rSS.3V ; />7£c> ENERGY METALS ENERGY METAL VIETALS ENERGY METALS ENERGY ENERGY METAL c ^NERGY METALS VIETALS ENER^ ,C TALS ENERGY ENERGY MF ^GY METALS VIETALS Er "S ENERGY ENERGV ' METALS VIETAi' X >ERGY ENERGY M 7Y METALS Deep Seabed Mining Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement M. &\ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration J; Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy ' ^ v March 1981 NOTES TO THE READER This document is by nature quite complex. In an attempt to clarify the text, technical terms are defined in the Glossary (Section V, Appendix 2) and capitalized at first usage in each section. The document also includes an Index (Section VII) of the most important descriptors. A general Table of Contents is included for the entire document and is supplemented by detailed Tables of Contents preceding each section. Conversion factors used in calculating metric and English values are listed on the inside back cover. ^f '* S *TES O* »* Deep Seabed Mining Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by: Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 March 1981 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration James P. Walsh, Acting Administrator Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy Robert W. Knecht, Director Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation <: http://www.archive.org/details/deepseabedmininOOunit Ill DESIGNATION: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS) TITLE: Proposed Deep Seabed Mining Program ABSTRACT: This draft PEIS is prepared pursuant to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (P. L. 96-283, "The Act") and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to assess the impacts of deep seabed mining for manga- nese nodules. Exploration by United States citizens would be authorized by license from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admininstration (NOAA) beginning in the next few years, followed by commercial mining under NOAA permit no earlier than 1988 and continuing indefinitely. The area of interest is the Pacific Ocean (about 4,500 m or 15,000 ft deep) in a 13 million km^ (3.8 million nmi 2 ) area of the equatorial high seas roughly between Central America and Hawaii. The PEIS includes the at-sea and onshore impacts of the mining of nodules from the deep seabed, their transport to onshore, onshore processing, and waste disposal. Four strategic metals (nickel, cobalt, manganese, and copper) will be produced by this new U.S. industry. Mining in other ocean areas, at-sea processing, and mining with techniques other than hydraulic methods are not discussed in this PEIS. Deep seabed mining will occur in ocean areas beyond the jurisdiction of any nation. Therefore, mining probably will be conducted in cooperation with other nations licensing deep seabed miners through a system of reciprocal state agreements. Authorization may also be granted by an International Seabed Authority should a Law of Sea treaty enter into force for the United States. At-sea impacts occur in the water-column and on the seafloor. In the water column, the two major effects with potential for significant adverse impact are trace metals uptake by zooplankton and effects on fish larvae. On the seafloor, organisms will be lost during the collection of nodules from the ocean floor. None of these impacts is expected to be significant during the exploration phase. The PEIS discusses regulated mining under the Act as NOAA's preferred alternative, with continuing review of environmental impacts through monitoring and environmental research. It also discusses examples of miti- gation measures and approaches to conservation of resources likely to arise through commercial recovery. NOAA will serve as lead agency for environmental review of onshore processing and facilitate other government approvals to the extent practicable and desirable. LEAD AGENCY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy CONTACT: Robert W. Knecht, Director Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy 2001 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 653-7695 COMMENTS: Comments may be submitted on this document up to the date stated on the enclosed letter. v>^ 7 CONTENTS (detailed listing precede each section) Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi I. INTRODUCTION 1 I. A Purpose and Need for Action 3 I.B The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 4 I.C The Resource 5 I.D Major Federal Actions 9 II. AT-SEA ASPECTS OF DEEP-SEABED MINING 11 1 1. A Affected Environment 15 I I.A.I DOMES Area 15 1 1. A. 2 Transportation Corridors 51 I I.B Mining Activity Impingement on Environment 55 II.B.l DOMES Area 55 II. B. 2 Transportation Corridors 66 I I.C Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 69 I I.C.I Effects without Potential for Adverse or Significant Impacts 69 I I.C. 2 Effects with Potential for Significant or Adverse Impacts 91 I I.C. 3 Information to be Required from Industry 103 I I.C. 4 Monitoring Strategy 109 II. C. 5 NPDES Considerations 113 I I.C. 6 Summary of At-Sea Environmental Consequences 121 I I.D At-Sea Alternatives, Including Proposed Actions 125 II.D.l Alternatives Under Regulated Mining 125 I I.D. 2 Other Alternatives that are Precluded by the Act 138 III. IMPACTS OF ONSHORE ACTIVITIES 143 1 1 1. A Onshore Activities 147 I I I.A.I Port Terminal Activities 147 III. A. 2 Port-to-Plant Transportation 150 III. A. 3 Nodule Processing Plant 152 III. A. 4 Disposal of Nodule Processing Waste 162 III.B Mitigation Under Existing Laws 165 I I I.C Onshore Alternatives, Including Proposed Actions 165 IV. LIST OF PREPARERS 177 V. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AGENCIES TO WHOM EIS SENT 181 VI. APPENDICES 189 1. References 191 2. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary 197 3. Projected Deep Seabed Mining Systems and Processes for First Generation Development 211 4. Public Involvement 1975 - Present 251 5. Effects of Prohibition or Long Delay in Initiation of Deep Seabed Mining 259 6. Comparison of Impacts of First Generation Deep Seabed Mining and Impacts from the Equivalent Amount of Land Mining 271 7. Energy Implications of Deep Seabed Mining 275 8. Federal Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals and Turtles 277 9. Photos of Surface Plume During Test Mining 281 VII. INDEX 283 VI Figure s S ection and Number Title Page Executive Summary 1 Area of Manganese Nodule Maximum xiv Commercial Interest and High Nickel Concentration in Nodules; with DOMES Test Site Locations 1 1. A Affected Environment 2 Stations Occupied and Generalized Surface 17 Circulation in the DOMES Region 3 Tropical Storms Frequency of Occurrence 19 4 General Surface Circulation in Eastern 21 Tropical Pacific 5 Vertical Profiles of Temperature, Salinity 23 and Density During Summer and Winter 6 Distribution of Sediment in DOMES Area 31 7 Manganese Nodules on Seafloor 32 8 Abyssal Animals that are Representative of 34 the Phyla in the DOMES area 9 Abyssal Mud-Dwelling Creatures of the DOMES 35 Area 10 Deepsea Photo of Sea Cucumber, Urchin, and 36 Brittle Stars Lying on Sediment 11 Deepsea Scavengers Attracted to Bait 37 12a General Detrital Food Chain 46 12b A Picture Model of Estuarine Detritus Food 46 Chain Based on Mangrove Leaves 13 Marine Biota and Depth Relationships that 47 Comprise the Major Food Chain of Oceanic Ecosystem 14 Areas and Types of Commercial Fishing with 50 DOMES Sites A, B, C 15 Major U.S. and Foreign Shipping Lanes 52 in DOMES Area 16 Geographic Relationship between DOMES Area 53 and Representative U.S. Processing Sites II.B Mining Activity Impingement on Environment 17 Schematic Diagram Showing Input and 56 Output of a Hydraulic Mining System 18 Photo of Mining Vessel and Discharge Pipe 59 19 Planar View of Plume Reconstructed from 60 Transects through Test Mining Plume 20 Photo of Benthic Plume and Benthic Organism 63 21 Estimated Concentration of Particulates 65 Above Ambient in Suspension in Commercial Scale Benthic Plume VII Figures (continued) Section and Number Title II.C Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 22 Monitoring Strategy Flow Chart III. Impacts of Onshore Facilities 23 VI. APPENDICES Appendix 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 Appendix 5 30 31 32 33 Appendix 9 35 Representative Geographic Areas Where Industry May Seek to Locate Processing Facilities Paje 110 146 217 223 224 229 242 247 Diagrams of Two Major Mining Systems Transfer At-Sea of Slurry from Mining Ship to Transport Ship Three Forms in Which Manganese Nodule Material May Leave the Mining Ship Illustrative Slurry Terminal Illustrative Tailings Ponds Some Aids for Navigation and Positioning Used in Deep Seabed Exploration and Systems Development Projected Annual Nickel Production from Land Resources, 1980-2010 Projected Annual Manganese Production from Land Sources, 1980-2010 Projected Annual Copper Production from Land Resources, 1980-2010 Projected Annual Cobalt Production from Land Resources, 1980-2010 a. Open Pit Mine b. Open Pit Mine Showing Waste Dump c. Land Mining Processing Plant d. Land Mining Waste Disposal Tailings Pond Photos of Surface Plume During Test Mining 281 260 261 262 263 266 VI 11 Tables Section and Number Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Potential Biological Impacts and Supporting Research to Evaluate Possible Mitigation Strategies xix I.C Introduction 2 Deep Seabed Mining Consortia Involving 8 U.S. Firms, including Dates of Consortia Formation 1 1. A Affected Environment 3 Concentrations of Nickel, Copper, and Manga- 24 nese in the Water Column in North Pacific 4 Trace Metal Content of Organisms 26 Collected During DOMES Cruises 5 Number and Percentage of Taxa Observed in 38 Bottom Photographs at Each Site 6 Common Names, Feeding and Mobility Classes 39 of Taxa Observed by Deep-sea Photography 7 Faunal Composition by Number of Individuals 41 and Their Percentage from Box Cores 3 Common Names, Mobility, Feeding, and Infaunal 42 Classes of Taxa Obtained from Box Cores 9 Descriptive Statistics for Benthic Biota of 43 Three DOMES Study Sites 10 Comparison of Ecological Functions of 45 DOMES Benthos and Approximate Land Equivalents II.B Mining Impingement on Environment 11 Daily Discharge Characteristics from 5,000 61 Dry MT/day Mining Ship I I.C Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 12 Deep Seabed Mining Perturbations and Environ- 76 mental Impact Concerns 13 Average Chemical Composition of Sediments at 115 DOMES Sites A, B, and C and Pacific Pelagic Sediment 14 Assumed Composition of Major Categories of 116 Elements in Manganese Nodules 15 Summary of Initial Environmental Concerns 122, 123 and Potential Significant Impacts of Mining IX Tables (continued) Section and Number Title III. Impacts of Onshore Facilities 16 17 18 19 20 21 Preliminary Identification of Resource Requirements for Major Activity Alter- natives for Onshore Nodule Processing Wastewater Treatment Processes Used in Ore Processing Industry Preliminary Approximation of Pollutant Discharges from Alternate Nodule Processing Plants Summary of Environmental Impacts Which Can Be Avoided and Relevant Federal Legislation Summary of Environmental Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided and Major Relevant Federal Legislation Alternatives for NOAA Involvement in Permitting Onshore Activities Page 154 156 157 166, 167 168, 169, 170 173 VI. APPENDICES Appendix 3 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Appendix 5 31 32 33 Schematic Overview of First Generation 214 Mining Operations Ranges and Mean Values of Mining Systems 215 a. Hydraulic Systems b. Continuous Line Bucket System Daily Mining System Throughput for a 5000 MT 218 (dry wt.) Hydraulic Production Unit Port to Mining Site Distances 222 Likely Fleet - Nodules Slurry 225 Preliminary Indent ifi cat ion of Resource 228 Requirements for Major Activity Alternatives for Onshore Marine Nodule Processing Possible Processing Systems for Three-Metal 235 and Four-Metal Plants Composition of Process Materials and Supplies 237 Major Categories of Elements in Manganese 240 Nodules Summary of Projected Worldwide Supply of 260 Nickel by Major Deposit Type, 1980-2010 Summary of Projected Worldwide Supply of 261 Manganese, 1980-2010 Summary of Projected Worldwide Supply of 262 Copper by Major Deposit Type, 1980-2010 Tables (continued) Section and Number Title Page 34 Summary of Projected Worldwide Supply of 263 Cobalt by Major Deposit Type, 1980-2010 35 Summary of Unit Impact Parameters Used in 264 Aggregate Analysis of Worldwide Mining and Processing 36 Summary of Impacts Associated with Continued 265 Reliance on Land Mining During the Period 1980-2010 37 Potential Rate of Development of Deep Seabed 268 Mining, 1988-2010 38 Cumulative World Demand for Nodule Metals and 269 the Deep Seabed Contribution 39 Impacts Associated with a Delay Until 2010 AD 270 in the Initiation of Deep Seabed Mining Appendix 6 40 Comparison of Impacts of First Generation Deep 272 Seabed Mining and Impacts from the Equivalent Amount of Land Mining I XI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act The Resource Scope of the PEIS At-Sea Impacts 1) Mining 2) At-Sea Processing 3) Transportation 4) Summary and Implications at Exploration Phase Alternatives for Managing Nodule Recovery 1) Alternatives Under the Act 2) Alternatives to the Act Impacts of Onshore Facilities Alternatives for Managing Onshore Activities xi i i XV XV xv i xvii XX XX XX xxi xxi xxii xxi i i XXIV xm EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to Section 109(c)(2) of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (The Act) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the environmental impacts of exploration for and commercial recovery of manganese nodules from the deep seabed. Exploration and commercial mining would be authorized by NOAA beginning in the next several years and continue indefinitely in the deep waters of the equatorial Pacific Ocean in a 13 million km 2 (3.8 million nmi 2 ) area between Central America and Hawaii (Figure 1). Manganese nodules would be collected from the surface of the seabed at a depth of approximately 5 km (about 3 nmi), pumped up a pipeline to a ship, and transferred to shore for processing. This PEIS assesses the potential at-sea and onshore environmental impacts of mining, transportation, and processing of manganese nodules and alternative strategies for managing those impacts. Headings in this Executive Summary are followed by cross references to other appropriate sections of the PEIS. - The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (see Section I.B) Industry and international interest over the past 20 years in developing the technology for and beginning commercial recovery of manganese nodules, including discussions within the context of the negotiations for a Law of the Sea (LOS) Treaty toward establishing an international regime, led to enactment on June 28, 1980, of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. The Act authorizes NOAA to issue licenses for exploration after July 1, 1988, and permits which, authorize commercial recovery to commence no earlier than 1988. The Act is intended: (a) to provide sufficient regulatory certainty to enable continued development of the deep seabed mining industry, and (b) to provide an orderly progression from the current situation of no regulation of deep seabed mining activities to, first, United States regulation of its citizens who conduct deep seabed mining with mutual recognition of miners operating under comparable regimes of other countries and, ultimately, mining under the international regime established in the LOS negotiations if and when an LOS treaty enters into force for the United States. In principal features, the Act: (a) authorizes issuance of licenses and permits for exploration and commercial recovery operations by United States citizens, subject to regula- tions imposed by the Administrator of NOAA and appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions. Commercial recovery vessels must be documented in the United States and, except in limited circumstances, recovered minerals must be processed at plants located in the United States; (b) requires promulgation of regulations addressing such issues as protection of the marine environment, conservation of natural resources, and safety of life and property at sea. A site-specific environmental impact statement must be prepared for each license or permit. A license or permit may not be issued if the activity can reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse affect on the quality of the environment that cannot be avoided or appropriately mitigated or to pose an inordinate threat to life and property at sea. Where significant effects on safety, health, or the environment would result, NOAA must require XIV 60°N NICKEL CONTENT IN WEIGHT PERCENT 40° 20° 20 c 40° 60°S - NORTH AMERICA • • Area of maximum commercial interest • • T-** 1 *^ f AUSTRALIA \ . I •.' Test Site Locations A— 8° 27' N, 150° 47' W . • B— 11°42'N, 138° 24' W • C— 15° 00' N, 