.47' West
C. No more than [NUMBER] cubic yards of dredged material
excavated at the location defined in [REFERENCE LOCATION IN
PERMIT] are authorized for disposal at the Port Royal, SC ODMDS.
The permittee agrees and understands that all dredged material
will be placed in such a manner that its highest point will not
exceed -32 feet MLW.
D. The permittee shall use an electronic positioning system to
navigate to and from the Port Royal, SC ODMDS. For this section
of the permit, the electronic positioning system is defined as: a
differential global positioning system or a microwave line of
site system. Use of LORAN-C alone is not an acceptable
electronic positioning system for disposal operations at the Port
Royal, SC ODMDS. If the electronic positioning system fails or
navigation problems are detected, all disposal operations shall
cease until the failure or navigation problems are corrected.
E. The permittee shall certify the accuracy of the electronic
positioning system proposed for use during disposal operations at
the Port Royal, SC ODMDS. The certification shall be
accomplished by direct comparison of the electronic positioning
system's accuracy with a known fixed point.
50
-------
DRAFT
F. The permittee shall not allow any water or dredged material
placed in a hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow to flow over
the sides or leak from such vessels during transportation to the
Port Royal, SC ODMDS. In addition, the permittee understands
that no debris is to be place in the ODMDS.
G. A disposal operations inspector and/or captain of any tug
boat, hopper dredge or other vessel used to transport dredged
material to the Port Royal, SC ODMDS shall insure compliance with
disposal operation conditions defined in this permit.
1. If the disposal operations inspector or the captain
detects a violation, he shall report the violation to the
permittee immediately.
2. The permittee shall contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Charleston District's Regulatory Division (843)
329-8035 and EPA Region 4 at (404) 562-9395 to report the
violation within twenty-four (24) hours after the violation
occurs. A complete written explanation of any permit
violation shall be included in the post-dredging report.
H. When dredged material is disposed, no portion of the hopper
dredge or disposal barge or scow shall be farther than 1,500 feet
from the center of the Port Royal ODMDS as defined in Special
Condition B.
I. The permittee shall use an automated disposal verification
system that will continuously track (1 to 5 minute intervals) the
horizontal location and draft condition of the disposal vessel
(hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow) to and from the Port
Royal ODMDS. This information shall be available in electronic
format to the Charleston District Corps of Engineers and EPA
Region 4 upon request.
1. Required digitally recorded data are: dump number,
location from which the dredged material came, brief
description of material in each dump (e.g., clean coarse
sand; sand and shell sand mixed with clay and shell; dark
organic silt); number of cubic yards on each dump; the
beginning and ending coordinates for each dump and the
compass heading at the beginning of each dump; date and
time of each dump; and the map number on which the dump
is plotted. This information will be available to the
Charleston District Corps of Engineers on a daily basis.
Upon completion of each dredging operation, the permittee
51
-------
DRAFT
agrees to prepare a computer-generated report, which
encompasses the required information. This data will be
coded into the MS-DOS data base program dBase III+. The
attached "Database (dBase III) program for storage and
retrieval of data on Ocean Disposal" provides guidelines
for this report. The District will provide the permittee
one 5.25" or 3.5" floppy disk containing the file
structure for the database to be created. The permittee
will make multiple copies of this structure in case of any
computer problems and will record data in no other
structure without written permission from the District
Engineer.
2. The permittee agrees to prepare a series of maps at an
appropriate scale that will clearly show the individual
dumps. Each dump will be labeled using the same number that
is used to record the dump in the daily log and the
database. A cumulative summary map(s) of all dumps will be
submitted to the District Engineer at the end of the
dredging operation. The cumulative summary map(s) is
required in addition to the submittal of daily logs. The
permittee may continue to use the same map until the density
of dumps makes it difficult to identify the individual dumps
by number. Maps will be labeled as map numbers in a series,
and the lowest and highest dump numbers that appear on each
map will be shown as part of the map title. At the end of
the work, the permittee will compile the maps, as necessary,
into a series and reduce the maps to eleven inches on the
small side and folded into a bound (8 W X 11") report, with
the daily dump logs.
3. The permittee shall use South Carolina State Plane or
latitude and longitude coordinates (North American Datum
1983). State Plane coordinates shall be reported to the
nearest 0.10-foot and latitude and longitude coordinates
shall be reported as degrees and decimal minutes to the
nearest 0.01 minutes.
J. The permittee shall conduct a bathymetric survey of the Port
Royal ODMDS within two months prior to project disposal and
within 3 0 days following project completion.
1. The number and length of the survey transects shall be
sufficient to encompass the Port Royal ODMDS and a 0.25
nautical mile wide area around the site. The transects shall
be spaced at 400-foot intervals or less.
52
-------
DRAFT
2. Vertical accuracy of the survey shall be ±0.5 feet.
Horizontal location of the survey lines and depth sounding
points will be determined by an automated positioning system
utilizing either microwave line of site system or
differential global positioning system. The vertical datum
shall be mean lower low water (m.l.l.w) and the horizontal
datum shall use South Carolina State Plane or latitude and
longitude coordinates (North American Datum 1983). State
Plane coordinates shall be reported to the nearest 0.10-foot
and latitude and longitude coordinates shall be reported as
degrees and decimal minutes to the nearest 0.01 minutes.
K. Between December 1 and March 31, NMFS requires monitoring by
endangered species observers with at-sea large whale
identification experience to conduct daytime observations for
whales. During daylight hours, the vessel must take precautions
to avoid whales. During evening hours or when there is limited
visibility due to fog or sea states of greater than Beaufort, 3,
the vessel must slow down to 5 knots or less when traversing
between areas if whales have been spotted within 15nm of the
vessel's path within the previous 24 hours. In addition, vessel
shall maintain a 500-yard buffer zone between the vessel and any
sighted whale.
L. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) , 16 USC 1801 et seq.
Public Law 104-208 reflects the Secretary of Commerce and Fishery
Management Council authority and responsibilities for the
protection of essential fish habitat. The Act specifies that
each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with respect
to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to
be authorized, funded, or undertaken by such agency that may
adversely affect any EFH identified under this act. EFH is
defined in the Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity."
Detailed information on federally managed fisheries and their EFH
is provided in the 1998 amendment of the Fishery Management Plans
for the South Atlantic Region prepared by the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). The 1998 generic amendment
was prepared as required by the MSFCMA.
II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. The permittee shall send the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Charleston District's Regulatory Division and EPA Region 4's
53
-------
DRAFT
Wetlands, Coastal and Water Quality Branch (61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, GA 30303) a notification of commencement of work at
least thirty (30) days before initiation of any dredging
operations authorized by this permit and referenced by the permit
number. In addition, the permittee agrees to contact the U.S.
Coast Guard at (843) 727-7683 prior to disposing of any material
in the ocean disposal site.
B. The permittee shall submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
weekly disposal monitoring reports. These reports shall contain
the information described in Special Condition I.I.
C. The permittee shall send one (1) copy of the disposal summary
report to the Charleston District's Regulatory Branch and one (1)
copy of the disposal summary report to EPA Region 4 documenting
compliance with all general and special conditions defined in
this permit. The disposal summary report shall be sent within 30
days after completion of the disposal operations authorized by
this permit. The disposal summary report shall include the
following information:
1. The report shall indicate whether all general and special
permit conditions were met. Any violations of the permit
shall be explained in detail.
2. The disposal summary report shall include the following
information: Corps permit number, actual start date and
completion date of dredging and disposal operations, total
cubic yards disposed at the Port Royal, SC ODMDS, locations
of disposal events, and pre and post disposal bathymetric
survey results (in hard and electronic formats).
III. PERMIT LIABILITY
A. The permittee shall be responsible for ensuring compliance
with all conditions of this permit.
B. The permittee and all contractors or other third parties who
perform an activity authorized by this permit on behalf of the
permittee shall be separately liable for a civil penalty of up to
$50,000 for each violation of any term of this permit thy commit
alone or in concert with the permittee or other parties. This
liability shall be individual, rather than joint and several, and
shall not be reduced in any fashion to reflect the liability
assigned to and civil penalty assessed against the permittee or
any other third party as defined in 33 U.S.C. Section 1415(a).
54
-------
DRAFT
C. If the permittee or any contractor or other third party
knowingly violates any term of this permit (either alone or in
concert), the permittee, contractor or other party shall be
individually liable for the criminal penalties set forth in 33
U.S.C. Section 1415(b).
55
-------
APPENDIX B
DRAFT
Numerical Model(STFATE) Input Parameters
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
Port Royal ODMDS
Site Description
Parameter
Value
Units
Number of Grid Points (left to right)
45
Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)
45
Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)
350
ft
Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)
350
ft
Constant Water Depth
36
ft
Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site
. 0051
ft
Slope of Bottom in X-Direction
0
Deg.
Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction
0
Deg.
Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile
Point
2
Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft
1.0215
g/cc
Ambient Density at Depth = 36 ft
1. 0220
g/cc
Ambient Velocity Data
Parameter
Value
Units
Water Depth
36
ft
Profile
Logarith
mic
Vertically Averaged X-Direction Velocity
0.0
ft/sec
Vertically Averaged Z-Direction Velocity
0.33
ft/sec
Disposal Operation Data
Parameter
Value
Units
Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid
7, 875
ft
Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of
Grid
7, 875
ft
56
-------
DRAFT
Dumping Over Depression
0
Input, Excecution and Output
Parameter
Value
Units
Location of the Upper Left Corner
Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
of the
1,800
ft
Location of the Upper Left Corner
Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
of the
1,800
ft
Location of the Lower Right Corner
Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge
of the
13,950
ft
Location of the Lower Right Corner
Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge
of the
13,950
ft
Duration of Simulation
14,400
sec
Long Term Time Step
600
sec
Coefficients
Parameter
Keyword
Value
Settling Coefficient
BETA
0 . 0001
Apparent Mass Coefficient
CM
1. ooo1
Drag Coefficient
CD
0 . 5001
Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud
CDRAG
1. OOO1
Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud
CFRIC
0 . 0101
Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge
CD 3
0.1001
Drag for a Plate
CD4
1 .ooo1
Friction Between Cloud and Bottom
FRICTN
0 . 0101
4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion
Dissipation Factor
ALAMDA
0 . 022 5^
Unstratified Water Vertical
Diffusion Coefficient
AKYO
Pritchard
Expression
Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient
Ratio
GAMA
0.2501
Turbulent Thermal Entrainment
ALPHAO
0.2351
Entrainment in Collapse
ALPHAC
0 .1001
57
-------
DRAFT
Stripping Factor CSTRIP 0.0031
¦""Model Default Value
2Calculated from NOAA Field Work at Fort Pierce (1994)
58
-------
Appendix C
TOTAL ABUNDANCE OF
EACH SPECIES SAMPLED IN
THE PORT ROYAL ODMDS
AND SURROUNDING AREA
DURING AUGUST 1997
(Jutte et al. 1999)
59
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODNIDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Species Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
DS
Acanthohaustorius bousfieldi
A
3
2
0
1
0
0
Acanthohaustonus millsi
A
1
0
0
0
0
1
Acanthohaustorius shoemakers
A
2
2
0
0
0
0
Acanthohaustorius similis
A
13
5
0
7
1
0
Acanthohaustorius sp.