126° 00" W 100°E 140° 180 c 140° 100°W Figure 1. — Area of manganese nodule maximum commercial interest and high nickel concentration in nodules with DOMES test site locations (Horn, Horn, and DeLach, 1972). XV use of the best available technologies to mitigate those effects unless the benefits from using the technologies are clearly insufficient to justify their costs; (c) authorizes the Administrator in appropriate cases to amend regulations and terms, conditions, and restrictions in licenses and permits as experience with deep seabed mining is gained, to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Act, and where necessary to apply enforcement sanctions, including suspension, revocation, or modification of a license or permit; (d) directs the Administrator to conduct an accelerated program of ocean research to support environmental assessment activities necessary to determine whether ocean mining activities will have a significant adverse affect on the marine environment. NOAA must prepare a Five- Year Research Plan for conducting this research program and must enter into negotiations with other countries to establish stable reference areas to be set aside for environmental and resource assessment purposes; and (e) encourages conclusion of a comprehensive LOS treaty which assures non- discriminatory access to deep seabed hard mineral resources under conditions as protective of the marine environment as those provided in the Act, empowers the Administrator to designate foreign nations as reciprocating states for the purpose of providing mutual recognition of mining rights if the laws of those nations regulate deep seabed mining in a manner compatible with the Act and its implementing regulations, and establishes a revenue-sharing fund for the purpose of making such payments as may be required by the revenue-sharing provisions of an LOS treaty, if and when one enters into force with respect to the United States. - The Resource (see Section I.C) Manganese nodules are fist-sized concretions of manganese and iron minerals that occur on the sea bottom in areas of low sediment deposition around the world. Manganese nodules are rich in four strategic metals -- nickel, cobalt, manganese, and copper. Nickel, currently supplied to the United States chiefly from land-based mines in Canada and New Caledonia, is used mainly in stainless steel and other high-temperature steel alloys. Cobalt, which the United States currently obtains primarily from Zaire, is used in the electrical industry for permanent magnets, and for high-temperature alloys used in aircraft. Manganese, which is supplied to the United States by Brazil, Gabon, South Africa (expected to be our major source in the future), and Australia, is essential to the production of steel. Copper, in which the United States is nearly self- sufficient, is used mainly in electrical equipment. If commercially feasible, nodule mining can provide an increasingly important domestic source for these strategic metals as foreign producers retain more of their domestic output (and therefore export less) in the years ahead. The economic impact of deep seabed mining on present sources of these metals is beyond the scope of this PEIS. - Scope of the PEIS The Act requires preparation of a PEIS which assesses the environmental impacts of exploration and commercial recovery in the area of the oceans in which United States citizens are likely first to engage in such activities. The four international consortia with United States corporations as members XVI have indicated that initial mining will likely occur in a 13 million km 2 (3.8 million nmi 2 ) east-west belt in the east central Pacific Ocean. This area has been the focus of a cooperative NOA A/ industry research effort over the past six years known as the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES). The DOMES area was chosen because it is the main area in which industry has expressed commercial interest. This PEIS thus focuses on the environmental impacts of deep seabed mining in the DOMES area, relying primarily on research results from the DOMES and related efforts. The DOMES area is about 8% of the Pacific Ocean. Because technology and associated environmental concerns may change in the future, this PEIS addresses only first generation mining. For purposes of analysis, this document assumes that: (a) during exploration, five ships will test at about two months each; (b) during commercial recovery, five consortia will phase into full production by 1994 (Appendix 5) processing a total of about 11 million MT (12.1 million tons) of nodules annually. Rased on an analysis of metal supply and demand, NOAA speculates that the Pacific belt nodule mining industry could evolve through three generations between 1988 and about 2040. The first generation through about 1995 will likely involve the initial consortia (the four with United States participation and possibly a fifth French group) mining nodules at a rate determined by the world demand for nickel. Second generation mining, from 1995 to 2005 or 2010, could involve an additional five to 10 consortia, perhaps associated with large processing plants that service two to three mine sites. Third generation mining, until about 2030 or 2040 depending on the resource size and rate of exploitation, would level off at about 25 to 30 operational sites and 10 to 20 processing plants worldwide. This PEIS is comprehensive and is intended to limit the scope of informa- tion required in site-specific statements. Activities covered include those anticipated pursuant to reciprocating states arrangements. Should new technology be developed, operations outside the DOMES area be undertaken, or at-sea proces- sing of nodules be initiated, a supplement to this PEIS or a new PEIS may be prepared. Federal action concerning other ocean minerals, such as metalliferous sulfides and placers, are outside the scope of the Act and this PEIS. " At-Sea Impacts (see Section II) The DOMES region is characterized by relatively frequent tropical storms, fluctuating tradewinds (northeast and southeast trades), a north-to-south series of counter-flowing water currents (westward- flowing North Equatorial Current, eastward-flowing North Equatorial Countercurrent, and the westward-flowing South Equatorial Current), and deep (about 5,000 m or 16,500 ft average) waters of stable temperature and salinity. Suspended particulate concentrations are quite low but typical of the open ocean, with a peak of about 30 to 40 ug/1 in the summer and about double that in the winter in the upper water columm; particulate concentrations in the lower water column are progressively lower until just above the bottom where a slight increase in particulate matter signals the presence of a weak nepheloid layer, a water boundary zone occurring between water masses of differing densities. xvn Ecologically, the DOMES area appears to be typical of the tropical high seas. Species populations are often composed of relatively fewer individuals than shoreward marine environments but diversity is very high. Many species, such as the bottom- dwelling sea worms and amphipods, may be found in significant numbers; some commercially-harvested species, such as the tunas and bill fish, also occur in relatively high numbers compared to other oceanic regions. Although only one threatened or endangered species of marine mammal or turtle has been observed in the DOMES area, sixteen species are thought to migrate through the DOMES area or reside, breed, or feed in transportation corridors. Marine bird populations may also occur along those corridors near island and mainland coasts. The geology of the DOMES area is typical of the abyssal Pacific Ocean. The DOMES area is part of both the central and eastern North Pacific Basins, a zone composed of rolling abyssal hills, several long fracture lines, and occasional island and seamount upheavals. Seismic activity is low throughout the DOMES area but higher along the west coast of the Americas and in the Hawaiian archipelago where some transportation corridors may terminate. The seafloor is dominated by soft sediments overlain with occasional rock out- croppings and manganese nodules of varying size, shape, and concentration. Because the DOMES area is relatively isolated from shore and population centers (except Hawaii), human activities near the mine sites can be typified as occasional , mobile, and non-intensive. Four major activities have been identified in the DOMES area: commercial fishing (tuna, billfish); marine transportation; oceanographic research and naval operations. Fishing activities include Japanese and United States vessels, the latter with the Hawaiian Islands as a home port. Transportation through the DOMES area includes major domestic and foreign routes across the Pacific, many of which stop in the Hawaiian Islands. Research trips, which have been occurring at rates of perhaps five to 10 per year by those mining consortia which include groups from the United States, will probably expand over the coming years as mining operations expand. The number of foreign trips is unknown but includes research ventures from Japan, France, Russia, and perhaps others. Naval operations such as submarine maneuvers or convoys nave not been quantified although they probably occur during transit or as more long-term projects. All naval operations are accompa- nied by a public Notice to Mariners from the Defense Mapping Agency. The principal potential at-sea impacts on the environment are those associated with mining activities, at-sea processing, and transportation to port. 1) Mining (see Section II and Appendix 3) Nodules will be recovered from the deep seabed by means of a collector up to 20 m (66 ft) wide which is pulled or driven along the seabed at about 3.6 km (2 nmi ) per hour. Collector action will result in adverse environmental impacts through direct disturbance of benthic biota and through creation of a benthic sediment plume which will affect biota beyond direct contact. In addition, when the nodules are received in the mining ships, the remaining residue consist- ing of bottom water, sediments, and nodule fragments will be discharged over the side of the ship, the resulting surface discharge plume also has the potential for adverse impact. The first two important impacts arise from activities at the seabed. Collector action and the consequent heavy sediment disturbance next to the XV111 collector track will probably destroy benthic biota, an impact which appears to be both adverse and unavoidable (see Section II. C. 2.1). The effect of this disturbance will depend upon the kinds of equipment used and intensity of mining. The affected biota (see Section II. A. 1.2. 2) include animals such as sea stars, brittle stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, polychaete worms, and sea anemones. None are mammals, vertebrates, amphibians or other higher forms of life. NOAA is not aware of any benthic endangered species in the area that may be affected by bottom disturbance. Most animals are minute detritus feeders that live in the upper centimeter of sediment and receive their food from the rain of organic detritus that descends from the upper waters. Their ecological function is to break down the organic matter in the sediment and thus recycle basic nutrients back into the ecosystem. The most comparable land equivalents of these marine organisms are the snails, insects, and worms that inhabit the leaf litter in a forest ecosystem. A worst case estimate is that the benthic biota in about one percent (130,000 km 2 or 38,000 nmi 2 ) of the DOMES area may be killed due to impacts from first generation mining activities. Although recolonization is likely to occur following mining, we do not yet know at what rate. It is unlikely that any mitigation measures will be available to reduce this unavoid- able adverse impact. We are unable at this time, however, to conclude that this impact is significant. Another important type of impact is due to a "rain of fines" away from the collector which may affect the smaller seabed bottom animals beyond direct collector contact through smothering and interference with bottom feeding (see Section II.C.2.2). This plume can extend tens of kilometers from the collector and last several weeks after mining ceases. The increase in nutrients, increased oxygen demand, and additional food supply for scavengers from this activity appear not to have the potential for significant impact (see Section II. C. 1.2. 2). Nor is any effect on the water column food chain expected. However, interference with the food supply for the bottom- feeding animals listed above and clogging the respiratory surfaces of filter- feeding benthic biota may have the potential for significant adverse impacts involving the biota in an estimated additional 0.5 percent (65,000 km 2 or 19,000 nmi 2 ) of the DOMES area. With respect to near surface related disturbance, it is estimated that a 5,000 MT (5,500 tons) per day mining ship will discharge roughly 2,000 MT (2.200 tons) of solids (mainly seafloor sediment), and 25,000 n? (2.96 million ft^) of water per day (see Section II. B. 1.1). The resulting surface discharge plume may extend about 38 to 54 nmi (70 to 100 km), and will be detectable for three to four days following discharge. Two other impacts resulting from the surface plume are potentially signi- ficant. First, trace metals associated with fine particles abraded from nodules may be taken up by zooplankton, resulting in physiological changes or movement of trace metals up the food chain (see Section II.C.2.3). Second, surface plumes may adversely affect the larvae of those fish, such as tuna, which spawn in the open ocean (see Section II.C.2.4). While the likelihood of signi- ficant impacts during exploratory mining appears remote, the potential for significant impact during commercial recovery is uncertain at this time. The four potential environmental impacts noted above will be addressed in the next few years, as described in NOAA's Five- Year Research Plan (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). The highlights of the planned research and examples of mitigation strategies are outlined on Table 1. A number of the effects of the surface plume have low potential for significant impact (see Section II. C. 1.2. 2), including: XIX O ►— u. z LU 00 u. a ac X - 00 >- UI O UI 00 UI UI 00 t— UJ ca UI ca In* 0. Ui t— »— U.UHZV) »— 1 z _i K- z 3E z «s <_> uja < Z «_j_i« o ~ . ^ :» O UJ 1-^ rv^ z > t— a. 1— ae 3 »— ae Z X CO ae — . 1— •— 1— CC CO O. ra UI 1- © ►- CJ <-> •— i— t— z ac < r> UJ *— 4 i— UI —1 00 1— <: ui z co z ae z 3 O UJ OC u. t— O (- u. 1-4 rvi u. «— z - ac Z —• z a ui 00 Z UJ UJ UJ z z u. Ui 1— z >- _» UI SL ae ui i— — 2: 1— ae •■4 <—i UI t— — ac t— 1 u. t— OO 1— • 0- uj a 1— 1 2: <: z Z <£ Z 3 ■— ■ t_) oz t— z ae 00 a: ui r> oo ae ac 00 rs 2 h- © »— UI DO- —1 1 Ui Ui UJ <_> _i UI Q. UI ui 00 _j ^r N4 -j z ae _l — z ui c3 a. ►— ui 1— z 00 t— z UJ Of =» •-• X UI UI _l >• O 1 z X z Ui 3 < — • a -1 00 £ z Q (— UJ U. U~l a a UI <_> u. *"** •— » Ui 5» 1— • • • • • • • • • • OC t— - Of <_) cc: 1— 00 Ui Ui t— oo Ui z a£ > 0. a. :» ae s: >> >^ •!-> ♦j •^ -r- * ^~ r— UJ • 1— ■ pa —1 c_> Z JD z -Q^» Ul CO 2 t— <_> (— O c 1— O c «« ^-_ •— • Ct i~ 01 ae i_ — • (_) i. <_> i_ O z z Z J 3 Z jT 3 =» Z3 a. 15 3 ra O O «« *-^ r— O <— O z CO a> <♦- O O ai 5» Z3 ae «< LL- (— CS •— • O ;> n-< z < CO X UJ 1— 1 >- CO ^* LO t— ae |— UJ z z ^ < t CJ ±c ^-* UI t— ^5^ 1— UI cog 00 fc ^ a. UI u. 1— ~ u. z °- CO Z ae «t —1 z UJ z h- M a. X »-^ t— t— »— =?s 00 —■ 00 UI z s z Ui (— r>»l u. Z a — > 00 co c QJ OO JZ UJ 2 * — 1 C5 ■O UJ QJ h- CO < 3 ca: ■a 1— CO s= CO •r- ro ■z. c 3-r- 1— 1 c ^- c rd 1— 1 a ro OO •r- 2: OO M O M- Q_ 3 co UJ c cu h- ■1- Ol < -0 ■=> JZ cu 1 enr— • UJ JC c +-> JX. O t— h- ro •— rO m « E C_) CU -r- a: cr c > o: O i- c cu -i^ > 2: »— » cu c h- E O CXL O CO T3 Q. CU o_ C CO =) O ro OO jQ T3 O cu cn z: CO C <=c ro "i- _Q CU OO JD I— CO C_) •1— •> <: CU, , O- C i_ 2: .2 5* ►—I _j u a) 1- «i •r- T-J _ red con Ion. ►— 1 CD O *•>£ F^S _J O 1— 1 -^*^5 CXj 3. «o w —J E c «=c 1— 1 use s pr Admi 1— UJ 1— £-u O Q- •=■81 .,_ .^ cu • ro +->"S rH 4-> O- S- -r- «2 UJ cu -a g cu = -J CO =3 Ol" 3 ^ \— •»« XX - interference with shipping, research, and naval operations; - harm to migrating fish or endangered species; - oxygen depletion in surface waters due to bacterial growth; - alteration of phytoplankton species composition; - increased zooplankton mortality; - phytoplankton blooms due to increased nutrient levels; and - inhibition of primary productivity due to trace metal uptake by phytoplankton. Because the present determination of the significance of environmental concerns addressed in this PEIS is based on brief periods of pilot-scale mining, NOAA intends to verify or update the conclusions in this PEIS by requiring monitoring of the demonstration scale mining tests to be conducted by industry during the license phase. 