A
1
0
0
1
0
0
Acrocirridae sp.
P
7
1
0
4
0
2
Acteocina candei
M
11
2
5
0
0
4
Acteoana cf( inconspicua
M
37
10
0
27
0
0
Acteocina sp.
M
7
4
0
0
0
3
Acteon candens
M
13
1
0
10
1
1
Acuminodeutopus naglei
A
72
18
0
49
4
1
Aglaophamus sp.
P
106
26
22
1
46
11
Albunea paretii
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Amakusanthura magnifica
0
7
2
0
4
1
0
Amastigos caperatus
P
34
1
12
0
21
0
Americhelidium americanum
A
78
9
26
1
14
28
Ampelisca agassizi
A
18
3
0
6
3
6
Ampelisca cristata microdentata
A
9
3
0
1
1
4
Ampelisca sp.
A
161
75
0
47
6
33
Ampelisca vadorum
A
27
4
0
18
5
0
Ampelisca verrilli
A
7
4
0
3
0
0
Ampharetidae
P
1
0
0
0
0
1
Anachis obesa
M
13
1
0
7
4
1
Anachis sp.
M
1
1
0
0
0
0
Anadara transversa
M
186
42
0
57
42
45
Ancistrosyllis hartmanae
P
34
6
1
13
14
0
Anomia simplex
M
6
3
0
2
0
1
Anoplodactylus petiolatus
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
Anthozoa
0
118
1
0
49
58
10
Aonides pauabranchiata
P
17
6
0
10
0
1
Aoridae
A
3
2
0
1
0
0
60
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
area during August
1997.
SDecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
DS
Aphelochaeta sp.
P
29
11
0
18
0
0
Aplacophora
M
4
1
0
2
0
1
Apopdonospio dayi
P
113
9
54
0
22
28
Apseudidae sp. A
0
238
54
4
11
147
22
Apseudidae sp. B
0
43
8
0
13
1
21
Arabella tricolor
P
1
0
0
1
0
0
Arabellidae
P
2
0
0
1
0
1
Argissa hamatipes
A
17
6
1
2
5
3
Aricidea (Acmira) cattierinae
P
39
9
1
15
12
2
Aricidea (Acmira) cerrutii
P
7
2
0
3
0
2
Aricidea (Acmira) sp. A
P
7
3
0
2
1
1
Aricidea (Acmira) sp. D
P
10
2
2
5
1
0
Aricidea (Acmira) taylod
P
16
11
1
0
2
2
Aricidea (Aricidea) fragilis
P
2
2
0
0
0
0
Aricidea (Aricidea) wassi
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Aricidea sp.
P
3
0
0
0
2
1
Armandia agilis
P
15
0
12
1
2
0
Armandia maculata
P
15
7
0
5
1
2
Armandia sp.
P
48
16
6
20
6
0
Asabellides oculata
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Aspidosiphon sp. A
0
92
39
0
40
3
10
Aspidosiphon sp. B
0
14
8
0
3
1
2
Astarte sp.
M
1
0
0
1
0
0
Asthenothaerus hemphilli
M
24
7
1
0
9
7
Astyris lunata
M
83
27
0
14
24
18
Atrina sp.
M
2
0
0
0
0
2
Autolytinae
P
1
0
0
0
1
0
Automate vermanni
0
9
5
0
1
3
0
Axiothella sp. A
P
37
6
0
22
7
2
Batea cathadnensis
A
60
10
1
30
9
10
Bathyporeia parked
A
6
0
2
0
0
4
Bhawania heteroseta
P
74
32
0
33
4
5
61
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each spedes sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullogc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Zone
Stjecies Name
HiaherTaxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
BS
BW
DS
Biffarius biformis
O
1
1
0
0
0
0
Bivalvia
M
173
43
13
82
22
13
Bivalvia sp. D
M
2
0
0
2
0
0
Bodotriidae sp. A
0
13
4
0
8
1
0
Bodotriidae sp. B
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Bodotriidae sp. C
0
28
4
14
0
7
3
Boguea enigmatica
P
49
38
0
11
0
0
Bowmaniella floridana
O
5
0
1
2
2
0
Branchiostoma caribaeum
0
246
83
6
94
39
24
Brania davata
P
65
22
0
25
13
5
Brania sp.
P
5
0
0
5
0
0
Brania wellfleetensis
P
12
3
0
7
2
0
Caecum imbricatum
M
9
8
0
1
0
0
Caecum johnsoni
M
148
51
0
74
1
22
Caecum regulare
M
40
0
29
1
0
10
Caecum sp.
M
31
0
0
30
1
0
Calappidae
0
11
5
0
6
0
0
Calliostoma yucatecanum
M
3
1
0
1
1
0
Calyptraea centralis
M
20
3
0
16
1
0
Calyptraeidae
M
3
3
0
0
0
0
Capitella capitata complex
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Capitellidae
P
2
0
0
0
0
2
Cardiidae
M
2
2
0
0
0
0
Cardiomya omatissima
M
2
1
0
0
0
1
Caulleriella sp. B
P
23
5
2
11
5
0
Cerapus tubularis
A
13
1
1
1
9
1
Ceratocephale oculata
P
8
3
0
2
3
0
Ceratonereis irritabilis
P
272
92
0
97
55
28
Chione grus
M
4
3
0
1
0
0
Qrratudae Genus A
P
5
0
0
0
4
1
Orratulidae
P
3
0
2
0
0
1
Grriformia sp. A
P
25
2
8
0
12
3
62
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; 0 = other taxa).
Soeries Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
ZQnq
BS
BW
Gn-ophorus sp. A
P
2
0
0
1
1
Corbula cf. dietziana
M
2
0
0
2
0
Crassinella lunulata
M
1028
595
6
369
10
Crassinella martinicensis
M
216
52
2
126
33
Crepidula maculosa
M
1
0
0
1
0
Crepidula plana
M
17
4
0
7
6
Crepidula s p.
M
4
3
0
0
0
Cyathura burbancki
0
95
4
0
43
30
Cydaspis varians
0
101
16
3
23
43
Cydostremiscus beaufi
M
4
4
0
0
0
Cylichnella bidentata
M
411
39
55
3
91
Demonax microphthalmus
P
21
6
0
6
9
Dentaliidae
M
1
1
0
0
0
Dentallum eboreum
M
6
4
0
0
2
Dentalium sp.
M
13
0
1
1
9
Diopatra cuprea
P
22
5
0
9
6
Diopatra sp.
P
8
1
0
0
4
Diopatra tridentata
P
2
0
0
1
1
Diplodonta sp.
M
152
54
8
54
15
Dipolydora hartmanae
P
59
24
1
31
0
Dipolydora soaalis
P
51
18
1
15
12
Dissodactylus mellitae
0
15
1
8
0
6
Divaricella quadrisulcata
M
2
0
0
0
0
Dorvillea rudolphi
P
10
5
0
3
0
Dosinia discus
M
51
8
7
10
7
Drilonereis sp.
P
2
1
0
0
1
Echinoidea
0
14
5
2
5
0
Echiura
0
2
1
1
0
0
Edotea triloba
0
13
2
1
2
7
Elasmopus laevis
A
23
5
0
2
12
Ensis directus
M
2
1
1
0
0
Enteropneusta
0
3
0
0
0
3
PS
0
0
48
3
0
0
1
18
16
0
223
0
0
0
2
2
3
0
21
3
5
0
2
2
19
0
2
0
1
4
0
0
63
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Suedes Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
Epitonium greenlandicum
M
2
0
0
0
2
Epitonium rupicola
M
1
0
0
0
0
Epitonium sp.
M
6
4
0
0
0
Ericthonius brasiliensis
A
14
3
0
1
4
Ervtlia concentrica
M
2465
206
70
2128
22
Eteone lactea
P
7
2
0
2
3
Euarche tubifex
P
1
0
0
0
0
Euceramus praelongus
0
65
12
2
35
5
Eudevenopus honduranus
A
204
17
123
12
17
Eulimidae
M
9
1
0
3
3
Eumida sanguinea
P
42
8
0
17
5
Eunicidae
P
38
17
0
11
9
Eupleura caudata
M
1
0
0
1
0
Eurydice personata
0
2
0
0
1
0
Euryplax nitjda
0
1
0
0
1
0
Exogone arenosa
P
299
102
0
129
16
Exogone sp.
P
55
0
0
55
0
Fabncinae
P
3
0
0
3
0
Gaiathowenia oculata
P
288
81
1
100
72
Gastropods
M
40
12
11
6
4
Gibberosus myersi
A
25
4
1
13
1
Globosolembos smithi
A
13
1
0
5
7
Glottidia pyramidata
0
6
0
0
1
5
Glycera americana
P
4
2
0
0
2
Glycera dibranchiata
P
5
1
3
0
1
Glycera oxycephala
P
6
0
1
0
0
Glycera sp. G
P
13
9
1
2
1
Glyceridae
P
2
0
0
2
0
Glycinde solitaria
P
2
0
0
0
0
Goniada littorea
P
253
34
63
31
38
Goniadides carolinae
P
137
47
0
72
5
Gouldia cerina
M
1
1
0
0
0
PS
0
1
2
6
39
0
1
11
35
2
12
1
0
1
0
52
0
0
34
7
6
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
87
13
0
64
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; 0 = other taxa).
Soecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
DS
Hemipholis elongata
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Hemipodus roseus
P
28
11
0
9
0
8
Hesionura elongata
P
22
3
0
18
0
1
Heterocrypta granulata
0
5
1
0
4
0
0
Heteropodarke cf. heteromorpha
P
10
2
0
6
0
2
Holothuroidea
0
10
3
0
1
4
2
Horoloanthura irpex
0
8
3
0
4
0
1
Hydroides microtis
p
10
1
0
7
1
1
Isolda puchella
p
4
0
0
3
1
0
Kurtziella atrostyla
M
1
0
0
1
0
0
Kudziella limonitella
M
78
29
5
20
7
17
Laonice sp.
P
24
5
0
15
3
1
Latreutes parvulus
0
8
0
0
3
4
1
Leitoscoloplos robustus
P
7
0
1
0
1
5
Leitoscoloplos sp.
P
19
4
8
5
2
0
Lepidonotus sublevis
P
3
2
0
0
0
1
Leptochela serratorbita
0
25
5
12
1
3
4
Leptosynapta tenuis
0
3
2
0
0
0
1
Leucosiidae sp.
0
11
4
0
2
3
2
Levinsenia gracilis
P
1
0
0
1
0
0
Libinia sp.
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Liljeborgia sp.
A
24
7
0
14
2
1
Listriella barnardi
A
82
13
32
1
35
1
Litocorsa antennata
P
365
75
0
257
3
30
Loimia medusa
P
31
22
0
3
2
4
Loimla viridis
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Lucina nassula
M
7
4
0
2
0
1
Lucina radians
M
2
2
0
0
0
0
Luconacia incerta
0
14
0
1
0
12
1
Lumbrineddes sp.
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Lumbrineris cruzensis
P
83
12
32
0
7
32
Lumbrineris sp.
P
114
10
0
36
67
1
65
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Soecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
D?
Lyonsia hyalina
M
4
0
0
3
0
1
Lyonsia sp.
M
1
1
0
0
0
0
Macoma sp.
M
66
21
0
14
10
21
Macoma tenta
M
21
0
7
0
14
0
Mactridae
M
1
0
0
1
0
0
Maera caroliniana
A
3
0
0
3
0
0
Magelona sp.
P
48
5
16
2
20
5
Maldanidae
P
49
13
15
16
3
2
Marginellidae
M
3
2
0
1
0
0
Marphysa sp. B
P
3
0
0
0
0
3
Mediomastus ambiseta
P
13
0
4
0
1
8
Mediomastus californiensis
P
7
2
0
0
0
5
Mediomastus sp.
P
871
167
24
400
173
107
Megalomma bioculatum
P
2
1
0
1
0
0
Megalomma lobiferum
P
2
2
0
0
0
0
Melanella sp.
M
2
1
0
0
1
0
Melinna maculata
P
28
13
0
9
3
3
Melinna sp.
P
58
10
0
11
37
0
Mellita quinquiesperforata
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
Metharpinia floridana
A
116
42
0
52
13
9
Mexieulepis weberi
P
1
0
0
1
0
0
Miaophthalmus fragilis
P
7
4
0
0
0
3
Miaophthalmus sczelkowii
P
1
0
0
0
1
0
Miaophthalmus sp.
P
3
0
0
0
0
Microprotopus raneyi
A
17
8
5
2
1
1
Miaospio pigmentata
P
1
0
0
0
1
0
Modiolus s p.
M
20
4
0
11
2
3
Moira atropos
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Monocorophium tuberculatum
A
2
0
0
0
2
0
Monticellina baptisteae
P
27
13
0
13
0
1
Monticellina dorsobranchialis
P
60
10
0
31
9
10
Mooreonuphis nebulosa
P
143
47
0
54
6
36
66
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Soecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
DS
Musculus lateralis
M
16
8
0
3
4
1
Mysidae
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
Nannastacidae sp. A
0
27
8
1
4
3
11
Nannastaddae sp. B
0
10
4
0
1
4
1
Nannodiella melanitica
M
44
14
2
0
28
0
Nannosquillidae
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Nassarina glypta
M
38
13
2
1
19
3
Nabca canrena
M
53
12
12
6
8
15
Naticidae
M
8
4
0
2
2
0
Neanthes arenaceodentata
P
4
0
2
1
0
1
Neanthes micromma
P
59
11
0
44
1
3
Nemertinea
0
572
139
36
168
143
86
Neomegamphopus sp.
A
21
7
0
13
1
0
Nephtys bucera
P
1
0
0
0
0
1
Nephtys picta
P
136
31
38
12
25
30
Nephtys squamosa
P
2
2
0
0
0
0
Nereididae
P
1
0
0
0
0
1
Nereiphylla fragifis
P
3
1
0
0
1
1
Nereis lamellosa
P
9
1
0
4
3
1
Nereis sp.
P
3
0
0
0
3
0
Notomastus hemipodus
P
5
0
3
0
2
0
Notomastus sp. A
P
15
6
9
0
0
0
Notomastus sp.
P
18
11
1
0
3
3
Nucula sp.
M
10
5
0
2
3
0
Nudibranchia
M
1
0
0
0
0
1
Odontosyllis fulgurans
P
7
5
0
1
1
0
Odostomia sp. A
M
1
0
0
0
1
0
Odostomia sp.
M
4
0
0
0
0
4
Ogyrides alphaerostris
0
70
11
13
5
14
27
Oligochaeta
0
1535
430
18
723
96
268
Olivella sp.
M
23
11
1
0
2
9
Onuphidae
P
25
13
1
8
0
3
67
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Soedes Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
BS
BW
DS
Onuphis eremita
P
6
1
2
0
2
1
Ophioderma brevispinum
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Ophiolepis elegans
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Ophiothrix angulata
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Ophiuroidea
0
161
63
5
37
30
26
Orbiniidae
p
1
1
0
0
0
0
Ostreidae
M
2
0
0
2
0
0
Owenia collans
P
277
85
11
87
54
40
Oxyurostylis smithi
0
123
39
8
22
18
36
Pagurus sp.
0
106
23
4
17
54
8
Pandora trilineata
M
1
0
0
0
1
0
Paradoneis sp. A
P
3
2
1
0
0
0
Paradoneis sp. B
P
16
9
0
7
0
0
Paranaitis poiynoides
P
1
0
1
0
0
0
Paraonis pygoenigmatica
P
8
0
2
3
3
0
Parapionosyllis longiarrata
P
65
14
0
33
4
14
Parapionosyllis sp. B
P
8
0
0
7
0
1
Parapionosyllis sp.
P
5
0
0
5
0
0
Paraprionospio pinnata
P
64
10
11
11
16
16
Parougia caeca
P
12
1
5
4
2
0
Parvilucina multilineata
M
373
71
105
78
57
62
Pectinaria gouldii
P
11
3
0
2
2
4
Pedicorophium laminosum
A
8
2
0
6
0
0
Petaloproctus sp.
P
16
2
0
4
2
8
Pettiboneae blakei
P
1
0
0
1
0
0
Pettiboneae duofurca
P
8
4
0
3
1
0
Phascolion strombi
0
38
24
1
12
1
0
Pholadidae
M
9
1
0
7
0
1
Pholoe minuta
P
3
1
0
0
0
2
Phoronis sp.
0
56
26
3
9
12
6
Photis sp. A
A
19
3
0
5
4
7
Photis sp. B
A
11
5
0
3
3
0
68
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Soecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
zone
BS
BW
DS
Phoxocephalidae
A
38
2
29
6
0
1
Phyllodoce arenae
P
22
0
5
6
10
1
Phyllodoce longipes
P
6
4
0
1
0
1
Phyllodoce sp.
P
25
24
0
0
1
0
Pinnixa sp.
0
138
32
39
25
20
22
Pionosyllis gesae
P
72
44
1
17
0
10
Piromis roberti
P
3
1
0
0
1
1
Pisione remota
P
13
5
0
6
0
2
Pitar sp.
M
11
1
1
1
6
2
Plakosyllis quadrioculata
P
4
3
0
0
0
1
Pleuromeris tridentata
M
99
36
0
56
0
7
Plicatula gibbosa
M
3
2
0
1
0
0
Podarke obscura
P
15
7
0
4
0
4
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
P
6
1
0
4
0
1
Poecilochaetus sp. B
P
1
0
0
0
0
1
Poetilochaetus sp. C
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Politolana concha'um
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
Polycirrus eximius
P
98
13
5
55
24
1
Polycirrus sp.
P
2
0
0
2
0
0
Polydora websted
P
18
9
0
1
8
0
Polygordius sp.
0
2902
672
146
769
766
549
Polynoidae
P
8
3
0
3
1
1
Polyodontes sp.
P
1
0
0
0
1
0
Polyplacophora
M
1
0
0
1
0
0
Pnonospio (M.) multibranchiata
P
1
0
0
1
0
0
Prionospio (Minuspio) perkinsi
P
111
36
0
17
14
44
Prionospio (Prionospio) cristata
P
2271
645
81
1110
226
209
Proceraea comuta
P
12
4
0
7
1
0
Processa fimbriata
0
9
5
1
2
1
0
Promysis atlantica
0
11
4
2
0
1
4
Protodorvillea kefersteini
P
27
9
0
5
1
2
Protohaustorius cf. deichmannae
A
93
13
78
0
0
2
69
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; 0 = other taxa).
Soecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
Pseudeurythoe ambigua
P
62
21
0
17
3
Pseudovermilia occidentals
P
6
4
0
1
0
Pyramidella crenulata
M
15
0
0
1
6
Pyramidellidae
M
1
1
0
0
0
Questidae sp. A
P
2
2
0
0
0
Rhepoxynius epistomus
A
23
1
3
0
0
Rullierinereis sp. A
P
4
1
0
1
0
Sabellaria vulgaris
P
139
67
0
25
39
Sabellidae
P
2
0
0
1
0
Scolelepis (P.) bousfieldi
P
15
5
1
4
4
Scolelepis (Parascolelepis) texana
P
7
0
1
0
1
Scolelepis (Scolelepis) squamata
P
1
0
0
0
0
Scoletoma emesti
P
2
0
1
0
0
Scoletoma sp.