2) At-Sea Processing (see Section II. B. 1.3 and Appendix 3) At-sea processing would mean refining nodules and disposing of wastes at sea rather than on land. The potential impacts of such activities are not yet known and will also be addressed in NOAA's Five- Year Research Program (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). Primarily because of limitations imposed by ship motion, metallurgical processing at sea is currently impracticable. Processing at-sea is therefore not expected to occur during first generation mining. Should at-sea processing become probable, a supplement to this PEIS may be prepared. 3) Transportation (see Section II.B and II.C and Appendix 3) The principal transportation-related effects of deep seabed mining are those associated with transfer of nodules from the mining ship to ore carriers (see Section II.B. 1.2) and transport to port (see Section II.B. 2). Nodules are likely to be pumped to ore carriers in a seawater slurry; discharges of seawater and accidental discharges of nodules are possible. Seawater discharges from nodule transfer are unlikely to add significantly to discharges associated with nodule recovery. In the unlikely event of a nodule "spill", significant impacts are unlikely since the nodules appear to be inert in their natural form. Nodules will be transported to shore by ships subject to regulation by the U.S. Coast Guard (see Appendix 3). An average of one nodule transportation ship per day is expected to travel in and out of the DOMES area during first generation mining. This level of vessel traffic is not expected to cause any significant impacts on shipping, fishing, research, or naval activities. The potential for significant impact on sea turtles or migrating mammals appears equally small (see Section II.C. 1.1. 2); however, this issue will be addressed in site-specific environmental statements. 4) Summary and Implications at Exploration Phase NOAA anticipates that exploratory mining activities will have little or no potential for significant adverse impact; the impact area can probably be constrained to less than 0.01 percent of the DOMES area due to the relatively brief duration of the mining tests. NOAA will monitor and review the actual impacts of mining exploration to determine whether the effects predicted in this statement are exceeded (see Section II.C. 4). NOAA will give special attention in its research and monitoring to the effects of the benthic plume and the impact of differing patterns of mining vis-a-vis shape of the mine test site. XXI At the commercial recovery stage, collector contact, benthic plume, trace metal uptake, and harm to fish larvae are potentially significant adverse impacts. Therefore, NOAA has begun to undertake research to determine their significance and the need for appropriate mitigating measures. NOAA intends that applicants for licenses or permits provide information in three stages in tandem with the development of the mine site (see Section II. C. 3): license phase pre-testing activities; license phase testing; and permit activities. NOAA environmental documents on specific sites will rely on the assessments and findings in this PEIS, coupled with environmental data on the proposed site. - Alternatives for Managing Nodule Recovery Alternative approaches to managing the at-sea recovery of manganese nodules that have been considered are of two fundamental types -- approaches other than that established by the Act (and therefore requiring legislation) and alternative approaches for implementing the Act. 1) Alternatives Under the Act (see Section II.D.l) Before issuing a license or permit, NOAA must determine, among other things, that the proposed activities cannot reasonably be expected to result in a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment. NOAA must impose terms, conditions, and restrictions (TCR) on licenses and permits, including those necessary to assure conservation of natural resources, protection of the environment, and safety of life and property at sea. Within this framework, 9 issues with potential environmental consequences must be resolved, three at the exploratory phase and six at the commercial recovery stage. With respect to exploration licenses, NOAA must decide: (a) to what extent it should dictate the monitoring which must be undertaken by industry; (b) whether and how mine sites should be spaced; and,(c) what criteria, if any, to apply to selection of stable reference areas. In order to assure that monitoring results are compatible with the studies on which this PEIS is based and adequate to test the impact predictions contained herein, NOAA proposes to specify in some detail the nature, purpose, and method of industry monitoring efforts at the licensing stage (see Section II.C.3). NOAA would take a laissez-faire approach to site spacing, with the constraint noted below. NOAA will initiate consulta- tions with reciprocating states in 1981 to identify the criteria to be used in selecting stable reference areas. At the permit stage, two environmental, three resource conservation, and one international issue must be resolved. With respect to the first environmental issue, the level of detail of information required in permit applications, NOAA proposes to require detailed design and operating information with respect to selected components of the mine system and the proposed monitoring program to determine whether the system is likely to operate in the fashion described in this PEIS and to assure that the monitoring strategy is appropriate to the system being proposed. If future research suggests such mitigation, in order to minimize potential barriers to recolonization posed by a long swath of mined-out areas, NOAA would require that mine sites be spaced so as to avoid a linear alignment which could block recolonization or require provisions for "bridges" at a spacing to be estimated based on research results. xxn Resource conservation issues include whether to: (a) require pattern mining, (b) permit mining of the richest zones of a mine site first; and (c) require retention of manganese tailings by first generation miners who engage in three-metal operations. These issues each require a trade-off between the desire to allow market forces and economic efficiency to determine the rate, pattern, and method of mining and the risk that such an approach will lead to waste of resources because of the unusual environmental conditions and aggravated environmental harm due to the need to expand the areas mined. On these issues, NOAA would: (a) defer a decision on whether to require pattern mining of the site until demonstration scale mining tests are observed; (b) allow selective-mining, i.e., mining of richest areas first but only if conducted in accordance with a long-term plan for mining "leaner" zones as well; and (c) undertake a study in concert with the General Services Administration of the feasibility and desirability of stockpiling manganese tailings as part of the National Defense Stockpile. The international issue involves the development of criteria to use in designating reciprocating states. NOAA would establish specific criteria for designating reciprocating states, including continuing consultations on environmental issues and research. 2) Alternatives to the Act (see Section II. D. 2) Alternatives to the Act include unregulated mining, prohibition of deep seabed mining by United States citizens, and delay of deep seabed mining activities until either a LOS treaty enters into force for the United States or the environ- mental implications of deep seabed mining are better understood. Each of these alternatives has been found by NOAA and industry to be less desirable than regulated mining under the Act. Unregulated mining would provide maximum flexibility for industry; each miner would be free to take what resources it could recover. However, mining claims would have no legal status (and therefore no protection) and no means to resolve conflicts (foreign or domestic) would exist. This alternative is not preferred by industry since security of claims is essential to assure the financial investment necessary for continued development of the industry. Unregulated mining could also have serious adverse environmental impacts since no environmental controls would be imposed and any adverse impacts would likely be beyond the authority of any government to control. Also we would have no legal status with respect to a new deep seabed mining international regime. Prohibition of deep seabed mining would have equally adverse impacts. Such a prohibition would delay initiation of domestic activities and give other mining nations an advantage in the market place. To the extent such a prohibition precluded or significantly delayed deep seabed mining activities, increased reliance on land-based mining would result. Delay in initiating deep seabed mining until, say 2010, would result in the mining of roughly 18,400 ha (46,000 a) of land, the emission of as much as 33 million MT (30 million tons) more of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Finally, prohibiting United States mining activities would result in continued reliance on foreign sources of these strategic metals with potentially serious effects on cost and availability of the resources and on national security. This alternative is thus undesirable for environmental, economic, and national security reasons. xxi n The alternative of delaying implementation of the Act would result in similar impacts without compensating benefits. Other nations are likely to proceed with mining activities in the interim period before a LOS treaty enters into force. The reciprocating states provisions of the Act provide a mechanism for assuring that the activities of the other mining nations proceed under environmental controls that are compatible with those of the U.S.; failure to participate in reciprocating state arrangements could result in environmentally more harmful mining activities. Similarly, environmental standards adopted by the major seabed mining nations as a result of reciprocating state arrangements would likely serve as a model for the international rules and regulations to be drafted by the Preparatory Commission for a LOS Treaty; less stringent environmental provisions could otherwise result. Finally, delay of mining activities would preclude acquisition of information that would enable understanding of the environmental effects of deep seabed mining. Most concerns appear to have a low probability of occurrence. To examine the nature and significance of long-term effects will require the monitoring of demonstration scale mining tests during exploration. A research and monitoring program will be established while the industry is in the testing and exploration phase. This program is intended to ensure the early detection of any significant adverse environmental impacts. This research and monitoring process will be well underway prior to granting commercial recovery permits and well within the time frame necessary to establish or to modify appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions. Since tests during exploration are necessary to achieve greater understanding of environmental impacts, a delay of deep seabed mining would be counterproductive. For all of these reasons, implementation of the Act is NOAA's preferred alternative and the environmentally preferable alternative. - Impacts of Onshore Facilities (see Section III and Appendix 3) As indicated above, first generation processing of nodules will almost certainly take place onshore. Since commercial scale nodule processing has yet to be demonstrated, however, neither the specific sites where manganese nodule processing facilities might be located nor the specific technologies which will be used for nodule processing can be identified. Sites as biophysically and economically diverse as Valdez, San Francisco, Brownsville, and Tampa may be considered. The environmental impacts of onshore facilities will vary dramatically depending on their location and the choice of processing technology; a detailed assessment of onshore impacts thus must await site-specific environmental statements. Nevertheless, certain generic impacts of onshore activities can be described. Four major activities associated with onshore processing have the potential for significant impact: (1) use of port facilities; (2) transportation of nodules from port to processing plant; (3) processing of the nodules; and (4) waste disposal. Each of these activities will have construction and operational effects. The consequences of terminal facilities would be those normally associated with expanding commercial ports. Development is expected to take place in an existing port because a deep seabed mining project would not itself support development of a new port. Dredging and filling are likely to be involved in construction. Ship exhaust emissions, water use, and for some unloading and XXIV storage methods, dust, are the most likely effects of the port operations. A new facility will have to be consistent with approved State coastal management programs and with other land-use programs. Port to plant transportation will likely be done in a pipeline, either above ground or buried. Once pipeline construction effects end, the pipeline should be unobstrusive. Additional truck or rail traffic would occur if a pipeline is not used. Operationally, the nodule processing plant will be similar to a plant designed to process ores mined on land. In physical size and appearance, it will resemble a relatively small refinery except that there will probably be a storage area for coal instead of oil storage tanks and it will be served by a rail line to bring coal in and move the products out. On-site nodule storage would probably be in either slurry ponds or specially-designed enclosures. The impacts of siting the facility will likely be similar to those from siting any other large industrial facility. Construction phase impacts as well as operations impacts are identified in Section III. The impact of plant operations will depend in part on whether the plant is designed to produce cobalt, nickel, and copper (three-metal) or to produce manganese in addition (four-metal). The principal impacts are those associated with water use, high demand for electrical energy, use and possible discharge of toxic or hazardous chemicals, and air pollution associated with coal combustion. Socio-economic impacts also are discussed in Section III. Wast§ disposal presents the greatest environmental concern because of the unknown chemical and physical nature of the wastes and the high volume of waste material. NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Mines have initiated research to characterize the waste materials that will result from the various processing techniques under development, with particular emphasis on identifying any toxic or hazardous components. The volume of waste generated will depend on whether three-metal (3 to 4 million MT or 3.3 to 4.4 million tons of solid waste per year) or four-metal (0.5 to 0.75 million MT or 0.55 to 0.82 million tons per year) processing is involved. Land consumption, contamination of surface and ground waters from runoff and seepage, and dust are the principal environmental concerns associated with onshore waste disposal. Tailings ponds, if chosen as a disposal method, would require sites up to 1,000 ha (2,500 a) in size for 20 years of operation of a 3 million MT (3.3 million ton) per year plant; again, both site and waste characteristics will determine the likely impacts. A second method of disposal that industry may consider is ocean dumping or discharge through an ocean outfall. The former requires a permit under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and the latter a permit under the Clean Water Act; since the characteristics of nodule processing waste are unknown, the likelihood of receiving the necessary permit approval and the probable impacts of ocean disposal are uncertain. - Alternatives for Managing Onshore Activities (Section III.C) Each of the onshore activities described above is subject to the variety of Federal, State and local requirements applicable to siting, construction, and operation on other major industrial facilities, including those imposed by State coastal management programs, local land use laws, and Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to air, water, noise, and solid waste pollution, protection of endangered or threatened species, wetlands and floodplain XXV management, historic and archaeological preservation, wilderness and wild river protection, and prime and unique farmland preservation. Adequate protection of the onshore environment thus appears likely with or without NOAA participation in the onshore permitting process. The issue is whether NOAA involvement is desirable to further the underlying purpose of the Act to promote the availability of deep seabed mineral resources. Three options for NOAA's involvement exist. The first alternative would provide only for general NOAA review of onshore processing technology and potential environmental impacts; NOAA would play no role in siting and permitting of onshore operations. This alternative represents the least administrative effort for NOAA consistent with the Act but may violate NEPA requirements. Under the second alternative, NOAA would act as lead agency for review of environmental impacts, including preparation of a comprehensive environmental impact statement for each onshore facility, and would work informally with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector to facilitate permit decisions. This alternative would be similar to the role the Department of the Interior plays in implementing the outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program and the Consolidated Application Review proposed for NOAA's Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) program. The third alternative would designate NOAA as the lead agency for permitting decisions. This alternative would involve NOAA in activities beyond its expertise, and could involve un- necessary Federal intervention into State and local activity. Implementation of this alternative would require amendment of the Act. NOAA proposes to adopt the second alternative. The first alternative may be legally insufficient, and may in addition fall short of implementing the Congressional intent that NOAA play an active role in facilitating development of the deep seabed mining industry. The third alternative, on the other hand, would be difficult to implement and may be undesirable given the balance of authority in our Federal system of government. The second alternative would assure an effective NOAA role in encouraging deep seabed mining and preserve the flexibility to modify NOAA's involvement as deep seabed mining activities proceed. INTRODUCTION Page I. A Purpose and Need for Action 3 I.B The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act 4 I.C The Resource 5 I.D Major Federal Actions 9 I.D.I Designation of Reciprocating States 9 I.D. 2 Regulatory Framework 9 I.D. 3 Possibilities for Retaining Manganese Tailings 10 I.D. 4 NPDES Findings by EPA 10 I INTRODUCTION l.A Purpose and Need for Action The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and with assistance from other appropriate Federal agencies, pursuant to Section 109(c)(2) of the "Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act" (the Act), has prepared this draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). This PEIS assesses the environmental impacts of licensed exploration for and permitted commercial recovery of manganese nodules with respect to the area of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean where domestic exploration and commercial activity will likely first occur under the authority of the Act. The purpose of and needs for this PEIS are fourfold: 1) to describe the Act and its ramifications in this developing industry, 2) to describe the area in the Pacific Ocean where initial, i.e., first generation, mining is anticipated to occur; 3) to operate in concert with the regulations as a legal regime to guide the industry; and, 4) to help form the basis for reciprocating states agreements (RSA's) between the United States and other nations beginning seabed mining. These features have several implications. Foremost, the PEIS covers only first generation mining, that is the industry as it initially develops between mining onset in 1908 and perhaps 1995. Any future development in technology, mine area, or other key facets of the industry will be covered in a supplement to this PEIS or a new PEIS. Second, this PEIS emphasizes mitigation measures and issues germane to the exploration or license phase of seabed mining. New information from exploration and research will allow NOAA to update this PEIS at a later date prior to commercial mining in 1988. I.B The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act The Act establishes a program to encourage and maintain consortia interests in exploration and continued progression toward commercial production capabilities. The Act is transitional in nature, providing an orderly progression from the present situation of no regulation of deep seabed mining to domestic regulation of United States citizens who conduct seabed mining, mutual recognition of miners operating under other nations' comparable domestic regimes, and eventually to a new international system if and when a Law of the Sea (LOS) Treaty enters into force for the United States. The Act contains the following six principle features: (1) establishes a system of resource management, environmental protection, ^and safety regulation for deep seabed mining by United States citizens. This program does not assert sovereignty or sovereign rights of the United States over any area of the deep seabed, but is based upon the principle of reasonable exercise of freedom of the high seas. The Act creates a program for the licensing of exploration and permitting of commercial recovery operations by United States citizens subject to the regulations imposed by the Administrator of NOAA and other applicable law. (2) requires the Administrator to establish regulations to address specified issues related to seabed mining, including protection of the marine environment, conservation of natural resources, and preservation of safety of life and property at sea. Licenses and permits are exclusive with respect to the area for which they are issued, and are to be issued subject to terms, conditions, and restrictions necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act. (3) provides the Administrator with authority to amend, under certain circumstances, regulations and terms, conditions and restrictions in licenses and permits as experience with deep seabed mining is gained. (4) mandates the Administrator to monitor seabed mining activities and to enforce the Act, the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and the terms, conditions and restrictions imposed on any license or permit. Enforcement powers, in addition to civil and criminal penalties, include suspension and revocation of a license or a permit, or suspension or modification of particular activities authorized by a license or permit, or forfeiture of the vessel involved in a violation. (5) empowers the Administrator to designate any foreign nation as a reciprocating state for the purpose of mutual recognition of mining rights if the nation's domestic regime for authorizing seabed mining is compatible with that of the United States under the Act. (6) establishes a revenue sharing fund to be distributed to the inter- national community in the event that a LOS Treaty governing deep seabed mining enters into force for the United States. I.C The Resource Manganese nodules are fist-sized concretions of manganese and iron minerals that occur on the bottoms of many oceans and lakes in areas of low sediment deposition around the world. Although nodules are widespread, their density of occurrence and their metallic composition are highly variable. One of the most economically promising areas is an east-west belt in the east central Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). This approximately 13 million km^ (3.8 million nmi^) area has been the subject of the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES) which forms the basis of many of the scientific findings presented in this PEIS. It includes the area commonly known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The manganese nodule mining industry has selected the DOMES area for initial mining for two main reasons. First, the DOMES area has been calculated by Frazer (1978) to contain about 3.6 to 13.5 billion MT (4 to 15 billion tons) dry weight of nodules, a higher concentration of nodules than other surveyed areas. That estimate, coupled with the average percentages by dry weight of primary nodule metals (1.25 percent nickel, 1.03 percent copper, 0.23 percent cobalt, 25.2 percent manganese), indicates the quantity and value of the resource in the area. With the exception of copper, of which the United States is the world's largest producer, the United States is heavily dependent on foreign sources for these primary metals. In 1978, the percentages of domestic consumption of these metals satisfied by imports (either in 1978 or earlier, and then recycled) was 100.0 percent for cobalt, 97.6 percent for manganese, 95.9 percent for nickel, and 24.7 percent for copper (Lane, 1979). Each of these four primary metals is crucial to domestic industrial production, especially, steel and electrical industries and products requiring high temperature alloys. Second, nodules in the DOMES area have comparatively high concentrations of nickel . Antrim et a]_. (1979) concluded that because cobalt and manganese are imported from potentially unreliable sources, they could become of strategic concern to the U.S. by the year 2000. Together, those three metals form a valuable resource of crucial importance to the United States. Since industry is particularly interested in the DOMES area for initial mining operations, this PEIS covers only the DOMES area. If and when interest rises for other areas, either a supplement to this PEIS or a new PEIS will be issued in accordance with Section 109(c) (a) of the Act. The manganese nodule mining industry has been evolving since the early 1960's. Much early Federal effort was directed at describing the DOMES area environment and identifying possible locations for and impacts of onshore facilities (see, e.g., Roels et aK > 1973; Dames & Moore and EIC Corporation, 1977; Dames & Moore et aj_. , 1977; Ozturgut et aj_. , 1978; Burns et al. , 1980; Ozturgut et a]_. , 1980). At-sea research has been orchestrated by NOAA with industry in two phases—DOMES I completed in November 1976 and DOMES II completed in early 1979. Other onshore studies have investigated process plant location criteria (Oregon State University, 1978; Bragg, 1979; Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, 1980) and the legal requirements affecting process plant location and operation (Nossaman et al. , 1980). This PEIS will utilize the expanding data base to discuss the potential environmental impacts of deep seabed mining, particularly at-sea aspects that are within direct authority of the Adminis- trator of NOAA. The mining industry currently includes four international consortia with U.S. members (Table 2). These consortia are testing engineering systems and collecting exploration and environmental data. Exploration and research will continue under a license from NOAA; beginning January 1, 1988, commercial recovery may commence with a permit from NOAA and in cooperation with other applicable laws and regulations. Based on an analysis of metal supply and demand, NOAA projects that the DOMES area manganese nodule mining industry will evolve through three generations between 1988 and about 2040. [Development of additional mining areas or innovative technologies could change these projections.] The first generation (discussed in detail in Appendices 5 and 6) from 1988 until about 1995 could involve the initial consortia (four with United States' involvement and perhaps a French group called AFERNOD) mining nodules at rates in harmony with world demand for nickel, the primary nodule metal in terms of economic interest. Second generation mining, from 1995 to 2005 or 2010, could involve an additional five to 10 mining consortia, some associated with large processing plants that service two or three mine sites. Third generation growth could be maintained until 2030 or 2040 depending on the exact size of the nodule resource in the area and the rate of exploitation. During this period, the mature industry could level off at about 25 to 30 operational sites at one time and 8 Table 2. Deep seabed mining consortia involving United States firms including dates of consortia formation. Nation Kennecott Corp. (1/74) Ocean Mining Associates (OMA) (11/74) Ocean Management Inc. (OMI) (5/75) Ocean Minerals Company (OMCO) (11/74) United States Kennecott Corp. Deepsea Ventures, Inc. (Tenneco and *) Sedco, Inc. Ocean Minerals Inc. Noranda Explora- tion, Inc. (Lockheed Missiles *Essex Minerals Co. (U.S. Steel) & Space Co.; Billiton**; BRW***) *Sun Ocean Ventures, Inc. (Sun Oil) AMOCO Ocean Minerals Co. , (Standard Oil Co. of Indiana) Lockheed Systems Co., Inc. (Lockheed Corp.) Belgium *Union Seas, Inc. (Union Miniere) Canada i INCO, Ltd. Italy I i *Samin Ocean Inc. (Subsidiary of Italian Govt.) ! Japan j i 1 Mitsubishi Corp. Deep Ocean Mining Co., Ltd. i I Netherlands 1 **Billiton B.V. (Royal Dutch Shell) 1 i j ! ! j i ***BRW Ocean Minerals (Royal Bas Kalis Westminister Group N.V.) United Kingdom R.T.Z. Deep Sea Mining Enterprises, Ltd. Consolidated Gold Fields. Ltd. BP Petroleum Dev„ Ltd. West Germany / AMR NOTE: Asterisks show relationship of subsidiaries to their parent companies, 10 to 20 processing plants worldwide. This PEIS addresses only exploration and preparation for first generation mining since technology and associated environmental concerns could change prior to second generation mining. I.D Major Federal Actions Major Federal actions covered by the Act include: I.D.I Designation of Reciprocating States To encourage compatibility with and mutual recognition among the legal regimes established by foreign states, the Act provides specific authority for the United States to designate foreign states as "reciprocating states." Under the Act, such reciprocating states: (1) regulate the conduct of their citizens in de^ep seabed mining in a manner compatible with the Act and implemen- ting regulations; (2) recognize licenses and permits issued by the U.S. under the Act, (3) recognize priorities of right for applications for licenses or permits in a manner consistent with the Act; and (4) provide an interim legal framework for exploration and commercial recovery which does not unrea- sonably interfere with the interests of other nations in their exercise of the freedoms of the high seas. Negotiations between the United States and possible reciprocating states have been initiated to help coordinate various national laws. This PEIS covers the environmental impacts of designation of reciprocating states by the Administrator in Section II. D. 1.1. I.D. 2 Regulatory Framework A major objective of the Act is to establish a program to regulate the exploration for and commercial recovery of manganese nodules by United States citizens. This PEIS covers the adoption of the regulations called for by the Act. The notice of proposed rulemaking accompanies this program environmental statement. 10 This purpose is the major focus of this PEIS, namely to establish an interim program (pending LOS Treaty agreement and ratification) which will, among other objectives, protect the marine environment from significant damage caused by exploration or recovery of deep seabed hard mineral resources. Toward that goal, the Administrator of NOAA will use his authority to regulate aspects of mining activities such as surface discharge and benthic disturbances. Site-specific issues on land will be dealt with by NOAA in concert with other Federal agencies such as those listed in Table 19 and 20, Section III, safety-at-sea issues will be coordinated with the Coast Guard. I.D.3 Possibilities for Retaining Manganese Tailings This statement also covers the proposed study of the potential for manganese tailings to contribute to the National Defense Stockpile (see Section II. D. 1.1), an action that would involve a Federal action on the part of the General Services Administration. I.D.4 NPDES Findings by EPA This PEIS also covers action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow guidance in this statement concerning potential unreasonable degradation of water quality under Section 403 of the Clean Water Act. This discussion deals solely with surface discharges from demonstration scale mining tests to be conducted under NOAA exploration licenses. 11 Page II AT-SEA ASPECTS OF DEEP SEABED MINING II. A Affected Environment 15 I I.A.I DOMES Area 15 I I. A. 1.1 History of research 15 1 1. A. 1.2 Environmental setting 18 II. A. 1.2.1 Upper water column 18 II. A. 1.2. 2 Lower water column and seafloor 29 1 1. A. 1.3 Existing human activities 48 1 1. A. 1.3.1 Commercial fishing 49 II. A. 1.3. 2 Research 49 II. A. 1.3. 3 Marine transportation 51 II. A. 1.3. 4 Naval operations 51 II. A. 2 Transportation 51 II. B Mining Activity Impingement on Environment 55 1 1. B.I. DOMES Area 55 II. B. 1.1 Mining 55 II. B. 1.1.1 Surface discharge 58 II. B. 1.1. 2 Bottom discharge 62 II. B. 1.2 Nodule transfer 66 II. B. 1.3 Offshore processing 66 II. B. 1.4 Offshore waste disposal 66 I I.B.I. 5 Offshore support activities 66 II.B.2 Transportation 66 II.C Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 69 II.C.l Effects Without Potential for Adverse or Significant Impacts 69 II.C. 1.1 Transportation corridors to and from shore facilities 69 II.C. 1.1.1 Vessel pollution 69 I I.C. 1.1. 2 Effects on marine mammals and endangered species 72 II.C. 1.1. 3 Processing waste disposal offshore 72 I I.C. 1.2 DOMES Area 73 I I.C. 1.2.1 Existing human activites 73 II.C. 1.2. 2 Proposed deep seabed mining activities 73 II.C. 1.2. 