P
108
29
0
26
39
Scoloplos rubra
P
19
3
0
5
8
Semele nuculoides
M
2
2
0
0
0
Serpula sp.
P
6
1
0
4
0
Serpulidae
P
4
0
3
0
1
Serpulldae sp. A
P
638
409
0
191
0
Sicyonia typica
0
6
0
0
5
1
Sigambra bassi
P
2
1
0
0
1
Sigambra tentaculata
P
52
10
14
0
14
Sipuncula
0
40
6
4
11
10
Sphaerodoridae
p
2
2
0
0
0
Sphaerosyllis piriferopsis
p
8
4
0
3
0
Sphaerosyllis sp.
p
6
0
0
6
0
Sphaerosyllis taylod
p
47
25
0
18
0
Spio pettiboneae
p
14
12
0
2
0
Spio sp.
p
1
0
0
0
0
Spiochaetopterus costarum
p
8
1
1
4
1
Spiophanes bombyx
p
102
17
20
28
31
Spiophanes missionensis
p
122
44
7
28
32
PS
21
1
8
0
0
19
2
8
1
1
5
1
1
14
3
0
1
0
38
0
0
14
9
0
1
0
4
0
1
1
6
11
70
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; O = other taxa).
Soecies Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
Zone
BS
BW
DS
Sthenelais boa
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Sthenelais limicola
P
42
7
7
0
26
2
Sthenelais sp.
P
6
0
0
0
0
6
Streptosyllis pettiboneae
P
4
2
0
0
1
1
Streptosyllis sp.
P
6
1
0
4
1
0
Streptosyllis varians
P
3
0
0
2
1
0
Strigilla mirabilis
M
1
0
1
0
0
0
Strombiformis auricinctus
M
6
3
0
2
1
0
Strombiformis bilineatus
M
10
4
2
0
4
0
Strombiformis sp. A
M
2
0
0
0
2
0
Syllidae
P
1
0
0
0
1
0
Tanaidacea
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
Tanaissus psammophilus
0
21
11
0
10
0
0
Telling sp.
M
611
107
183
88
128
105
Terebra concava
M
1
0
1
0
0
0
Terebra dislocata
M
4
1
0
0
1
2
Thalassinidea
0
13
2
5
0
4
2
Tharyx sp. A
P
372
38
36
142
142
14
Thraciidae
M
5
4
0
1
0
0
Tiron tropakis
A
98
32
5
32
20
Trachypenaeus constnctus
0
18
0
3
4
5
6
Traviaa parva
P
16
3
0
12
0
1
Trypanosyllis sp.
P
4
3
0
1
0
0
Turbonilla interrupts
M
27
0
5
4
5
13
Turbonilla sp.
M
52
4
11
4
24
9
Turbonilla stricta
M
3
1
0
1
1
0
Typosyllis alternata
P
2
0
0
2
0
0
Typosyllis regulata carolinae
P
5
0
0
5
0
0
Typosyllis sp.
P
1
1
0
0
0
0
Unciola serrata
A
4
2
0
0
2
0
Untiola sp.
A
48
27
0
11
4
6
Veneridae
M
4
3
1
0
0
0
71
-------
Appendix C. Total abundance of each species sampled in the Port Royal ODMDS and surrounding area during August 1997.
(A = amphipod; M = mullosc; P = polychaete; 0 = other Caxa).
zone
Soedes Name
Hiaher Taxa
Total Abundance
BE
BN
BS
BW
DS
Vitnnella helicoidea
M
6
0
0
0
2
4
XanthidaeO
0
4
7
0
9
4
4
72
-------
Appendix D
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SCDNR SURVEY,
LETTER TO INTERESTED PARTIES, MAILING
LIST FROM SCOPING OF AN EIS FOR THE
DESIGNATION OF THE OCEAN DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, PORT ROYAL,
SOUTH CAROLINA
73
-------
Appendix D
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SCDNR SURVEY,
LETTER TO INTERESTED PARTIES,
MAILING LIST FROM SCOPING
OF AN EIS FOR THE DESIGNATION
OF THE OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
PORT ROYAL, SOUTH CAROLINA
Dredged material may have serious impact on the entire area with currents and storms
Artificial reef material should be added to aid the existing live bottom
DNR - myself and other members of the club do fish this area in sport fishing King Mackerel
Tournament
DNR - indicated recreational fishing areas on survey map
DNR - no comments or fish area indicated - did provide name/address
DNR - These offshore areas are where we catch hopper when there are not many brown shrimp.
completed survey map - commercial shipping
provided name/address
Only DNR survey map - indicates commercial shrimping areas
Does not fish these waters and have no knowledge of any sensitive fishing habitats
provided name/address (charter boat)
I do not normally use this area. I use the Charleston Harbor area.
provided name/address
Unaware of my expertise in the impact deposited spoils have in our coastal waters
from personal experience - the impact on seafood harvesting abilities is dramatic
suggest alternative - dumping all hydraulically dredged spoils be deposited past the 200' depth in
an area that is (1) deep enough to support continuous dumpings and (2) where no seafood
harvesting occurs
we have an abundance of area that fits this criteria well offshore where it would be more feasible
to deposit such material
Areas marked are sloping edges of Gaskin Banks. Fishing conducted here is not for bottom dwelling
74
-------
species but migratory species, i.e. king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cobia in spring and summer
months.
DNR survey indicated recreational fin fishing areas
provided name/address
No comment - provided name/address
No comment - provided name/address/organization
No longer fish this area and have no comment
provided name/address
I am unfamiliar with the area designated on this map. I primarily fish in GA waters south of this
designated dumping area - no name
None known areas that may represent sensitive bottom habitats that are productive as fishery habitats
provided name/address
Been fishing, scuba since 1946 - has good feel for what's going on - knows these waters
- just putting soil from one spot to another doesn't hurt the fishing
fish traps, long lines, etc. is killing our resources
one doesn't have to spend millions on research/studies to know what's happening
wish FEDS would move on Action - not worry about policies, etc.
Seawolf charters - commercial finfishing - charter boat
provided name/address
The existing ODMDS looks like a good place for spoils. Why can't the existing location be utilized
DNR survey indicated areas of commercial shrimping
provided name/address
No comment - provided name/address
DNR survey indicated areas of commercial shrimping
provided name/address
Guide/fish inshore, near the Charleston, South Carolina area. Have no knowledge of offshore
benthic features in the Port Royal Sound area.
provided name/address
75
-------
• This is an area that whelk are fished for.
indicated commercial shrimping and other commercial fishing activity
no survey map
provided name/address
• No comment - U.S. Department of Commerce
cannot attend public meeting
• Hilton Head Consultant (Olsen and Associates)
opposes continued offshore disposal of beach compatible material
~ no opposition to permitting of ODMDS solely for the disposal of non-beach compatible
maintenance dredging
all maintenance material shoaling the navigation channel associated with the outer cut (Hilton
Head seaward) is beach compatible
~ opposes offshore disposal of this material
~ historic transfer of sand resources to offshore waters and Port Royal serves to exacerbate
erosion of both the shoreline of Hilton Head Island and its associated ebb tidal shoals
~ the continued loss of beach compatible material to the local sand sharing system must be
addressed in the EIS
numerous non-impactive uses of beach compatible materials excavated from navigation projects
which are public interest, can provide environmental benefits rather than impacts - serve to
protect sea turtle habitat, protect wetlands including large areas of endangered estuarine
marsh reduce regiment to construct borrows areas seaward of Hilton Head for beach
restoration.
EIS should account for: Town of Hilton Head obtained all permits necessary for Charleston
District to perform beach disposal on north end of Hilton Head Island in August 2000.
Town has requested that District perform technical investigations necessary to justify beach
disposal along entirety of Port Royal Sound Shoreline - from the Atlantic shoreline
westward to Pine Island - all future beach or in-shore disposal should be at Federal expense.
SCDNR determined that there appears to be a continued loss state-wide, of emergent shoal
features conductive to foraging and breeding of sea bird populations. Accordingly,
additional benefits associated with the in-shore disposal of channel maintenance material
could include the reinforcement of emergent ebb-tidal shoal features bordering Port Royal
Sound.
Comment on past dredging operations at Port Royal seem to have been singularly narrow in
scope not necessarily keeping with "public interest" requirement to re-permit an
76
-------
"appropriate ODMDS". It submitted that alternative actions which provide public benefits,
both shore protection and environmental, need to be taken into consideration...the
justification of an action solely on the basis of it being "least cost" alternative - no longer
acceptable.
77
-------
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
Ber/Cha/Dor Regional
Planning Commission
Charleston, SC
State Conservationist
Mr. Mark Berkland
Columbia, SC
Charleston Development
Alliance
Charleston, SC
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
James A. Timmerman, Jr.,
Ph.D., Executive Director
Columbia, SC
Center for Marine &
Wetland Studies
Paul T. Gayes, Ph.D.
Conway, SC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
New Corner, MA
Beaufort County Planning
Board
Mr. J. C. Wright
Beaufort, SC
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IV - Ecological
Review/Wetlands
U.S. Coast Guard
Safety Office
Charleston, SC
Division of Boating, Chief
Captain Leonard Mishoe
Charleston, SC
Atlantic Coast Conservation
Association
Mt. Pleasant, SC
NRCS
Mr. Luke A. Nance
Columbia, SC
South Carolina Waterfowl
Association
Charleston, SC
South Carolina Shrimps
Association
Mr. Walter L. Shaver
Isle of Palms, SC
Beaufort County Chamber
of Commerce
Beaufort, SC
U.S. Coast Guard - Office
in Charge
Aids to Navigation
Tybee, GA
Charleston Branch Pilots
Association
Captain R. F. Bennett
Charleston, SC
Department of Commerce,
USFCS
Columbia, SC
Berk-Chas-Dor Regional
Development Corp.