2.1 Nodule transfer 74 II.C. 1.2. 2. 2 Processing offshore 74 II.C. 1.2. 2. 3 Processing waste disposal offshore 74 II.C. 1.2. 2. 4 Offshore support activities 74 II.C. 1.2. 2. 5 Mining effects 75 -Low Probability of Biological Impacts 75 1. Light from Collector 75 2. Nutrient or Trace Metal Increases from Benthic Plume 3. Oxygen Demand from Benthic Plume 77 4. Bacteria Growth that Depletes Oxygen Concentrations in Surface Waters 78 5. Alter Phytoplankton Species Concentra- tions from Surface Discharge 79 12 6. 7. Affect Fish from Surface Discharge II. C. 1.2. 2. 6 Zooplankton Mortality and Species Composition and Abundance Changes 8. Trace Metals Effects on Phytoplankton in Surface Plume 9. Nutrient Increase Cause Phytoplankton Blooms in Surface Plume * 10. Air-Lift Caused Embolisms in Surface Plume - Impacts Not Yet Resolved 1. Pycnocline Accumulation from Surface Discharge - Potentially Beneficial Effects 1. Additional Food Supply for Bottom Scavengers 2. Bacteria Increase Food Supply for Zooplankton 3. Filter Feeding Zooplankton Clean Up Surface Plume - Certain Impact Without Significant Adverse Effects 1. Increased Turbidity from Surface Plume that Reduces Productivity Endangered Species I I.C. 2 Effects With Potential for Significant or Adverse Impacts I I.C. 2.1 Destruction of benthos in and near collector track in prime site subareas II.C.2.2 Blanketing of benthic fauna and dilution of food supply away from mine site subareas I I.C. 2. 3 Potential entry of trace metals into the food web via surface discharge I I.C. 2. 4 Surface plume effect on fish larvae I I.C. 3 Information to be Required from Industry II. C. 3.1 License phase pre-testing activities II. C. 3. 1.1 Environmental information II. C. 3. 1.2 Operational information II.C.3.2 License phase testing activities II. C. 3. 2.1 Environmental information II.C.3.2. 2 Operational information II.C.3.3 Permit Phase I I.C. 3. 3.1 Environmental information II.C.3.3. 2 Operational information I I.C. 4 Monitoring Strategy II. C. 5 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Considerations I I.C. 6 Summary of At-Sea Environmental Consequences Pa^e 80 81 82 83 84 84 84 85 85 86 86 88 88 89 91 92 95 99 101 103 103 103 103 104 104 106 107 107 108 109 113 121 13 Pa^e II. D At-Sea Alternatives, Including Proposed Actions 125 II.D.l Alternatives Under Regulated Mining 125 II. D. 1.1 Issues where alternatives have environmental consequences 127 - License Phase Issues 127 1. Environmental Monitoring 127 2. Proximity of Mining Sites 128 3. Stable Reference Areas 129 - Permit Phase Issues 130 -- Environmental Issues 130 1. Operations 130 2. Proximity of Mining Sites 131 -- Resource Conservation Issues 131 1. Mining Pattern 131 2. Selective Mining 132 3. Manganese Utilization 132 - International Issue 134 1 . Reciprocating States Criteria 134 II.D.l. 2 Issues where alternative approaches have little or no environmental consequences 137 II .0.2 Other Alternatives that are Precluded by the Act 138 #11. D. 2.1 Laissez-faire approach 138 II.D.2.2 Prohibit deep seabed mining 138 II.D.2.3 Delay initiation of deep seabed mining 139 15 II AT- SEA ASPECTS OF DEEP SEABED MINING* II. A Affected Environment I I.A.I DOMES Area 1 1. A. 1.1 History of research** It was recognized when the prospect of deepsea mining was first proposed that it would be necessary to develop an environmental data base to meet the requirements of NEPA. Hence, the DOMES program was initiated as a comprehensive five- year (1975-1980) research effort designed to provide a data base that would allow the assessment and prediction of the environmental impacts of manganese nodule recovery operations. The DOMES program marked the first time in history that such extensive environmental research had been conducted in advance of the birth of a major industry. Periodic workshops (Appendix 4) were sponsored by NOAA after DOMES began in order to assess progress and to help insure public input. DOMES consisted of two phases: to characterize the region environmentally and to monitor effects from industry tests. The specific objectives of DOMES I were: 1) to establish environmental baselines (biological, geological, physical, chemical) at three sites chosen as representative of the range of selected environmental parameters likely to be pertinent to mining; 2) to develop a first order predictive capability for determining potential environmental effects of nodule recovery; and 3) to help develop an information base for the preparation of environmental guidelines for industry and government. Environmental char- acterization of the 13 million km^ (3.8 million nmi'2) area (Figure 1, Executive Summary) that make up the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES) area began with a compilation of the available environmental and biological information, ♦Technical terms used in this section are capitalized at the first usage and and defined in the Glossary in Appendix 2. **Unless otherwise referenced, all research, data, and conclusions discussed in Section 1 1. A are based on NOAA research in the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (Ozturgut eta]., 1978). 16 from which an estimate of environmental variability was derived. Methods to be used during first generation mining activities (see Appendix 3.1.1) were evaluated in terms of potential environmental consequences (see Section II.C). Based on this analysis and the environmental characteristics of the DOMES area, NOAA, in conjunction with industry, selected three sites, each representative of a peculiar set of environmental conditions likely to be encountered in mining. The placement of these sites was predicated on the need to characterize the range of environmental variability in the region, with particular emphasis given to biological productivity. Because the greatest environmental variability was found to occur from north to south, particularly in the upper water layer, the sampling strategy included six or seven stations located along one north-south transect at each of the sites (Figure 2). These transects crossed the two major surface currents (North Equatorial Current and North Equatorial Countercurrent) in the DOMES area and the DIVERGENCE ZONE. The collected data provided a broad charcterization of the spatial and seasonal variations of major oceanographic parameters that might be affected by the mining activites. DOMES I field operations were completed in November 1976. The goal of establishing statistically meaningful confidence limits for data collected on the environmental parameters required a carefully replicated sampling program at the study sites. Summer and winter water sampling along the transects was at four separate depths zones within the upper 1,000 m (3,300 ft): in the SURFACE MIXED LAYER; in the PYCN0CLINE; below the pycnocline to 400 m (1,320 ft); and 400 m to 1,000 m. Sampling of the lower water column and seafloor was conducted in the vicinity of the site stations. The resultant baseline values for the parameters were used to determine impacts on the environment (see Section II.C). 17 30°N 25 c 20° 15° 10° 5°N HAWAIIAN ISLANDS £QV>* XO^ V CUBBED ^O ffi^ • A+3 • A+2 .• A+1 """ • A • A-1 • A-2 • A-3 • B+3 • B+2 • B+1 • B • B-1 — — • B-2 • B-3 • C+3 • C+2 • C+1 • C • C-1 • C-2 • C-3 ^^COUNTEBCUBBENT e oo^ C0fl- wo rf* J- AUGUST — SEPTEMBER 1975 _l I I J 155°W 145° 135° 125° 115°W 30°N 25 c 20 c 15° 10 c 5°N 0° - HAWAIIAN ISLANDS CO &&* e oo* «<*** jO^ rt* • A+3 • A+1.5 • A-1.5 / / A-3 • B+3 B+1. 5 • B • B-1.5 • B-3 : Q U*TOB\M- • C+3 • C+1.5 • C • C-1.5 • C-3 COUNTERCURRENT tf> (&* ± FEBRUARY — MARCH 1976 J I I L_ 155°W 145° 135° 125° 115°W Figure 2. — Stations occupied and generalized surface circulation in the DOMES region. Dashed line indicates approximate location of the equa- torial divergence zone. (Ohman et al,„ 1979). 18 DOMES II involved the monitoring of industrial at-sea, pilot-scale mining simulation tests that were conducted in 1978 and early 1979. The objectives were: 1) to observe actual environmental effects to enhance the environmental impact prediction capability developed in Phase I; and 2) to refine or modify the information base upon which subsequent environmental guidelines were to be based. It should be noted that a complete description of the DOMES deep seabed is not possible because of the large area of ocean involved, the limited amount of existing information, and the broad nature of this programmatic EIS. The sparsity of environmental data emphasizes the need for future research, especially via NOAA's Five-Year Research Plan (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). The final results are expected to be published in 1981 (see separate 1981 references in Appendix 1 to: Benjamin; Chan and Anderson; Hirota; Jumars; Lavelle and Ozturgut; Lavelle et al . ; Ozretich a and b; and Ozturgut et a]_. , 1981). I I.A.I. 2 Environmental setting II. A. 1.2.1 Upper water column The DOMES region is subject to a variety of meteorological factors that could affect mining operations. The DOMES area is under the influence of the Northeast Tradewinds most of the year. The INTERTROPICAL CONVERGENCE ZONE along the southern border of the area and the Southeast Tradewinds affect the area as the thermal equator shifts northward during the northern summer. Eastern Pacific tropical storms and hurricanes are most frequent in late summer and early fall. The eastern portion of the area has the highest frequency of such storms of any area in the world, an average of six per year, while the western parts rarely have any (Figure 3). More specific information (including tracks, movement, and seasonal occurrence) is available in Crutcher and Quayle (1974). The authors of the latter worldwide ■M CO 0) c O • •H ^-s U U U O o >>-H 4J <+-( •H «H iH O •H CO CO 43 rH O CO »-■ O CU-H a o 0) o c a) 4-1 o CO o I I 0) M 00 •H CO w 20 climatic guide present a detailed series of storm maps covering the DOMES area and possible traffic corridors to onshore support or processing facilities. Several physical oceanographic features are also worth noting. Surface currents (Figure 4), listed from north to south, are the westward-flowing North Equatorial Current, the eastward-flowing North Equatorial Countercurrent, and the westward-flowing South Equatorial Current. These currents are relatively shallow (500 m or 1,650 ft or less) and vary markedly in speed with depth, location, and season. The mean direction of the currents at DOMES Site A (Figure 4) was eastward with a mean velocity of almost 20 cm/s (9.4 nmi/day) at 20 m (66 ft) and 12 cm/s (5.9 nmi/day) at 300 m (900 ft). The mean direction at Site B was eastward with a mean velocity of 3 cm/s (1.3 nmi/day) at 20 m and almost 20 cm/s (9.4 nmi/day) at 300 m. Measurements at Site C showed a mean velocity of almost 17 cm/s (7.9 nmi/day) at 20 m depth in a westward direction; however, the direction at 300 m was eastward at almost 6 cm/s (2.8 nmi/day). Season variations also occur in the velocity of the surface currents; the North Equatorial Current fluctuates from a velocity of 5 to 30 cm/s (2.4 to 14.1 nmi/day) in the spring to 5 to 15 cm/s (2.4 to 7.1 nmi/day) in the fall. The thermal structure of the DOMES area is typical of the tropical Pacific. A well-defined surface mixed layer overlays a strong permanent THERM0CLINE below which lie the intermediate and deep waters. Temperature decreases with depth, reaching about 4.5°C (40°F) at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), and exhibits \tery small seasonal changes (Figure 5). Along all three DOMES transects, the upper v/ater column exhibited wide variability in temperature structure over depth. Below the mixed layer, the thermocline extends to a depth of 150 t 31 m (495 + 102 ft) in summer and to 130 +18 m (429 + 59 ft) in winter. The MIXED LAYER DEPTH and the base of the pycnocline vary 21 30 20* 10* 170° 4 .80° 170° 160° 150° 140° 130° 120° 110° 100° „ 0° 10* 20?. HAWAII NORTH EQUATORIAL CURRENT iU. © ® NORTH EQUATORIAL COUNTER CURRENT +• SOUTH EQUATORIAL CURRENT SAMOA TAHITI 170° 180° 170° 160° 150° 140° 130° 120° 110° 100° 20 e 10* 10* 20° Figure 4. — General surface circulation scheme in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, with DOMES site stations A, B, and C (Ozturgut et al., 1978). 22 considerably. The mean mixed layer depth at all DOMES stations was 36* 32 m (119 + 106 ft) during the summer and 55 + 18 (182 + 59 ft) during the winter. TEMPERATURE INVERSIONS are common between depths of 150 m (495 ft) and 200 m (660 ft). There is an east-west oriented THERMAL RIDGE underlying the DIVERGENCE ZONE between the North Equatorial Current and the North Equatorial Countercurrent where the therrnocline is shallow and the temperature gradient especially strong. The SALINITY in the surface mixed layer showed yery little seasonal variation, with a mean value of 34.3 7°° for summer and winter (Figure 5). The distribution of dissolved oxygen and nutrients is closely related to thermal structure in the upper 200 m (660 ft). Nutrient and dissolved oxygen levels also vary widely with depth. The mixed layer is oxygenated with concentra- tions near saturation because of sea-surface interaction with the atmosphere. Oxygen concentrations just below the mixed layer are above saturation (400-500 ug-at/1) in certain locations because the bulk of the PHYT0PLANKT0N are located at these depths. The therrnocline inhibits vertical nutrient transport. Hence nutrient concentrations are low in the mixed layer due to uptake by phytoplankton. Below the therrnocline, nutrients increase while oxygen values rapidly decrease to a concentration minimum. The core of this OXYGEN MINIMUM ZONE, where concentrations are as low as 1 ug-at/1, lies at depths of between 300 m (990 ft) and 500 m (1,650 ft) (Ozturgut et a]_. , 1978). Table 3 shows the dissolved manganese, nickel and copper concentrations at a site in the North Pacific Ocean (Bruland, 1980; Landing and Bruland, 1980). Dissolved trace metal concentrations were investigated during DOMES I; however, contamination of the samples may have rendered the nickel and copper values too high. The values listed in Table 3 are from a sampling site north of the DOMES area but they represent the most recent data available for the North Pacific 23 Q) I Q. Q SUMMER WINTEF Salinity 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 SITE A Salinity 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 C Temperature ) 8.00 16.00 24.00 ( 100 Temperature ) 8.00 16.00 24.00 100 200 / 11 200 300 / 1 \ 300 / \ 400 / 1 \ % 400 500 J \ 1 ® 500 600 / ii 1 j 600 700 / 1 1 £ 700 / 800 ■ / [ 1 §■ 800 ° 900 1000 1100 900 1000 1100 . /t (s Isig 1 CAST 71 ".. 1 1 1 1 - T (S CAST 170 i i i ,SIG 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 SIGMA T Salinity 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 i 1 1 1 i Temperature 8.00 16.00 24.00 SIG 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 SIGMA T 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 SIGMA T SITE B Salinity 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 i 1 1 1 r~i Temperature 16:00 24.00 ■ 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 SIGMA T Q. Q Salinity 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 i 1 1 1 1 c Temperature I 8.00 16.00 24.00 100 200 / J \ 300 400 / f \ 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 ■ h Is \s . ' CAST 23 i i i i SITEC Salinity 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 i 1 1 1 1 Temperature B 0) I Q. CD Q 8.00 16.00 24.00 100 200 r w 300 1 1 \ 400 500 600 700 1 800 1 900 1000 I T s |s 1100 CAST 148 ■ ■ii 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 SIGMA T 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 SIGMA T Figure 5. — Vertical profiles of temperature, salinity, and density at the DOMES site stations A, B, and C (see figure 4) during summer and winter (Ozturgut et al. , 1978). 24 Table 3. DEPTH <1 75 185 375 595 780 985 1505 2025 2570 3055 3533 4000 4635 4875 Concentrations of nickel, copper and manganese in the water column at sampling site in North Pacific Ocean at 32°41 f N, 145°00 ? W, in September 1977 (Bruland, 1980; Landing and Bruland, 1980) . NICKEL (nmol/kg) 2.49 2.90 3.79 5.26 7.49 9.07 9.64 9.79 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.7 10.8 10.3 10.4 TOTAL DISSOLVABLE COPPER MANGANESE (nmol/kg) (nmol/kg) 0.54 0.62 0.69 0.65 0.91 0.34 1.34 0.27 1.90 0.57 1.95 0.71 2.05 0.70 2.09 0.77 3.18 0.30 3.46 0.23 4.00 0.15 4.26 0.10 4.77 0.15 4.85 0.13 5.34 0.15 :"j- 25 Ocean. The vertical distributions of manganese are characterized by maximum concentrations of 0.62 nmol/kg at the surface and 0.71 nmol/kg in the oxygen minimum zone. The vertical distributions of copper and nickel both show increases in concentration with depth. Copper increases from 0.54 nmol/kg at the surface to 5.34 nmol/kg at 4,800 m (15,840 ft); nickel increases from 2.49 nmol/kg at the surface to 10.4 nmol/kg at 4,800 m. The trace metal content of organisms collected during the DOMES cruises is shown in Table 4. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER is most abundant in the surface waters with the average concentration of 30 * 18 ug/1 in the upper 300 m (990 ft) of the water column being quite low but typical of the open ocean. Below the thermocline, concentrations are uniformly wery low (7 to 12 ug/1) with a slight increase near the bottom (10 to 14 ug/1) indicative of a weak NEPHEL0ID LAYER (Ozturgut et a]_. , 1978). The increase in the inorganic fraction of this suspended particulate matter may indicate that local bottom currents are suspending the fine fraction of the bottom sediments. Studies of CHLOROPHYLL A show the typical low values for phytoplankton produc- tion of subtropical ocean waters (mean summer range from 0.03 to 0.12 mg/m^; mean winter range from 0.54 to 1.53 mg/m^). Concentrations vary greatly, with significant amounts found below the EUPH0TIC ZONE. The average daily primary production for summer and winter was 133 * 62 mgC/nr/day. In the summer, maximum values were found at the depth where the light was 50 percent of surface light intensity, during the winter, maximum values were at or near the surface. Standing stocks of MICR0NEKT0N, Z00PLANKT0N, and NEUST0N vary seasonally from a total of 3 to 8 g/m^ with higher average values typical during the winter. The highest concentrations of MACR0Z00PLANKT0N are found in the upper 150 m (495 ft). The lowest concentrations are found near 200 m 26 cr rH cd 0) 0) oo • r--- 05 CT\ Q) i—i •H •> 3 • M r-H 4-J -H 1 — 1 o Uj o ro CM m CO VO r~- 1— I 1 c I •H cO CTi rH CO 00 i-H o m Ph CU g r-l c^ i— t CO b r-. CM I o o CO CM o en O 1—1 CO o o CM u CM rH CM i-H cu > o rH rH •H ^ -1 <* ro m CO m CM o J-J c • 1 cd. cd a> o m m VO co com OJ in O oo r^ !-) I • i " * • • » •H VO o sf r ] o o CTi CO c 3 hJ rH -J CU H r 1 CJ co s cd i— i rH 1 i—l i— 1 ro o 00 O in cd cu i—i ^H rH CO o CM o CO S CM CM 4-1 o b cr. CM r-- CTi vO H m CM r-» co r I o in O CM o CT. X. 4-1 H rH rH 00 CO •H 3 1 53 a) c CM H ^H VD r-« r^- r-^ O 53 cd ^ 4J CM ^H rH CM o VO o 00 CO CO Q 3 uj r-» ./ u cu 3 •H C CU T3 ^3 U C IX t- 1 ^ U S3 g U-, U P-. c_> CM 27 (600 ft) in the oxygen minimum zone and below 900 m (2970 ft). Bacteria are present throughout the water column. Maximum activity of these biological decomposers is found at the sea surface and in the oxygen minimum zone. Bacteria are also associated with manganese nodules, where it has been suggested that their activity may affect nodule formation or the fact that .nodules are not buried by ongoing sediment deposition. Finfish and their larvae occur throughout the DOMES area. Commercially important species include bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas and the striped and blue marl in. Non-commercial finfish and other large organisms include squids, lancet fishes, flying fishes, mackerel, dolphin fish, wahoo, ocean sunfish, swojrdfish, lanternfish, and rat-tail fish. Results from DOMES investigations on larval fish distribution and species composition suggest that: (1) the larvae of commercially valuable tunas occur more abundantly in the NEUSTON LAYER than in the 1 m (3.3 ft) to 200 m (660 ft) depths; (2) the larvae found between 1 m and 200 m are mainly of MESOPELAGIC species; and (3) that very few larval fish occur in the 200 m to 1,000 m (3,300 ft) depth range. A previous study (Legand et jil_. , 1972) of the vertical distri- bution of all fish larvae in the equatorial Pacific showed that larvae were most numerous in the 0-200 m (660 ft) layer, especially at night; a second concentration, most noticeable in the daytime, occurred at 750 m (2,460 ft) to 950 m (3,116 ft). This implies that some of these larvae may migrate up into the to 200 m layer at night and move down at daylight. Studies by Ahlstrom (1971, 1972) on fish larvae collected on the 1967 EASTROPAC (Eastern Pacific) expedition showed that over 90 percent of the larvae sampled belong to families that are mesopelagic as adults; only 1 percent of the total were EPIPELAGIC species such as tunas. Ahlstrom also found that larval abundances generally increased toward the equator and varied seasonally for most species. 28 The seasonal maximum: mini mum ratios did not exceed 5 1, implying that at least some species produce some larvae all year. Tuna larvae were more numerous in February and March than in August and September. Bill fish and yellowfin larvae are found over the entire DOMES area while skipjack larvae are common only to the west of 130°W. Nine threatened or endangered species of marine mammals and turtles recognized by Federal law could inhabit the DOMES area (Appendix 8). Since detailed surveys of the species in this entire region have not been undertaken, listings for the DOMES area are based almost solely on projections from known ecological characteristics of each species. The only exception is a sighting of a single Hawaiian monk seal on Johnston Island in 1968, according to Documentation Associates (1977). However, Appendix 8 should provide a start for site-specific analyses of the species which could be affected by either nodule recovery operations or associated marine transportation activities (supply vessels, increased tanker traffic, submarine acoustics, etc.). Special attention in site-specific EISs should be given to species, or distinct subpopulations thereof, that concentrate in specific locations to feed, breed, or migrate. Several other points are worth noting. First, the health of nonlisted species being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), or international treaties must also be assessed. Examples of those species include: Guadalupe fur seal off California that has been nominated for listing under the ESA or marine mammals (Eastern spinner and the coastal spotted porpoise) that qualify for a special MMPA category termed "depleted" for stocks that could become threatened in the near future. Second, available information indicates that there are no other listed threatened or endangered species (fish, invertebrates, etc.) 29 in the DOMES area. However, if a species is found to be eligible for listing, that species could be designated for protected status. The problem of surveying and quantifying oceanic populations throughout their range could slow this already time consuming process of listing a marine species. Most of the birds observed in or near the DOMES area have been studied within island habitats. Only occasional sightings at sea have been reported in the DOMES area. II. A. 1.2. 2 Lower water column and seafloor Measurements of near-bottom currents from April to November showed a mean speed of 2.1 cm/s (0.97 nmi/day) at Site A and 5.2 cm/s (2.4 nmi/day) at Site B, both to the northwest. Maximum recorded speeds of 24 cm/s (11 nmi/day) at 6 m (20 ft) above the bottom suggest that local erosion and redeposition may occur from time to time. The chemistry of the lower water column is quite different from the surface waters. Salinity within 300 m (990 ft) of the bottom is nearly uniform with an average value of 34.70 °/ 00 at Site A and 34.68 °/°° at Sites B and C. Dissolved oxygen within the lower 300 m of the seafloor shows a significant decrease from west to east across the DOMES area. Mean values decrease from 359 ug-at/1 in the west at Site k 9 to 344 ug-at/1 at Site B, to 332 ug-at/1 in the east at Site C. Nutrient concentrations are high in the bottom water. The mean value for nitrate remains relatively constant (36.0 ug-at/1) while mean values for phosphate and silicate increase significantly from west to east (2.33 to 2.42 ug-at/1 for phosphate and 136.6 to 147.0 ug-at/1 for silicate). Within 400 m (1,320 ft) of the bottom, the suspended particulate matter shows a slight increase over its concentration in the upper waters and is indicative of the presence of a weak benthic nepheloid layer. The near bottom temperature gradient is low (3 X 10- 5 °C/m) over the bottom 200 m (660 ft). 30 The average bottom potential temperature was 0.982°C at Site A; 1.034°C at Site B; and 1.068°C at Site C. The DOMES area includes portions of the Central and Eastern-North Pacific Basins. Water depth increases from about 4,000 m (13,120 ft) in the eastern portion to about 5,600 m (18,368 ft) in the deeper northern and western portion of the basin and in fracture zones. Dominant geographic features are the east-northeast striking Clarion and Clipperton FRACTURE ZONES and the Hawaiian and Line Islands. Although SEAM0UNTS are common, ABYSSAL HILLS predominate. Seismic activity is low except near the Hawaiian Islands and beyond the eastern boundary of the DOMES area. Sediment distribution is related to water depth, surface water productivity, calcium carbonate solubility, and the presence of volcanic islands, among other factors (Figure 6). PELAGIC CLAYS are common where calcium carbonate and silica are not abundantly deposited. Between the fracture zones, the pelagic sediments grade into SILICEOUS OOZES and CLAYS. CALCAREOUS sediments, because of their increased solubility with depth, are abundant in the more shallower waters in the southern portion of the DOMES area and around seamounts. Manganese nodules are common on the surface of the sediments of the area (see Section I.C and Figure 7). Their formation, distribution, and how they remain on top of the sediments are poorly understood. Typically, they are rather fragile and subject to abrasion upon handling. Deep-water sedimentation rates are very low; clays accumulate at 1 to 3 mm (0.04 to 0.12 in) per 1,000 years and siliceous ooze at 3 to 8 mm (0.12 to 0.32 in) per 1,000 years whereas the nodules themselves are estimated to accrete at rates in the order of a few millimeters per 1,000,000 years. The chemistry of the interstitial water in the bottom sediments indicates that the sediments are chemically stable and that bacteria are actively metabolizing the organic 31 d O Q (1) 43 CO 4J c j» & t u o o rH «+-) 0) CO C O « CO . xt ex CT\ •H <— 1 4-1 cO J-i 4-1 d) c 4-) 0) C CO •H 0) ^ n a *» a> en U C3 cO C_> CO «% Xi 00 n a cO •H iH en CD 9 5 O 1 O I CO 3 XI e 4-1 iH 00 CO a CO •H CO 4-> ►» •H ^2 x> < CO 1 X 1 C • •H ON a) u 3 00 •H fc 36 Figure 10. — Deep sea photo of sea cucumber, urchin, and brittle stars lying on sediment (Grassle, OCEANUS , Winter 1978). 37 1210 hours 6 10 hours Figure 11. — Deep sea scavengers (rat-tail fish and amphipods) attracted to bait (Hessler, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, under contract to Sandia National Laboratories). 38 Table 5. Number and percentage < of taxa observed in bottom photographs at each site (Ozturgut et al. , 1978) Site A Site B Site C Taxon Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Echinoidea 19 3 55 13 261 32 Ophiuroidea 60 11 37 9 155 19 Actiniaria 40 7 136 33 133 16 Holothuroidea 42 61 122 29 131 16 Porifera 28 5 8 2 28 3 Pennatula 11 2 14 3 26 3 Gorgonacea 8 1 7 2 21 2 Asteroidea 22 4 8 2 20 2 Crustacea 17 3 14 3 13 1 Ascidacea 3 — 2 — 3 — Polyplacophora 2 — 3 — Pycnogonida 4 — Echiuroidea 1 — Gastropoda 3 — Bivalvia 1 — Bryozoa 2 — 4 — 8 — Crinoidea 1 — 2 — Polychaeta 1 — 2 — En t eropneus t a 1 — Chimaeridae 1 "■■ 3 __ 16 2 Total Number of Individuals 556 415 828 Density (Organisms /m) 0.014 0.030 0.031 Total Visible Bottom Area (m^) in Photographs 40,175 13,997 27,183 39 Table 6. The common names, feeding, and mobility classes (functional groups) of taxa observed by deep-sea photography (Ringold, 1981, personal communication) Functional classifications TAXON COMMON NAME or DESCRIPTION FEEDING MOBILITY Echinoidea sea urchins D Ml Ophiuroidea brittle stars D,F,Sc M2 Actiniaria sea anemones F,P Sd Holothuroidea sea cucumbers D Ml Porifera sponges F Ss Pennatula sea pansies, sea pens F Ss Gorgonacea soft corals F Ss Asteroidea starfish, sea stars P Ml Crustacea amphipods, crabs, shrimps, etc. Sc,D M2 Ascidacea sea squirts, tunicates F, D, P Ss Polyplacophora chitons D Sd Pycnogonida sea spiders Sd,D M2 Echiuroidea spoon worms D,F Sd Gastropoda snails P,Sc,D,F, Ml Bivalvia clams D,F,P Sd Bryozoa moss animals P Ss Crinoidea sea lillies, feather stars P Ss Polychaeta segmented worms P Ss En teropneus ta acorn worms D,F Sd,Ss Chimaeridae fishes M2 Organisms listed here were observed via bottom photography (see Table 5) and are therefore assumed to be epifauna. Note that each taxon is represented by many species, some of which may be in different functional groups. These descriptions constitute the best assessment available. The key to the functional groups follows: Feeding D Deposit feeder F Filter feeder /suspension feeder P Predator Pa Parasite Sc Scavenger Mobility Ss Sessile, attached Sd Sedentary, unattached but moving little, includes many burrow dwellers Ml Mobile M2 Highly mobile Infauna or Epifauna I Infauna, living below the sediment surface E Epifauna, living on or above the sediment surface •■ 40 individuals per m2 (8.5 to 14.1 per ft^). The majority of the infauna are minute (less than 1 mm) and live in the upper 1 cm of sediments. Forty percent of the individuals collected were POLYCHAETE WORMS, 19 percent TANAIDS, and 11 percent ISOPODS; sponges, BRYOZOANS, GASTROPODS, sea cucumbers, SEA URCHINS, BIVALVES, sea anemones, brittle stars, BRACHIPODS, and miscellaneous non-polychaete worms comprised the majority of the remaining organisms (Tables 7 and 8). Some of the organisms collected apparently live on the surface of the manganese nodules, including FORAMINIFERA, bryozoans, COELENTERATES, and SERPULID WORMS. The faunal characteristics of the three sites (including the weight of the large epi fauna) varied in terms of average biomass, average density of MACROFAUNA and MEIOFAUNA, and the percentage of SUSPENSION FEEDERS (Table 9). The statistics for the DOMES area are comparable to similar statistics for the abyssal benthos elsewhere in the oceans. Marine ecologists were surprised by their discovery of the very high diversity of the deep sea in the mid-1960 's. The 80 box core samples from the DOMES sites illustrated this high diversity with 2,422 individuals of 381 macrofaunal species. Nearly three-fourths of the species were represented by four indi- viduals or less; 131 species were represented by only one individual with an average density of less than one individual per 20 m^ (215 ft^). The diversity of this habitat is so high that even with 80 samples, the number of species versus number of samples curve has not leveled off. In other words, if more samples were taken one would expect to find more species. A familiar land analogy of this diversity is not readily available, but one can imagine a 20 m^ field (one about 15 ft on a side) with over 2,000 stalks of grass representing more than 350 species. In trying to explain the function and importance of these organisms to those not familiar with the marine environment, a land/sea analogy that shows 41 Table 7. Faunal composition by number of individuals and their percentage as obtained from box cores (Hecker and Paul, 1979) Macro faunal taxa Site A Site B # % # % Site C # % Total Polychaeta 189 38.6 239 46.4 542 38.2 970 40.1 Tanaidacea 121 24.7 77 15.0 274 19.3 472 19.5 Isopoda 57 11.6 30 5.8 197 13.9 284 11.7 Bivalvia 40 8.2 73 14.2 90 6.4 203 8.4 Gastropoda 13 2.7 25 4.9 23 1.6 61 2.5 Ectoprocta 25 5.1 8 1.6 97 6.8 130 5.4 Porifera 4 0.8 16 3.1 55 3.9 74 3.1 Hydro zoa 3 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.2 8 0.3 S t ep hano s cyphu s 1 0.2 10 1.9 2 0.1 13 0.5 Actiniaria 3 0.6 - - 15 1.1 18 0.7 Brachiopoda 10 2.0 9 1.7 31 2.2 50 2.1 Hemichordata - - 1 0.2 1 0.1 2 0.1 Sipunculoidea 3 0.6 4 0.8 14 1.0 22 0.9 Echiuroidea - - - - 3 0.2 3 0.1 Ophiuroidea 9 1.8 - - 10 0.7 19 0.8 Echinoidea - - 3 0.6 1 0.1 4 0.2 Crinoidea 1 0.2 - - 7 0.5 8 0.3 Holothuroidea 1 0.2 - - 2 0.1 3 0.1 Aplacophora 2 0.4 2 0.4 2 0.1 6 0.2 Polyplacophora 1 0.2 - - 5 0.4 6 0.2 Monoplacophora 1 0.2 - - - - 1 - Scaphopoda 1 0.2 - - 1 0.1 2 0.1 Oligochaeta - - - - 8 0.6 8 0.3 Pycnogonida - - - - 3 0.2 3 0.1 Cumacea - - 4 0.8 3 0.2 7 0.3 Amphipoda 2 0.4 5 1.0 14 1.0 21 0.9 Cirripedia - - - - 3 0.2 3 0.1 Ascidacea 3 0.6 7 1.4 7 0.5 17 0.7 Unknown - - - - 4 0.3 4 0.2 Total 490 99.9 515 100.2 1417 100.0 2422 99.9 Total per core 22 25 37 Meio faunal taxa Nematoda Ostracoda Copepoda Acarina Turbellaria Kinorhyncha Total Total per core 16 87.3 1486 87.0 709 69.1 3311 82.5 77 6.0 82 4.8 226 22.0 385 9.6 84 6.6 138 8.1 81 7.9 303 7.5 - - 2 0.1 8 0.8 10 0.2 2 0.2 - - 1 0.1 3 0.1 - - 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 — 79 100.1 1709 100.1 1026 100.0 4014 99.9 58 85 27 42 Table 8. The common names, mobility, feeding (functional groups), and infaunal classes of taxa obtained from box cores (Table 7) (Ringold, 1981, personal communication) Functional classifications: INFAUNA or TAXON COMMON NAME or ] DESCRIPTION FEEDING MOBILITY EPIFAUNA Polychaeta segmented worms D,F,Sc,P Ss to M2 I,E* Tanaidacea crustaceans D,Sc,P Sd I,E Isopoda crustaceans D,Sc Sd to M2 I,E Bivalvia clams D,F,P Sd I Gastropoda snails P,Sc,D,F Ml E,I Ectoprocta bryozoans , moss animals F,D Ss E* Porifera sponges F Ss E* Hydro zoa coelenterates F Ss E* Stephanoscyphus a coelenterate F Ss E* Actiniaria sea anemones F,P Sd E* Brachiopoda lamp shells F Sd E* Hemichordata arrow worms and others D,F Sd,Ss I Sipunculoidea peanut worms D,F Sd,Ml I Echiuroidea spoon worms D,F Sd I Ophiuroidea brittle stars D,F,Sc M2 E,I Echinoidea sea urchins D ML E,I Crinoidea sea lilies, feather stars F Ss E* Holo thuro idea sea cucumbers D Ml E,I Aplacophora solenogaters, molluscs D,P Sd E,I Polyplacophora chitons D Sd E* Monoplacophora chitonlike mollusc D Sd E* Scaphopoda tusk shells D,P Sd I Oligochaeta segmented worms D Ml I Pycnogonida sea spiders Sc,D M2 E Cumacea crustaceans F?,D? M2 I Amphipoda crustaceans D,Sc M2,Sd E,I Cirripedia barnacles F,P Ss E* Ascidacea sea squirts F,D,P Ss E* *A11 or some attached to nodules Note that each taxon is represented by many species, some of which may be in different functional groups. These descriptions constitute the best assessment available. The key to the functional groups follows: Feeding D Deposit feeder F Filter feeder/suspension feeder P Predator Pa Parasite Sc Scavenger Mobility Ss Sessile, attached Sd Sedentary, unattached but moving little, includes many burrow dwellers Ml Mobile M2 Highly mobile Infauna or Epi fauna I Infauna, living below the sediment surface E Epifauna, living on or above the sediment surface 43 Table 9. Descriptive statistics for benthic biota of three DOMES study sites DOMES Site ABC 2 From 0,25 m cores* Average Biomass (grams per m2) 0.1441 0.1911 0.6435 Average Density of Macro fauna (no. individuals per m 2 ) 99 114 152 Average Density of Me io fauna (no. of individuals per m 2 ) 258 378 110 Percent Macro fauna as Suspension Feeders 14 18 22 From Bottom Photos ** Average Density of Visible Fauna (no . individuals per m 2 ) 0.014 0.030 0.031 *Hecker and Paul, 1979 Note that Hecker and Paul lost approximately 45 percent of the polychaetes that were actually in the sample. Correcting for this loss would increase macrofauna density to 116, 138, and 179 individuals per m 2 at sites A, B, and C respectively. Hecker and Paul (1979) also note that their methods allowed most of the meiofauna to escape uncounted; the extent of the meiofauna underestimate is unknown. **0zturgut et al. 1978 44 a rough comparison of the DOMES area benthos with their approximate land equivalents may prove helpful. Table 10 shows both a yery general comparison of some DOMES area benthic organisms with their approximate land or freshwater benthic equivalents and the general ecological functions played in both environments. A more detailed comparison is not possible because of our incomplete knowledge of the deep-sea environment and because many of the benthic organisms in the DOMES area do not have a comparable land equivalent at any taxonomic level. Since the majority of the deep-sea benthos are detritus feeders, much of our knowledge about the structure of their ecosystem is inferred from the study of more accessible detrital systems such as mangrove swamps and the forest litter ecosystem (Figure 12a and 12b). The same detrital principals apply to leaves that fall into a freshwater stream, onto the forest floor, or to the organic detritus that reaches the ocean floor; small organisms ingest the detritus, eat the bacteria, and recycle the nutrients back into the water or soil. The source of energy of the abyssal benthos is the "rain" of organics provided by dead plant and animal material. The major marine food chains in the ocean vary by location and depth with most of the chains involving a "rain of organic detritus" from dead upper water organisms to deeper waters (Figure 13). Bacteria, which break down the detritus, are in turn fed upon by DEPOSIT FEEDERS and suspension feeders. Deposit and suspension feeders physically break up the organic detritus, and thus by the processes of digestion, metabolism, and excretion serve to recycle the basic nutrients back into the ecosystem. Predators feed off these living animals, other predators, or scavengers. Scavengers feed on dead animals of any trophic level (Tables 6 and 8 list the trophic status of the taxa listed in Tables 5 and 7). One of the important features of any detritus based system is the continuous recycling of materials (Figure 12a). In 45 Table 10. Comparison of ecological functions of DOMES area benthos and their approximate land equivalents (Jumars, 1980, personal communication) Forest Litter Freshwater Ecological Function DOMES Benthos Ecosystem Benthos Remineralize refractory Bacteria Fungi Bacteria organic matter Bacteria Fungi Digest bacteria, cause Polychaetes Earthworms Oligochaetes physical breakdown of Crustaceans Pillbugs Larval insects organic matter, aerate Bivalves Insects soil or sediments Low-order predators Other polychaetes Other insects Other insects Crustaceans Lizards Salamanders Bivalves High-order predators Fishes Mammals Fishes Scavengers Amphipods Other insects Catfishes Rat-tail fish Crows Carp Supply of organic "Rain" of Leaf and Terrestrial matter organics other litter fall runoff 46 Ingestion Organic Matter Bacteria Detritivores (Sea Cucumbers, Crabs, Insects, Worms) predat'ton Predators (Fishes, Lizards) Excretion X \ Scavengers y (Amphipods, Rat-Tail Fish, Catfish) Cycle Forming Base of Detrital Ecosystem Figure 12a. —Generalized detrital food chain (Jumars, 1980, personal communication) FUNGI I^akD PHYTOPLANKTON a BENTHIC ALGAE ao BACTERIA 5. PROTOZOA RE- INGESTION and -~ COPROPHAGV HARPACTlCOID COPEPOO \ AMPHIPOD m y INSECT D | ' V. S LARVAE H j mM A JL.\ shrimp DETRITUS CONSUMERS SMALL CARNIVORES (MINNOWS. SMALL GAME FISH. ETC. ) LARGE (TOP) CARNIVORES ( GAME FISH. FISH EATING BIRDS ) Figure 12b. — A "picture model" of a detritus food chain based on mangrove leaves which fall into shallow estuarine waters of south Florida. Leaf fragments acted on by saprotrophs and colonized by algae are eaten and re-eaten (coprophagy) by a key group of small detritus consumers which, in turn, provide the main food for game fish, herons, storks, and ibis. (Odum, 1971). 3noz ouoHdrn ihoz sioviadAHwa 3NOZ 3IH1N39 CU iH ^42 a p 4-> h co •H -H (1) cO H O 42 o • o o " r " > cu CO "H M-t T) m o o o O (U to OJ • 4-1 42 »-< /■"-N 4-» cu p P U 42 4J o O 0) 4J CO •H •n en 2; CO cd -h m CO g M o cu •H Pu 42 CU CU H u ^ o a a) 4-> U P * P- CO CO i co co a) co 43 •H 42 43 CO J-( 4-> CO -d p. p h a» ^v 5 ^/ w O CO O P3 O C^: p co co 4-> CO P • Cd <4-l 4-> 4-1 O 42 P O «H P 4J tH P M H W 4J co a) a) •« a, co *-i t3 P •H iH CO CO 42 cd O O CO CO *H «H p -H CU P U O P H CO 0) •H CO CO 00 4-1 M -. CO CO 4-> 43 a) 6 CO 4J CO 4-> 4-1 CO tH O vO O >. P "H S> •H CO CO P- <-H 43 o oo a) O M TJ © CU CU o P CO 4-1 -ri u o & & ^ .H -H O 00 CO P 42 M «H ;g CO 4-» M J^ J CU P CO >-> | O CU P* . O 43 T3 O en Co r-t CU CU CO 42 42 CU 4-1 4-) CO CU U 4-> <4-l p m u-i o »h MO OT) J fn 48 the abyssal benthos, neither the rates at which important processes occur, the factors that control the trophic directions of energy flow, nor the factors that control the taxonomic directions of the energy flow are understood or even studied in a preliminary fashion. Present knowledge indicates that nutrients in the bottom water can be returned to the surface waters by two mechanisms: the long-term (about 2000 years) movement of bottom waters to the surface and by the vertical migration of bottom-dwelling animals which are consumed by predators occurring higher in the water column. Rat-tail fish and amphipods are two benthopelagic organisms found in the DOMES area that are known to migrate vertically to shallower depths. Rat-tails have been caught from 50 to 730 m (164 to 2,395 feet) and amphipods up to 400 m (1,312 feet) above the abyssal floor of the North Pacific Ogean (Smith et al. , 1979). In the deep sea, the organic detritus that is not utilized by the benthos, bacteria, or other bottom microorganisms is lost forever to the ecosystem. The destruction of detritus feeders during mining could thus interrupt a small portion of the natural mechanism for the regeneration of nutrients in the deep sea. The fact that only about one percent of the DOMES area will be affected by first generation mining over a 20-year period, the natural hori- zontal water currents, and the limited linkage between benthic and water column food webs should make the loss of nutrients undetectable. This inter- ruption in nutrient recycling should thus be rendered insignificant with no adverse effect on the food chain of the upper waters. Nevertheless, the concern will be addressed during testing and mining (see Sections II. C. 2.1 and II.C.2.2). II. A. 1.3 Existing human activities Major human activities occurring in the DOMES area are commercial fishing, marine transportation, oceanographic research, and because of the proximity 49 of the area to the U.S. naval base in the Hawaiian Islands, perhaps naval maneuvers. These activities, plus recreational activities and oil and gas operations, could also occur in transportation corridors to and from shore facilities. NOAA does not expect any significant effect on these activities from deep seabed mining. 1 1. A. 1.3.1 Commercial fishing Commercial fishing includes five United States and Japanese tuna and billfish industries: Japanese longline fishery; purse-seine and LIVE-BAIT FISHERIES in the eastern Pacific dominated by U.S., Hawaiian-based LONG-LINE FISHERY; and Japanese live-bait fishery (Figure 14). Shomura's (1980, Personal communication) data on estimated catch and EX-VESSEL VALUE from several of these fisheries from 1974 to 1978 show that these industries are quite sizeable, amounting to approximately 15,550 MT (17,105 tons) and $36,129,000 in 1977 alone. Longlined bigeye tuna caught by the Japanese account for 49 percent of the weight and 61 percent of the value. Only 4,932 MT (5,425 tons) worth $7,152,000 was caught by the United States. II. A. 1.3. 2 Research Oceanographic and meteorologic research cruises have passed through or been on station in the DOMES area since the voyage of HMS CHALLENGER in 1872-76. Since then, hundreds of cruises by both private and government vessels of the U.S. and foreign nations have traversed and/or obtained data in the area (Documenta- tion Associates, 1977). Ships from Sweden, Japan, Russia, Denmark, Canada, Germany, and South Korea have also conducted research in the DOMES area. A large portion of the most recent private, government (DOMES I and II), and industry research has addressed study of the origin and distribution of manganese nodules, environmental effects of commercial mining, the equatorial current systems, the Intertropical Convergence Zone, the Clarion and Clipperton fracture zones, and tropical /subtropical marine biology and geology. Seabed / 50 C CO PQ Cfl C/D O Q 00 c •H CO cr. CO •H O M > c CO CO CO CD u < I I 0) •H 43 4*J a CO 51 mining will not interfere with these activities; on the contrary, mining and monitoring will provide a significant opportunity for greater research in the area. II. A. 1.3. 3 Marine transportation The DOMES area is criss-crossed by several major shipping lanes of U.S. and foreign nations (Figure 15). Frequency of transit data are not available. 1 1. A. 1.3. 4 Naval operations U.S. Navy operations could occur in the DOMES area. Although the Defense Mapping Agency's Hydrographic Center is responsible for issuing a warning to shipping in the form of a Notice to Mariners in case of naval maneuvers or any other hazard to vessel operations. Special submarine operation areas exist in the areas around the Hawaiian Islands and are clearly marked on navigation charts. II. A. 2 Transportation corridors The area of the ocean in which nodule transport vessels could travel" from a mine site to a marine terminal processing plant is enormous (Figure 16). The environ- mental characteristics of the precise transportation corridor will be examined by NOAA during preparation of the site-specific EIS required for each commercial recovery permit. Special consideration should be given to natural resources (see Appendix 8 for endangered and threatened species) and human activities that exist in corridors but not in the DOMES area. 52 c 0) o -H 4-> J3 m a cfl ctj Cu U a) oo o o M • *o CO >^ • re 5 * o CO C P «H M M CO o S • •O /*N cO * ON X a> r^ 1 U ON 1 u i— i . cu m 6 *> i— i @ M o CU CU o +J K c 3 «+H CU 60 O o EH 53 60°N - 40° - 20° - 20°S 180°W 140° 100°W Figure 16. — Geographic relationship between DOMES area and representative U.S. processing sites. '. 55 II.B Mining Activity Impingement on Environment This section summarizes how first generation mining activities (Appendix 3) could affect the DOMES area and the transportation corridors that lead to process plant marine terminals. Section II. C, on Environmental Consequences, discusses the effects of each facet of impingement. 1 1. B.I Domes Area • Within the DOMES area, five types of activities could be carried out: mining; nodule transfer; offshore processing; offshore waste disposal; and, offshore support activities. Each is briefly discussed below, with emphasis on mining. II.B. 1.1 Mining Although some of the environmental concerns associated with mining (Section II. C) are caused by the actual contact of the collector as it sweeps the seafloor in nearly abutting swaths (Section II. C. 2.1), most of the concerns relate either to bottom or surface discharge plumes as characterized in this section. The design and operation of a hydraulic deep seabed mining system (Appendix 3) can be visualized as a "black box" that collects materials from the seafloor, transports them to the surface, and then reintroduces all but the nodules to the environment in two different locations -- just above the seafloor and into surface waters. The net result is direct collector disturbance on the seafloor and two sediment plumes (Figure 17). The operating characteristics associated with mining were discussed with industry during a public meeting (DOMES Project, 1976) where agreements were reached on likely ranges of operational factors such as depth of collector cut. Quantities of material were then evaluated and used as one basis for developing the DOMES program strategy (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration, 1976). 56 MANGANESE NODULES RETAINED ON SHIP NODULES to > U- COLLECTOR SURFACE DISCHARGE BOTTOM AND INTERSTITIAL WATER BOTTOM SEDIMENT ABRADED NODULES BENTHIC BIOTA BENTHIC DISCHARGE 1. BOTTOM AND INTER- STITIAL WATER 2. BOTTOM SEDIMENT fhTinffiM" 3. SOME NODULES AND ABRADED NODULES 4. BENTHIC BIOTA BOTTOM SEDIMENT jf I BENTh * INTERSTITIAL WATER BOTTOM. WATER TP7T MIC BIOTA INPUTS : 1 BOTTOM WATER FROM WITHIN FEW METERS OF SEA FLOOR 2 INTERSTITIAL WATER FROM FEW CENTIMETERS BELOW SEA FLOOR UNDER COLLECTOR 3 BOTTOM SEDIMENT TO DEPTH OF FEW CENTIMETERS BELOW SEA FLOOR UNDER COLLECTOR 4 BENTHIC BIOTA TO DEPTH OF FEW CENTIMETERS BELOW SEA FLOOR UNDER COLLECTOR 5 MANGANESE NODULES FROM SEA FLOOR UNDER COLLECTOR Figure 17. — Schematic diagram showing input and output of a hydraulic mining system (Ozturgut et al. , 1978). 57 Many possible significant mining effects were addressed in the latter report; however, subsequent evaluation of the DOMES I findings led to a focused attention on fewer but more probable effects for research during DOMES II. For example, the change in water characteristics from the surface plume was predicted as a basis for developing a monitoring strategy for the pilot scale industrial mining tests. NOAA monitored the tests of two consortia in 1978, Ocean Management, Inc. (OMI) (Burns et aL 1980) and Ocean Mining Associates (OMA) (Ozturgut et al . 1980). Monitoring operations were carried out on the mining ships by NOAA personnel, and on the NOAA research vessel OCEANOGRAPHER. Because of the technical difficulties associated with the development of new technology, actual test mining totaled only five days, with two days being the longest period of continuous pumping of nodules. Mining operations were conducted at Site A (Figure 1, Executive Summary) from March to May 1978 and at Site C from October to November 1978. Surface effects were examined at both sites (see also Lavelle et al. , 1980); benthic effects at Site A only. Two types of pumping were tested at Site A -- hydraulic and air lift; the Site C test involved air lift only. The monitoring strategy entailed observations made before, during, and after the pilot mining tests. Benthic biota were sampled before and after mining. Bottom-mounted instrument arrays were moored near the test site to detect the presence of a benthic plume. In discussing the results of the DOMES study, it is useful to categorize the mining effects in terms of NEAR-FIELD or far- field and SHORT-TERM and long-term. Industry at-sea tests lasted several days. Equipment was only one-fifth of commercial scale, and production averaged 1/14 of commercial scale. Resulting limitations in the data base must be acknowledged. Adverse effects of a potentially ■ 58 catastrophic nature were not detected in these DOMES II tests. The monitoring of the far-field and long-term effects will be accomplished during future tests as well as during commercial operations (Sections II. C. 2, 3, 4). II. B. 1.1.1 Surface discharge In both ming tests, discharge was over the side of the mining vessel onto the sea surface, a drop of 3 to 5 m (Figure 18). The plume that developed in the surface mixed layer following discharge was long and slender (see Appendix 9). By the time the plume had travelled for about 5 hours, the concen- tration of suspended particulate matter near the ocean surface was so close to ambient that the plume could no longer be detected with a NEPHELOMETER. By then the plume was about 1 km (0.55 mi) wide and 4 km (2.2 mi) long (Figure 19). The plume appeared to sink quickly to a depth of about 20 m (66 ft) before beginning to spread out and drift with the current. The fine particles seemed to settle more rapidly than had been expected, suggesting either incomplete disaggregation of the particles during mining or else flocculation after discharge (Ozturgut et a! . 