Charleston, SC
South Carolina Nature
Conservancy
Columbia, SC
Marine Resources Research
Institute
Robert F. VanDolah, Ph.D.
Charleston, SC
University of South
Carolina
Department of Biological
Sciences
Mr. John B. Nelson
Columbia, SC
Beaufort City Manager
Mr. Gary M. Cannon
Beaufort, SC
Lowcountry Regional
Planning Commission
Mr. Chriswell Bickley, Jr.
Yamessee, SC
National Marine Fisheries
Habitat Conservation
Division
St. Petersburg, FL
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Mr. Ed Eudaly
Charleston, SC
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Washington, DC
Town Council, Hilton Head
Mr. William Marscher
Hilton Head Island, SC
78
-------
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Mr. Randall P. Cheek
Beaufort, NC
Association of Island
Marinas/Hilton Head
Ms. Nancy Schilling
Hilton Head Island, SC
Town Manager, Hilton
Head
Mr. Stephen G. Riley
Hilton Head, SC
South Carolina Audubon
Council
Columbia, SC
Ocean & Coastal Resource
Management
Mr. Heyward Robinson
Charleston, SC
Grant Services - Office of
the Governor
Mr. Rodney Grizzle
Columbia, SC
Director of Energy and
Environment
Mr. John N. McMillan, Sr.
Columbia, SC
Town Council, Edisto
Beach
Ms. Virginia Guerard
Edisto Island, SC
U.S. Forest Service
Columbia, SC
South Carolina State Ports
Authority
Mr. David Schronce
Georgetown, SC
Town Manager, Edisto
Beach
Mr. Linda Flatten
Edisto Beach, SC
Ducks Unlimited
Mr. Coy Johnson
Summerville, SC
Coastal Planning and
Engineering
Mr. Thomas Campbell
Boca Raton, FL
South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium
Charleston, SC
American Rivers
Mr. Scott Faber
Washington, DC
South Carolina Coastal
Conservation League
Mr. Dana Beach
Charleston, SC
Beaufort-Jasper Water &
Sewer Authority
Mr. William D. Moss,
General Manager
Beaufort, SC
National Park Service
Mr. John E. Ehrenhard
Atlanta, GA
Sierra Club South Carolina
Chapter
Columbia, SC
Wildlife Society - South
Carolina Chapter
Mr. Joseph Hamilton
Yamessee, SC
South Carolina DHEC
Division of Water Quality
& Shellfish Sanitation
Ms. Sally Knowles
Columbia, SC
South Carolina Water
Resources Commission
Mr. Danny Johnson
Columbia, SC
South Carolina Wildlife &
Marine Resources Dept.
Santee Coastal Reserve
Mr. Tommy Strange
McClellanville, SC
South Carolina Department
Natural Resources
Chief, Wildlife Section
Mr. John Frampton
Columbia, SC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Mr. Roger Banks, Field
Supervisor
Charleston, SC
Ocean & Coastal Resource
Management
Mr. Chris Brooks
Charleston, SC
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IV
Mr. Bo Crum
Atlanta, GA
South Carolina Department
of Parks Recreation &
Tourism
Office of Engineering, Dir.
Ms. Beth McClure
Columbia, SC
79
-------
South Carolina Water
South Carolina Wildlife
Marine Contracting and
Resources Commission
Federation
Towing
Mr. Freddy Vang
Ms. Trish Jerman, President
Georgetown, SC
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
NAA/NOS Nautical Data
South Carolina Department
South Carolina Department
Unit
of Natural Resources
Natural Resources
Rockville, MD
Water Resources Division
Mr. Ed Duncan
Ber-Chas-Dor Council of
Mr. Barry Beasley
Columbia, SC
Governments
Columbia, SC
South Carolina Department
Charleston, SC
South Carolina Department
Natural Resources
South Carolina State
Natural Resources
Chief, Hydrologist
Development Board
Chief, Freshwater Fisheries
Mr. Rod Cherry
Columbia, SC
Mr. Val Nash
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
Beaufort County
SHPO, Department of
Development Commission
State Clearinghouse -
Archives
Beaufort, SC
Division of Administration
Columbia, SC
Omeagia Burgess
Port of Port Royal, Inc.
Columbia, SC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Port Royal, SC
National Marine Fisheries
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
NOAA NOS Mapping and
Services
Ms. E. Dawn Whitehead
Charts
Mr. David Rackley
Atlanta, GA
Source Data Unit N/CG221
Charleston, SC
Sta. 7350
South Carolina Department
Silver Springs, MD
Ocean & Coastal Resource
Natural Resources
Management
Wildlife and Freshwater
South Carolina State Ports
Mr. Steve Snyder
Fisheries
Authority
Charleston, SC
Mr. Brock Conrad, Deputy
Mr. Larry Setzler
Director
Charleston, SC
U.S. Environmental
Columbia, SC
Protection Agency
Charleston Trident Chamber
Region IV
Land Resources
of Commerce
Mr. Gerald Miller
Conservation Commission
Charleston, SC
Atlanta, GA
Administrative and
Regulatory Service
Georgetown County Chamber
South Carolina Forestry
Mr. Cary D. Chamblee,
of Commerce
Commission
Deputy Director
Georgetown, SC
Environmental Management
Columbia, SC
Mr. Tim Adams
Columbia, SC
Charleston World Trade
Center
Charleston, SC
80
-------
COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
Faux Pas Fish Co.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Skipper & Wayne, Inc.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Miss Alva, Inc.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Folley Beach Seafood
Folly Beach, SC
Miss Marie, Inc.
Folly Beach, SC
Salvavida USA, Inc.
Folly Beach, SC
B&B Seafood
Green Pond, SC
Research & Marketing, Inc.
Isle of Palms, SC
Sea Shadow, Inc.
Edisto, SC
L&L Seafood
Brunswick, GA
Bay Street Seafood, Inc.
St. Simons Island, GA
C&H Industries
Brunswick, GA
Station Creek Co., Inc.
Frogmore, SC
Steadfast Marine Services
Frogmore, SC
Captain Ben Jones Corp.
Hilton Head, SC
MacDonald Brothers ENT,
Inc.
Hilton Head, SC
Drifters Excursions, Inc.
Hilton Head, SC
Sea Trawlers, Inc.
Meridian, GA
Mr. Magoo, Inc.
Townsend, GA
Gore Enterprises, Inc.
Valona, GA
W. O. Sasser Seafood, Inc.
Savannah, GA
Gulf Stream Seafood, Inc.
Savannah, GA
Bay Street Seafood, Inc.
St. Simons Island, GA
C&H Industries
Brunswick, GA
Richards Launch and
Towing
Charleston, SC
M-Operating Company, Inc.
Jacksonville, SC
White Stack Towing and
Transportation Co., Inc.
Charleston, SC
Wright Dredging Co., Inc.
Chesapeake, VA
Stevens Towing Company
Mr. W.J. Stevens
Yonges Island, SC
American Tugboat Co., Inc.
McClellanville, SC
Olsen & Associates
Mr. Erik Olsen
Jacksonville, FL
Norfolk Dredging Company
Chesapeake, VA
Coastal Science &
Engineering
Mr. Tim Kana
Columbia, SC
Savannah Wood Preserving
Co.
Mr. Herbert Guerry
Savannah, GA
Southern Dredging Co., Inc.
Charleston, SC
Metal Traders, Inc.
Hollywood, SC
Salmons Dredging Corp.
Charleston, SC
McAllister Towing of
Charleston, Inc.
Charleston, SC
Sea Tow Charleston
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Marine Contracting and
Towing
Georgetown, SC
81
-------
Newkirk Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
Charleston, SC
T. L. James & Company,
Inc.
Mr. Charles R. Ballentine
New Orleans, LA
Georgetown Steel Corp.
Georgetown, SC
Shipman's Seafood Co.
Beaufort, SC
Braswell Services Group,
Inc.
Charleston, SC
82
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA SALTWATER SPORTFISfflNG CLUBS
JANUARY 1997
Atlantic Coast Conservation Association
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Atlantic Shark Angling Club
Taylors, SC
Beaufort Sportfishing & Diving Club
Beaufort, SC
Boca Morriss Pass Fly Fishing Club
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Bohicket Sportfishing Club
John's Island, SC
Carolina Lady Anglers
Charleston, SC
Central Savannah River Area Offshore
Sportfishing Club
Martinez, GA
Charleston Coastal Anglers
Charleston, SC
Citadel Club of Charleston
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Columbia Offshore Fishing Association
Lexington, SC
Edisto Beach Sportfishing Club
Walterboro, SC
Florence Blue Water Fishing Club
Murrell's Inlet, SC
Georgetown Sportfishing Association
Georgetown, SC
Greenville Saltwater Sportfishing Club
Greenville, SC
Hilton Head Island Sportfishing Club
Hilton Head Island, SC
Lowcountry Anglers
Charleston, SC
Murrell's Inlet Saltwater Fishing Club
Murrell's Inlet, SC
Parris Island Rod and Gun Club
Parris Island, SC
The Saltwater Sports Club
Charleston, SC
Sea Island Sportfishing Society
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Saltwater Coalition of Recreational Anglers
Hilton Head Island, SC
South Carolina Saltwater Sportfishing
Association
N. Charleston
Surfside Float Fishing Association
Surfside Beach, SC
Springmaid Kingfishing Club
Myrtle Beach, SC
Sumter Saltwater Fishing Club
Sumter, SC
Grand Strand Saltwater Anglers Association
Myrtle Beach, SC
83
-------
INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS
Victor H. Ioconeta
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Edgar T. Van Buren
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Steven W. Brooks
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Ronald R. Metts
Mt. Pleasant, SC
George E. Donnelly
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Mark S. White
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Harold D. Smith
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Dean Smith
Mt. Pleasant, SC
John K. Truesdell
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Warren L. Rector
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Randolph N. Rhodes
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Edwin W. Magwood
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Hoyt H. Jones, Jr.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Mark E. Cypress
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Phuoc Tang
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Eddie F. Morales
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Eugene A. Blanchard
Mt.Pleasant, SC
Buddy J. Cumbee
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Ronald D. Smith
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Richard B. Hudson HI
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Wallace P. Fender
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Donald E. Barr
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Theodore L. Wigfall
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Raul Morales
Mt. Pleasant, SC
John J. Crane III
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Benjamin Williams
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jimmy R. Dyches
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jen P. Tu
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Gerald L. Freeman
Mt. Pleasant, SC
James K. Crane
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Thomas W. Edwards HI
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Richard A. Causey
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Fred O. Vaigneur, Jr.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
John H. Middleton
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Fred O. Vaigneur, Jr.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
John H. Middleton
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Toby O. Saylors
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Daniel L. Webb
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Donald G. Brown
Mr. Pleasant, SC
Andrew S. Crane
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Shirley A. Wyndham
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jorge M. Morell
Mt. Pleasant, SC
84
-------
Richard J. Phillips
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Lonnie Taylor
Wadmalaw Island, SC
Arnold L. Borowsky
Wando, SC
Jose Velaquez
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Douglas M. Brown
Wadmalaw Island, SC
James E. Corbin III
Yonges Island, SC
Thomas R. Hawkins
Mt. Pleasant, SC
John W. Cooksey
Wadmalaw Island, SC
Neal E. Cooksey
Folly Beach, SC
Earl Glines
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Keith Smiley
Wadmalaw Island, SC
Daniel G. O'Rourk
Folly Beach, SC
Joe K. Porcelli
Mt. Pleasant, SC
James W. reen
Wadmalaw, SC
Stephen R. Jeffrey
Goose Creek, SC
Kenneth W. Adams
Ravenel, SC
Stanley A. Wright
Wadmalaw, SC
Harold P. Lematty
Goose Creek, SC
Janice J. Davis
Ravenel, SC
Raymond N. Bumsworth
Walterboro, SC
Joeprim G. Gustilo
Goose Creek, SC
Leroy H. Gruber
Round 0, SC
Troy S. Bunton
Walterboro, SC
Jay W. James
Goose Creek, SC
John M. Matson
Round O, SC
Shannon R. Woods
Walterboro, SC
Glenn A. Herron
Goose Creek, SC
Harry B. Harrell, Jr.
Smoaks, SC
Sandra B. Standfield
Walterboro, SC
Gerald 0. Burton
Green Pond, SC
Joseph L. Lyons, Sr.
Smoaks, SC
Kenneth D. Baker
Walterboro, SC
Timothy D. Bunton
Green Pond, SC
Andrew P. Magwood
Sullivans Island, SC
Bessie J. Butler
Walterboro, SC
Dorothy B. Schroeder
Green Pond, SC
Robert S. Schirmer, Jr.
Sullivans Island, SC
Angus A. Patterson, Jr.
Walterboro, SC
Arthur Whaley
Green Pond, SC
Herman W. Hills
Sullivans Island, SC
Erwin W. Hooker
Walterboro, SC
William S. Baldwin, Sr.
Green Pond, SC
John R. Copeman
Wadmalaw Island, SC
Teresa A. Crosby
Walterboro, SC
85
Alfred S. Givens
Green Pond, SC
-------
William J. Smoak
Green Pond, SC
Robert R. Westendorff
Isle of Palms, SC
Esso Wright
Edisto Island, SC
Tommy Hemdon
Green Pond, SC
William H. Fennell, Jr.
Isle of Palms, SC
George J. Fontaine, Jr.
Edisto Island, SC
Jerome E. Baldwin
Green Pond, SC
Larry R. Jones
Isle of Palms, SC
Larry A. Altfather
Edisto Island, SC
George 0. Bunton
Green Pond, SC
Calvin H. Peeples
Jacksonboro, SC
David G. Ellison, Jr.
Edisto Beach, SC
William Brooks, Jr.
Green Pond, SC
Jimmy D. Roberson
Jacksonboro, SC
Bernard J. Flowers
Edisto Island, SC
Will K. Millard
Yonges Island, SC
Leo P. Bemier
Edisto Island, SC
Steve W. Flowers, Jr.
Edisto Island, SC
Richard K. Barvin
Yonges Island, SC
Anthony H. Kizer
Edisto Island, SC
John B. Sanders
Edisto Island, SC
Jenifer Ravenel
Meggett, SC
Vincent F. Flowers
Edisto, SC
Eugene F. Taylor III
Edisto Beach, SC
Harold Drayton
Hollywood, SC
William W. Smoak III
Edisto Beach, SC
Michael R. Rea
Johns Island, SC
James B. Humbert
Hollywood, SC
William S. Fralin
Edisto Beach, SC
Joseph B. Pleasants
Johns Island, SC
Jason S. Walker
Hollywood, SC
Vincent Flowers
Edisto Beach, SC
John W. Davis
Johns Island, SC
William L. Sires
Yonges Island, SC
James E. Bell
Edisto Island, SC
Harold Washington
Johns Island, SC
Thomas H. Graham
Hollywood, SC
Marion W. Sams, Jr.
Edisto Island, SC
James W. Moseley
Johns Island, SC
Fred L. Toms
Hollywood, SC
Foster Gadsden, Jr.
Edisto Island, SC
Ruth M. Cohen
Johns Island, SC
Todd E. Bonney
Isle of Palms, SC
Mike H. Stutts
Edisto Island, SC
86
Peggy A. Moseley
Johns Island, SC
-------
Timothy W. Crosby
Johns Island, SC
Terry W. Gaskin
Brunswick, GA
Robert E. Western
Beaufort, SC
William R. Judy
Johns Island, SC
Lillie L. Bennett
Brunswick, GA
Mary E. Haley
Beaufort, SC
Glenn H. Welch, Jr.
Johns Island, SC
Robert M. McCall
Brunswick, GA
Charles L. Pilcher
Beaufort, SC
George C. Albers
Johns Island, SC
Susan C. Teston
St. Simons Island, GA
Clifford C. Coffey, Sr.
Burton, SC
Michael E. Ritchison
Johns Island, SC
H.H. Vonharten, Jr.
Beaufort, SC
James R. Rhodes
Beaufort, SC
David N. Halsey
Johns Island, SC
Priscilla Hatfield
Grayshill, SC
Bobby F. Brown
Burton, SC
Gary L. Wright
Johns Island, SC
Ernold L. Parent
Burton, SC
Ronald H. Partridge
Beaufort, SC
Clariece J. White
Johns Island, SC
William E. Ames
Burton, SC
Ann Demspey
Beaufort, SC
Elisabeth L. Edwards
Johns Island, SC
John F. Payne
Beaufort, SC
Roy E. Talley
Beaufort, SC
Henry E. Woolam
Johns Island, SC
Ronald W. Wekenmann
Beaufort, SC
Willie Seabrook
Beaufort, SC
Brenda J. Woolam
Johns Island, SC
Herbert E. Lincoln
Beaufort, SC
Charles R. Moore
Beaufort, SC
Richard E. Hartley
Johns Island, SC
M.T. Flavey
Beaufort, SC
James N. Frasier
Burton, SC
James F. Dubberly
Savannah, GA
Helen M. Smalls
Burton, SC
Francis Major
Beaufort, SC
Ruby S. Geirger
Brunswick, GA
Samuel L. Graves
Beaufort, SC
Anthony Chaplin
Burton, SC
Jerry W. Austin, Jr.
Brunswick, GA
Wilmer L. Prahl
Beaufort, SC
Troy Dewilde
Beaufort, SC
87
-------
Rodney T. Lewis
Beaufort, SC
David Godley
Beaufort, SC
Sokpun Hoffman
Beaufort, SC
Josie Mae S. Webb
Burton, SC
Isaac Atkins
Beaufort, SC
Norman J. Singleton
Beaufort, SC
Kenneth N. Gibson
Beaufort, SC
Douglas K. Edwards
Beaufort, SC
Albert J. Wallace
Beaufort, SC
Laundquiest W. Myers
Burton, SC
Harry L. Taylor
Beaufort, SC
Billy E. Dilsaver
Beaufort, SC
Everett L. Gary
Burton, SC
Loretta S. Jenkins
Burton, SC
David G. Diehl
Beaufort, SC
Robert G. Gay
Beaufort, SC
Rondall W. Lanier
Beaufort, SC
Mark E. Bonds
Beaufort, SC
Terry Drawdy
Burton, SC
Trae G. Everett
Beaufort, SC
Alan R. McCartha
Beaufort, SC
Richard J. Partridge
Beaufort, SC
Joseph A. Shipman
Beaufort, SC
Dennis Hoffman
Beaufort, SC
Robert L. Simmons
Beaufort, SC
Robert D. O'Quinn 111
Beaufort, SC
James M. Cook
Beaufort, SC
Andy R. Barton
Beaufort, SC
Robert N. Graves
Beaufort, SC
Marvin D. Braden
Burton, SC
Robert 0. Cook
Burton, SC
Odell R. Wynn, Jr.
Beaufort, SC
Travis G. Hollingsworth
Burton, SC
Robert E. Paul
Beaufort, SC
Stephen R. Wells
Burton, SC
Michael A. Gibson
Beaufort, SC
Saxby S. Chaplin, Jr.
Beaufort, SC
John E. O'Quinn
Coosaw, SC
Tina L. Holder
Beaufort, SC
David D. Coleman
Beaufort, SC
Stephen D. Dempsey
Beaufort, SC
Richard J. Rubiolo
Beaufort, SC
Charlie Washington
Burton, SC
Randy A. Higgins
Burton, SC
Robert J. Witter
Burton,SC
88
-------
Patrick V. Hoffman
Beaufort, SC
Charles L. Smith, Jr.
Beaufort, SC
William A. Rooker
Bluffton, SC
Benjamin Miller
Bluffton, SC
Stephen G. Preul
Okatie, SC
Fred D. Crouse
Okatie, SC
Robert P. Kieffer
Bluffton, SC
Kenneth M. Deaver
Okatie, SC
Melvin Alston
Bluffton, SC
Deborah T. Hubbard
Bluffton, SC
Charles L. Criddle
Bluffton, SC
Michael R. Saturday
Bluffton, SC
Perry Hubbard III
Okatie, SC
Willis F. Hill
Bluffton, SC
John D. Todd
Bluffton, SC
Robert B. Boulineau
Okatie, SC
Frank T. Parrott
Bluffton, SC
Joe Spencer, Jr.
Bluffton, SC
Keith T. Hubbard
Bluffton, SC
Frank G. Toomer, Jr.
Bluffton, SC
Richard G. Toomer, Jr.
Bluffton, SC
Richard M. Inglis
Bluffton, SC
Acie C. Baker
Bluffton, SC
Clayton C. Lowther
Okatie, SC
Mark K. Wise
Bluffton, SC
Matthew Stoney
Bluffton, SC
Larry C. Toomer
Bluffton, SC
David B. Nettles
Bluffton, SC
Ronald L. Leach
Bluffton, SC
Toniette F. Farmer
Okatie, Sc
Glen M. Burkart
Bluffton, SC
Jacquelin P. Flick
Bluffton, SC
Kevin L. flick
Bluffton, SC
Charles J. Heyward
Lobeco, SC
Pedro A. Albany
Dale, SC
Joe L. Albany
Dale, SC
Dawn R. Girdina
Seabrook, SC
Franklin D. Wiley
Daufuskie Island, SC
Ervin Simmons
Daufuskie Island, SC
Claudia S. Gay
St. Helena, SC
Edward B. Rynecki
St. Helena Island, SC
Michael H. Finnen
St. Helena, SC
Stephen P. Kerchner
Frogmore, SC
Arthur L. Ford
St. Helena, SC
Frank D. Mullins
Frogmore, SC
89
-------
George T. Golden
St. Helena, SC
Grail A. Reaves
St. Helena, SC
Michael A. Yoakum
St. Helena, SC
Bruce P. Fowler
St. Helena, SC
Charles Brisbane
St. Helena, SC
Arthur M. Chisholm
St. Helena, SC
Bruce W. Fowler
St. Helena, Sc
Howard Holmes
St. Helena, SC
Cleophus Wareen
St. Helena, Sc
Jeffery S. Gunther
St. Helena, SC
Bernard Doctor
St. Helena, SC
William L. Golden
Frogmore, SC
Bruce C. Golden
Frogmore, SC
Harold I. Moultrie
St. Helena, SC
Jesse Holmes, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
Joey L. Chaplin
St. Helena, SC
Robert Pope, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
James Bradley
St. Helena, SC
Andrew Kidd, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
Tamer Middleton
St. Helena, SC
Marvin H. Ladson
St. Helena, SC
James D. Smith
St. Helena, SC
Bobby D. Knight
St. Helena, SC
Henry Chisholm, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
Willie A. Williams, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
Norman F. Gay
Frogmore, SC
Jonathan Holmes
St. Helena, SC
Marion D. Jenkins
St. Helena, SC
Arthur Singleton
St. Helena, SC
Barrett T. Boulware
Frogmore, SC
William D. Stevenson II
Fripp Island, SC
William M. Chaplin
St. Helena, SC
John Singleton
St. Helena, SC
Wild B. Green
St. Helena, SC
Ernest Coleman
St. Helena, SC
Barrett T. Boulware
Frogmore, SC
William R. Hunt, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
Ezekiel Johnson
St. Helena, SC
John Singleton
St. Helena, SC
Thomas Capers
St. Helena, SC
John M. Carson
St. Helena, SC
Leisha M. Golden
St. Helena, SC
Dale J. Ackerman
St. Helena, SC
Steven K. Abraham
St. Helena, SC
Julius Moultrie
St. Helena, SC
90
-------
James D. Berry III
St. Helena Island, SC
William P.Treloar
Frogmore, SC
Carl L. Rogers
Hardeeville, SC
Robert Pope
St. Helena, SC
Bartley W. Hughes
Furman, SC
Penny T. Orrel
Hardeeville, SC
John F. Martin III
St. Helena Island, SC
Frank G. Toomer, Sr.
Hilton Head, SC
Clyde F. Scott
Hardeeville, SC
Colling 0. Cleveland
St. Helena, SC
William Green
Hilton Head, SC
Isaiah G. Brown, Jr.
Hardeeville, SC
Robert K. Upton
Frogmore, SC
John F. Carter, Jr.
Hilton Head, SC
John M. Sanders, Jr.
Hardeeville, SC
George Coleman
St. Helena, SC
Martin Govan III
Hilton Head, SC
Marvin Orrel
Hardeeville, SC
John Mattis, Jr.
St. Helena, SC
Ronald Stewart
Hilton Head, SC
Glenn M. Scott
Hardeeville, SC
Jimmy L. Stanley
St. Helena, SC
Daniel Driessen
Hilton Head, SC
Phillip R. Horton
Hardeeville, SC
Saxby S. Chaplin
St. Helena, SC
Richard Mitchell, Sr.
Hilton Head, SC
Richard T. Willdigg
Hilton Head, SC
Terry R. Golden
Frogmore, SC
Eugene Orage
Hilton Head, SC
Ronald W. Alley
Hilton Head, SC
Bobby N. Webb
St. Helena, SC
Clarence M. McMillan, Jr.
Hilton Head, SC
Frank Gadson
Hilton Head, SC
Mildred B. Vam
Frogmore, SC
Brantley E. Toomer
Hilton Head, SC
Woodrow W. Collins
Hilton Head, SC
George White
St. Helena, SC
Earl R. Hubbard
Hardeeville, SC
Larry C. Butler
Port Royal, SC
Randall M. McCoy
St. Helena, SC
Joseph R. Bright
Hardeeville, SC
Robert T. Lewis
Port Royal, SC
John J. Hall
St. Helena, SC
E.C. Hubbard
Hardeeville, SC
Robert W. Potter
Port Royal, SC
91
-------
Robert G. Chapin, Sr.
Port Royal, SC
George Ford
Port Royal, SC
William J. Rowell, Jr.
Ridgeland, SC
Thomas C. Lowther
Ridgeland, SC
Tyrone Powell
Sheldon, SC
James F. Log, Jr.
Vamville, SC
Ogden C. Lazenby
Port Royal, SC
Roy D. Gray
Port Royal, SC
David K. Bogan
Port Royal, SC
Larry C. Butler
Port Royal, SC
Robert W. Potter
Port Royal, SC
J.C. Washington
Port Royal, SC
David S. Jones
Ridgeland, SC
Bill F. Cashion
Ridgeland, SC
Troy E. Altman
Ridgeland, SC
Harold H. Washington
Ridgeland, SC
George T. Pepper
Ridgeland, SC
Wilbur Gardner
Ridgeland, SC
David M. Plewes
Ridgeland, SC
Darrell T. Johnson
Ridgeland,SC
Ernest Jackson
Ridgeland, SC
Leon D. Wilson
Ridgeland, Sc
Oliver J. Bright
Ridgeland, SC
William C. North
Hilton Head, SC
James N. Lloyd
Hilton Head, SC
Jackie E. Woody
Seabrook, SC
Roger A. Walker
Seabrook, SC
George Albany
Seabrook, SC
Benjamin Capers
Seabrook, SC
John E. Smalls, Jr.
Seabrook, SC
David P. Brennan
Seabrook, SC
Rufus H. Pinckney
Sheldon, SC
Craig B. Dopson
Yemassee, SC
John L. Simmons
Yemassee, SC
Dennis R. Ulmer, Jr.
Bloomingdale, GA
Donald E. Miller, Jr.
Brooklet, GA
Frederick W. Dennis, Jr.
Lyons, GA
Alvin G. Hilton III
Bloomingdale, GA
Mary F. Sheffield
Clyo, GA
Calvin R. Morris
Clyo, GA
Ralph Mclver
Crescent, GA
Richard L. Skinner
Crescent, GA
Dubbie R. Kehle
Crescent, GA
Billy J. Nelson, Sr.
Crescent, GA
Rodney C. Sawyer
Crescent, GA
92
-------
Max B. Yednak
Darien, GA
Ted W. Smithwick
Darien, GA
Chris B. Colson
Darien, GA
George W. Trutt
Darien, GA
Frank Schuman
Tybee Island, GA
Michael O. White
Tybee Island, GA
John H. Miller
Darien, GA
Roy O. Parks
Darien, GA
Walter H. Boone
Darien, GA
Gregory T. Boone
Darien, GA
George C. Everson
Darien, GA
Dave L. Gale, Sr.
Darien, GA
Marcus H. McCall
Darien, GA
Henry A. Skipper, Jr.
Darien, GA
Fred N. Todd
Darien, GA
Tommy H. Poppell
Darien, GA
Tracy T. Neesmith
Darien, GA
William P. Brannan
Darien, GA
Darnell F. Boone
Darien, GA
Francis R. Keahig
Darien, GA
Douglas M. Boone
Darien, GA
James D. Herrington
Guyton, GA
David B. Bailey
Guyton, GA
Elbert Thompson, Sr.
Guyton, GA
Elbert Thompson, SR.
Guyton, GA
John A. Wallace
Meridian, GA
Robert C. Todd
Valona, GA
Hunter W. Forsyth
Meridian, GA
Martha H. Wadsworth
Richmond Hill, GA
Larry W. Perkins
Rincon, GA
Billy F. Watson
Tybee Island, GA
James M. Robertson
Tybee Island, GA
Charles E. Bunting
Tybee Island, GA
Josiah B. Riffle
Tybee Island, GA
Albert D. Clark
Tybee Island, GA
John M. Fleming
Townsend, GA
Lawrence A. Jacobs
Valona, GA
Lawrence F. Jacobs
Valona, GA
Jules A. Hagan
Valona, GA
Paul T. Gregory
Savannah, GA
John F. Hayden
Savannah, GA
Robert F. Patterson
Savannah, GA
S. L. Shores
Savannah, GA
Henry H. Groover
Savannah, GA
Valgie McLemore
Savannah, GA
93
-------
Gerald R. Smith
Savannah, GA
Thoas Stafford, Jr.
Savannah, GA
David L. Sanders
Port Wentworth, GA
Darren A. Jackson
Savannah, GA
Susan C. Teston
St. Simons Island, GA
Wesley F. Dickey
Jekyll Island, GA
Reuben E. Smith
Savannah, GA
John D. McPhail
Savannah, GA
David Vongsaona
Savannah, GA
Kirk P. Davis
Savannah, GA
Dewey M. Bashlor
Savannah, GA
John C. McCarthy
Savannah, GA
Angie Woodward
Savannah, GA
George B. McKenzie
Savannah, GA
Elijah Wafford
Savannah, GA
Andrew G. Griner
Savannah, GA
Ricky D. Miles
Savannah, GA
Edward H. Bumgardner
Savannah, GA
James H. Woods
Port Wentworth, GA
Keith J. Kramer
Savannah, GA
Ronald W. Martin
Savannah, GA
Robert F. Lowery
Savannah, GA
Betty G. Hall
Savannah, GA
Michael P. Sullivan
Savannah, GA
Christopher R. Gore
Savannah, GA
John B. Anderson
Savannah, GA
R.D. Watson, Sr.
Savannah, GA
Willie J. Holmes, Sr.
Savannah, GA
Allan F. McDonald
Savannah, GA
Dennis Ulmer
Savannah, GA
James F. Dubbely
Savannah, GA
Robert M. McCall
Brunswick, GA
James A. Carter
Woodvine, GA
James Gabrish
Charleston, SC
Joan Klippel
Hilton Head, SC
Marsha Hass
Charleston, SC
Charles Raley, Jr.
Charleston, SC
Jeny Olman
Hilton Head, SC
Atlee Compher
Hilton Head, SC
William Whitner
Johns Island, SC
Stephen Brinson
Hollywood, SC
Bradley Webb
Isle of Palms, SC
William Schilling
Hilton Head, SC
George Van Cott
Isle of Palms, SC
Michael Larrow
Ridgeland, SC
94
-------
Robert Besok
Kiawah Island, SC
James Watts
Wando, SC
James Lockwood III
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Samuel Lyon III
Hilton Head, SC
Gregory Clark
Hilton Head, SC
Howard Costa
Hilton Head, SC
Marc Pincus
Hilton Head, SC
Peter Brown
Charleston, SC
Robert Bennett, Jr.
Charleston, SC
Thomas Bronsky
Hilton Head, SC
Charles Raley
Hilton Head, SC
Randolph Scott
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Erich Von Ahn
Hilton Head, SC
Jay Johnson, Jr.
Charleston, SC
Kenneth Cannon
Ravenel, SC
Craig Reda
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Edwin Toporek
Sullivans Island, SC
Douglas Heaton
Charleston, SC
Gail Strusbaugh
Murrells Inlet, SC
Dennis Lee
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Alton McAbee
Johns Island, SC
John Cox
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Benjamin Mclnnes
North Charleston, SC
William Pollitzer
Hilton Head, SC
Andrew Belk
Mt. Pleasant, SC
E.Byrd, Jr.
Isle of Palms, SC
Harry Kennerty
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Edward Surgeon
Fripp Island, SC
Richard Stuhr
Charleston SC
Rodney Hughes
Hilton Head, SC
Manley Eubank
Charleston, SC
Michael Able
Mt. Pleasant, Sc
Michael Glaesner
Charleston, SC
Trevor Strever
Beaufort, SC
Larry Branham
Johns Island, SC
Marvin Copeland
Burton, SC
Waldo Phinney, Jr.
Beaufort, SC
George Campsen III
Charleston, SC
Robert Johnson, Jr.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jerry Ciandella
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Richard Vance
Charleston, SC
William Stuhr
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Ralph Howey, Jr.
Hilton Head, SC
William Parker, Ir.
Bluffton, SC
John Sheppard
Folly Beach, SC
95
-------
Charles Griffin, Jr.
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jack Schultz
Charleston, SC
Mark Brown
Mt. Pleasant, SC
George Gallager, Jr.
Awendaw, Sc
Charles Getsinger
Bluffton, SC
Edward Roberts
Hilton Head, SC
John Carter, Jr.
Hilton Head, SC
Robert Gilbert
Fripp Island, SC
Mark Davis
Hilton Head, SC
Richard Smith
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jerome Baldwin, Jr.
Green Pond, Sc
Scott Condie
Bluffton, SC
Robert Jones
Bluffton, SC
Charles Gertis
Beaufort, Sc
James Maples
Hilton Head, Sc
Cecil Lachicotte
Edisto Island, SC
Ocie Welch III
Ridgeland, SC
Robert Nissly
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Jill Merritt
Charleston, SC
Serge Claire
Charleston, SC
Albert Harvey m
Kiawah Island, Sc
Thomas Young
Edisto Island, SC
Michael Pendleton
Charleston, SC
George Bach
Beaufort, SC
A. Swygert
Johns Island, SC
Albert Martin III
Okatie, SC
John Williams
Folly Beach, SC
David Thomas
Edisto Island, Sc
Lawrence Wells
Hilton Head, SC
Victor Mills
Seabrook Island, SC
Richard Brackett
Charleston, SC
Michael Kitchen
Charleston, SC
Larry Rhodes
Johns Island, SC
Augustus Blalock
Charleston, SC
Kevin Ragsdale
Beaufort, SC
William Coleman
Johns Island, SC
George Webb
Charleston, SC
Steven Gale
Bluffton, SC
James Crocker
Mt. Pleasant, SC
William Tuten III
Jacksonboro, SC
Mark Maurer
Hilton Head, Sc
Levon Reeves
Mt. Pleasant, SC
George West, Jr.
Charleston, SC
Ronald Wallschlager
Kiawah Island, SC
Ralph Netherland, Jr.
St. Helena Island, SC
96
-------
William Pinkston
Hilton Head, Sc
Billy Grooms
Charleston SC
David Murray
Beaufort, SC
David Fleming
Hilton Head, SC
Charles Monzel
Bluffton, SC
Richard Moore
Isle of Palms, SC
Patricia Broad
Ravenel, SC
Philip Smith
Hilton Head, SC
Richard Fleming
Hilton Head, SC
Stephen Wagner
Edisto Beach, SC
97
-------
Appendix E
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE DRAFT EIS
98
-------
NOAA Fisheries: Letter dated October 23, 2003. NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division concurred with
the Federal determination that the proposed action would not have a substantial individual or cumulative
adverse impact on essential fish habitat, or fishery resources under NOAA management responsibility.
Also recommended coordination with NMFS, Protective Resources Division.
Response: We appreciate the concurrence on Essential Fish Habitat and will contact the Protected
Resources Division, as recommended.
NOAA Fisheries: Letter dated December 10, 2003, NMFS, Protected Species Division concurred with
the Federal determination that the project will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat protected
by the ESA under NOAA Fisheries' purview. Also recommended coordination with NMFS, Habitat
Conservation Division.
Response: We appreciate the concurrence on the Endangered Species Act.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, SC DHEC: Letter dated October 20, 2003. OCRM
identified some editorial changes to be addressed. Also expressed concerns regarding disposal of
material from the Federal Navigation Project at the proposed ODMDS as opposed to beneficial uses of
the material by placement on Hilton Head Island or at Joiner Bank. The letter also identified the
confusion regarding the definition of private beaches versus publicly owned beaches.
Response: We have made editorial changes as requested and have made changes to the language
concerning the beaches being privately owned. All comments concerning use of sand for beach
nourishment are appreciated. EPA continues to support the beneficial use of dredged material on all
projects. However, this document is focused on the environmental acceptability of the proposed
ODMDS for its intended use. Extensive discussion on other uses of dredged material from projects is
inappropriate within the scope of this document.
S.C. Department of Natural Resources: Letter dated October 21, 2003. SCDNR identified four editorial
changes regarding the data presented in Section 4.2.5 and Section 4.7.3. Two changes in Section 4.2.5
have been made. The correct Appendix for the complete list of all taxa has been noted in Section 4.7.3.
Lastly, the mailing list for the draft EIS is consistent with the addressees in Appendix D. However, the
current mailing list has been updated to reflect personnel changes.
Response: Thank you for the editorial comments. The changes have been made.
Town of Hilton Head Island-. Letter dated October 9, 2003. Expressed concern regarding the disposal
of sediments from the Federal Navigation Channel at the proposed ODMDS and identified confusion
regarding the definition of public versus private beaches.
Response: We appreciate the comments, and have made changes to the language concerning the
, beaches being privately owned. We also appreciate your comments related to beneficial uses of
appropriate dredged material. EPA continues to support the beneficial use of dredged material on all
projects. However, this document is focused on the environmental acceptability of the proposed
99
-------
EPA Library Region 4
10
lb - 0
V
2599
ODMDS for its intended use. Extensive discussion on other uses of dredged material from projects is
inappropriate within the scope of this document.
South Beach Marina of Hilton Head: Letter dated October 17, 2003. The marina discussed the need for
an ODMDS near the south end of Hilton Head instead of at the proposed location. Requested that the
proposed ODMDS be moved to a location at the mouth of Calibogue Sound.
Response: We disagree with the comment that there is little need for the ODMDS in its current
location. The need for this ODMDS is the reason for the proposed action. We have also heard of the
Governor's idea of shutting down the State Port Authority's (SPA) facility at Port Royal, however, no
such action has been initiated. The need for the ODMDS is driven by the Congressional authorization of
the federal project, as determined by studies showing a federal interest in maintaining the navigational
waterways within the project scope. Even closure of the SPA facility does not automatically mean the
federal project would be deauthorized, particularly within a timely manner. The idea of relocating the
ODMDS as suggested is not practical. As described within the Draft EIS, the process of designating an
ODMDS starts with determination of need, followed by extensive field studies, which characterize the
environs of the proposed ODMDS, and completed by the EIS development and rulemaking process. The
entire process would have to be reinitiated in order to relocate the ODMDS several miles to the south.
Such an action is doable, but cannot be shortened by "altering" the current proposal.
Sea Pines South Beach Owners Association: Letter (no date). The Owners Association reiterated the
concerns and requests of the Town of Hilton Head and South Beach Marina letters.
Response: See responses to previous comments.
r
DATE DUE
100
------- |