1981). It was not clear whether the plume passed through the pycnocline or spread out on it. The uncertainties will be addressed during the future monitoring of industrial demonstration scale mining tests (See. II. C. 3. 2. 2). During a commercial mining operation, it is estimated that the solid fraction of the mining effluent, consisting mainly of bottom sediments and some abraded nodule material, will be discharged at the rate shown on Table 11. The liquid fraction of the surface discharge will be bottom water with a salinity of 34.7 o/oo and a temperature of 7°C (44.6°F); the bulk density of the surface discharge will be approximately 1.06 g/cm^ (0.04 lbs/in^). 59 rH CO CO 05 0) > bO C •H • C CU •H XI e •H i CO cu Xi CU J-) .G +J CO 5 M o CU Xi > CO o A CO 60 a fi •H •H D- G •H cu e 00 M 4-> CO CD £> eu u CO •H got: d •H cu $-1 X 3 ■P T3 XI G G cu CO M CO H 4-1 M <\ H o CU J-> a o •H J2 js a, cO to CU •H CO .G a H •> u • 3 O T3 d M 3 cu #* ^ CO CO CO 60 ct) M (1) O CO a. O cu •H 0) X O 4J 3 M-l 0) o ,o >> T3 CO d cu « 4-1 u •H fe 64 Plume dimensions observed during the Site A test were of the order of tens of meters thick with some evidence of an increasing thickness and width with age. The test plume persisted for an order of days and was observed by bottom-mounted nephelometers to have moved distances of at least 10 km (5.5 nmi) away from the source. Particulate concentrations were greater than ambient up to 50 m (165 ft) above the seafloor. Additional information on the general character of the benthic plume has been inferred from closed circuit television and photographs. Determination of the ultimate distance traveled by the plume and its persistence were not possible due to the limitations of monitoring technology and the limited resources available. However, it was determined that the plume is chemically detectable far beyond the point of visibility to humans or impacts to marine life. The benthic plume consists of sediments disturbed by the collector and redeposited over a matter of days to weeks. The magnitude of this discharge, given furrow depth of 10 cm (4 in) and collection speed of 1 m/s (3.3 ft/s) was shown earlier on Table 11. The thickness of the plume can be expected to be several times the height of the collector and will extend perhaps more than 100 km (55 nmi) in continuous mining operations (Lavelle et aL , 1981). In at least its initial stage, the plume will also contain an estimated 400 kg (880 lbs) of macerated benthos trapped daily by the collector. During commercial mining operations, it is envisioned that a mining vessel will annually mine in a small area (perhaps 30 km by 30 km or 16.5 nmi by 16.5 nmi) that has been sampled in detail. Increased suspended loads will likely be detectable to distances up to at least 100 km (55 nmi) from the mining region (Figure 21). Benthic areas of 3,000 to 5,000 km 2 ( 875 to 1,458 nmi 2 ) per vessel may have elevated suspended loads over the mining period of one year (Lavelle et al . , 1981). 65 E UJ o CO Q 60 T3 C 0) •H CH 5 OH (I) •H to £ cO a. w *j co ja 3 a> 60 CO ,o iH m d o •H 4-S O 4-1 4-> »0 c a 4J co o JD U CO O c M 3 o CO u . cd iH e a *■""•»» o 60 4-J M-, 3l 4-> • o >^ o /^ .o i—( c (U 00 o e o o> •H 3 4-» f-H 4J .H CO a a A u o • 4-1 o 4-1 iH a •H \*s CO a) X o 4-1 C 4J c c H 4J rH •o § >-> CO CO CO hJ •H iH ^^ 4J iH 3 CO CO 60 CO w •H C 1 O CO S 1 »-i 4J o • 0) o 1— t s 0) ** CN 1 u O •(-> o ro CL E ro 4-> c cu E c o u ■r— > C I— i CU r— -o qq C C£L I— W CC C LU O Q- ■M O jo >— i. -z. t S Q. cn c •r— E ■a CD -O ra a> w Q. ai z < h- to co to o o to to to a a> c t>- o 4- +J c CO to > JC aj cl o r0 C J- O to LU r— r— +J O- U <1) fa -a CO cn — >> CL X o ai CO c 5- O c ^ i- c ro CL o -C 3 a. o Q ai I — o •■- O CO CL. o CO CU i— •i- ro S- 4-> +J CU 3 E r- CO O ro a. <_> ai Q. o ■D c ra E > o CVJ CD So ra c_> o o o E s- o o s- +j 4- O ai +-> I— -c i— CD O •r- O •K to QC LU O z: o O Ll_ o to => h- < r— to o >> X) . 0J .a u Q. CL o ra u Q. Cl ro +-> O 2: +-> >- 4-> O ■ZL T3 4-> »^ U O ro to Q. cu E cn O ^ ra a> r— CO CL ro O C S- •r- O ti- ro •E^ d) CL +-> Q- U 3 ro to CO to +-> cu CL I o o N r— o E o ■o +J o o o -a s. <— o ra <+- c o >> to t_ cu CD c cu +J CL > •r-Q.ro ■a 3 o ■o to to r- ro ra O CO +J »*- O c cu CU cu C M- ■»-> _ o CO LU Cu CU .Q ra o Cl Cl ra 4-> O ■(-> -i- •r- > T3 1- •r- +J JQ O V- 3 3 T3 +-> O i. -o Cl 0) to cu ro (J CU 3 t- 13 U CU C S~ cu ra O Q. ro +J O CU J3 ro O Q. Q. ro +-> o cu co to ■M J- 4-> o cu (J ra 1 > ro Cl CDXJ CL E-r-< E i— i to i— i +J C +J c to c •i- 3 ra ■•-> •r- ro O i- -M *t_ M- L O CU ro O Cl Q. ro CU -Ct ro O Cl Q. f0 ■M O CO O JC ■!-> J- C ro 01 Ol >>-o O C 14 i- >o u 4-> ro co c S- CU •!- +J Q CU J3 ro O CL Cl ro CU .*: ro 4-> Q. to c r- o ro +J •M ^: CU C E E 0) o -a o E 4- O 4-> S- CU CU 4- C 3 >» «d r— ro ^i r— -r- 5 3 oo "a ra to cu JO ro O Cl Cl ra z: to 4-> O ra Cl E CU > to cu s- c CD c f0 u i. cu o o o s- o Q. CO -•-> to CU +-> CD c •r- C E CU ro O to I C o 4-> ra i- +J to CZ o E cu ■o CD c •r— s. 3 ■o' cu cu > cu JO o to c s_ cu o c o CJ CO 3 +J ra +-> to r— o SXOVdWI aSHHACIV «o XNVOiaiNOis Hoa IVIXNaXOd HXIM SNH3DN00 localized. Accordingly, the issue is not addressed in NOAA's Five- Year Research Plan (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). 2. Nutrient or Trace Metal Increases from Benthic Plume Concern : Mining will release small amounts of INTERSTITIAL WATER from seafloor sediments. Interstitial water may be chemically different (nutrients and trace metals) from bottom water. Investigation : Laboratory analysis shows that interstitial water within the upper 20 cm (8 in) of sediment differs little in chemical composition from bottom water (Richards et al . , 1976). This similarity indicates that the sediments are not undergoing significant and rapid DIAGENESIS. The only significant exception is a 13-fold increase in the ammonium ion concentration which is produced through bacterial decomposition of organic matter in the sediment (Ozturgut et al . , 1978). Outlook : The amount of interstitial water released by collector disturbance of bottom sediments should be very small, the ammonium ion being quickly diluted or transformed in the bottom water, with no significant chemical nutrient or trace metal increase resulting from the mining disturbance. 3. Oxygen Demand from Benthic Plume Concern : Oxygen demand in the lower water column will increase after mining increases particulate organic matter concentrations and attached bacteria. Inorganic particles also will stimulate bacterial growth and oxygen consumption by acting as attachment sites. This increase in oxygen demand could lower dissolved oxygen concentrations in bottom waters. 78 Investigation : If the 17 kg carbon/d (37.4 lbs carbon/d) of animals macerated or smothered in the mining process were completely oxidized, a BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND of 3,200 1 (847 gal) of oxygen would result. This is equivalent to the oxygen dissolved in the bottom 4.4 mm (0.2 in) of the water column and so should have no measurable impact on the dissolved oxygen content of the bottom water (Ozretich, 1981 a). Organic carbon of the sediment is relatively resistant to bacterial attacks (Ozretich, 1981 a). Outlook : Bottom waters are well oxygenated and should not be affected by increases in oxygen demand due to biodegradation of dead benthic biota. No increased oxygen demand is expected to result from organic carbon in the sediments put into suspension from passage of the collector. 4. Bacteria Growth that Depletes Oxygen Concentrations in Surface Waters Concern : Fine particles in the upper waters could also spur bacterial growth and lead to decreased oxygen concentrations. The fine particles can stimulate bacterial growth and oxygen consumption by providing sites for attachment and by accumulating on their surfaces dissolved organic matter which provides nourishment for the bacteria. Investigation : Estimates of commercial -scale mining operations show that the mining discharge is expected to contain about 76 g/1 (0.63 lb/gal) of solids. However, the discharge will be diluted by a factor of 10,000 one hour after discharge and would consume 140 cm 3 2 /l (32.3 in 3 2 /gal) of discharge. Laboratory investigations show that if all particulate organic matter were oxidized during the first hour, the oxygen consumed would be less than one percent of that contained in the diluting volume of water. The change in oxygen concentration would be undetectable (Ozretich, 1981 b). Outlook : Bacterial growth and increased oxygen demand in the mixed layer is not likely to cause oxygen depletion because of the small amount of oxygen required, and the high concentration of oxygen in the upper water layers. A beneficial effect of increased bacterial growth will be its availability for consumption by zooplankton. 5. Alter Phytoplankton Species Composition from Surface Discharge Concern : There has been a concern that the surface discharge could affect phytoplankton species composition by a) changing the nutrient content of the surface waters or b) by introducing deep-sea microbes or resting SPORES. Previously dominant species could be replaced by more adaptable species if a permanent, long-term change were to occur in the environment. The long-term introduction of silicate-rich bottom water into the silicate-poor surface waters could lead to an increase in the diatom population in relation to other phytoplankton. Investigation : Incubation experiments were conducted using bottom sediments from DOMES Sites A, B, and C at the concentrations estimated for surface discharge points (10 mg/1 or 0.0013 oz/gal ) during the tests. After 72 hours, species composition was similar in both initial and control samples, and cells that could be identified as having other origins did not contribute significantly to the STANDING STOCK of the phytoplankton. No statistically significant differences were found between the silicate concentration in ambient surface water and the concentration within the surface water of a one hour old plume (Chan and Anderson, 1981). No longer term studies have yet been initiated. 80 Outlook : Resting spores found in the deep sea were from shallower-dwelling microbes whose settling in deep ocean sediments and re-introduction to surface waters pose no threat. Oceanographers have handled deep-sea samples for over a century without any apparent harm. Generally, deep-sea organisms are very poorly adapted for life in surface waters. No significant changes in species composition of phytoplankton due to the surface discharge are anticipated during commercial mining. Permanent or long- term changes in the environment should not occur since the nutrient concentration levels should return to ambient levels yery near the mining ship. 6. Affect Fish from Surface Discharge Concern : The surface discharge of mining particulates and consequent turbidity in the upper layer could affect the health of fish, by, e.g., altering feeding behavior or affecting respiration by clogging the gills. The discharge can also indirectly affect fish by bringing about changes in the light regime and in lower trophic levels. Several commercially valuable species of tuna and bill fish have feeding and spawning grounds in the DOMES area and may be affected by mining particulates (Ozturgut et al . , 1978). Investigation : Laboratory experiments in which two species of tuna were placed in a tank with a continuous flow of seawater showed no ill effects in the tuna during short-term exposures to fine particulate concentrations of 1,000 to 10,000 ug/1 (Ozturgut et al. , 1978). Behavioral responses varied; tuna sometimes avoided turbid areas and sometimes would feed within turbid areas. The turbidity avoidance seemed to be visually controlled. Outlook : The mining tests results showed that because the mining introduced solids settle faster than expected, the surface plume is small and predicted solid concentration levels in the mixed layer decrease from about 1,000 ug/1 to about 10 ug/1 in about four days. Because these concentrations are so low and experiments show no ill effects, such a short-term exposure of fish to these suspended solid concentration levels is not expected to have any effect on fish health. 7. Zooplankton Mortality and Species Composition and Abundance Changes in Surface Plume Concern : Direct mortality during the one or two days zooplankton might be in the plume could result from ingesting or adsorbing plume particulates. This could modify metabolic activity, clog respiratory surfaces and feeding appendages, or increase energy expended to capture and assimilate food. Because of these stresses, changes could occur in the abundance and/or taxonomic composition of surface zooplankton due to unequal susceptibility of different species. Investigation : During a series of laboratory experiments, 12 species of oceanic copepods and one coastal mysid were exposed from one to two days to clay suspensions at concentrations representative of those observed during test mining. Plankton survival data over a broad range of suspended particulate matter concentrations showed no increased mortality at concentrations up to about 10 ppM (Hi rota, 1981). Field studies during DOMES II revealed no increase in plankton mortality within the discharge plume (Hirota, 1981). Statistical analysis of selected zooplankton species in the plume and in control samples suggested that no major changes in species composition or abundance had occurred during exposure to the plume. Outlook : Field and laboratory studies provide no evidence suggesting major 82 toxic effects of mining discharge during short exposure times. Because the discharge will be rapidly diluted during commercial mining, no significant adverse effect is expected to occur. 8. Trace Metals Effects on Phytoplankton in Surface Plume Concern : Dissolved trace metals could be introduced into the surface mixed layer by sediments, nodule fragments, or bottom water found in the surface discharge. Such containments could be taken up by phytoplankton, thereby inhibiting primary productivity, affecting species composition, and providing entry of toxic metals with subsequent bioaccumulation into higher levels of the marine food chain. Cobalt, which is a required trace element, could be removed from solution by adsorption onto nodule fragments and thus be unavailable to the microorganisms in the vicinity of the mining discharge. Investigation : In laboratory studies, DOMES bottom sediments were resuspended in oxygenated seawater (Ozturgut et al. , 1978). Concentrations of nickel, zinc, chromium, iron, copper, manganese, and aluminum could not be detected above ambient. Subsequently, Benjamin (1981) determined the amounts of copper, cadmium, and cobalt released from crushed nodules as a function of time, pH, and nodule concentration. In the pH range of seawater, the amounts of cobalt, copper, and cadmium released were below the analytical detection limit even in the highest nodule concentration (20 g/1). Benjamin (1981) also determined that cobalt is more likely to be removed from seawater by adsorption onto nodule surfaces than to remain in solution. Outlook : Since the release of trace metals from surface discharges has not been detected, effects on phytoplankton from uptake are not expected to occur. 83 Due to the rapid dilution of the discharge and the resultant low concentrations of nodule fragments, cobalt deficiency, if it occurred, would be expected to be confined to the plume area and be short-lived. 9. Nutrient Increase Cause Phytoplankton Blooms in Surface Plume Concern : Introduction of nutrient-rich bottom waters and sediment interstitial water into the nutrient-poor mixed layer could produce an increase in primary productivity, possibly causing blooms of single species. Investigation : The mixing of the discharge with the surface waters is expected to increase the amount of nitrate enrichment of the ambient water to no more than 0.03 ug-at/1 within # the first few minutes and 0.003 ug-at/1 within an hour. These values are so low that they are below analytical detectability and so are expected not to have an appreciable immediate effect on the rates of nitrate uptake and primary productivity (Chan and Anderson 1981). On a long term basis, nitrogen introduced into the photic zone could support production of 50 mt ^55 tons) per year of plant carbon, only one ten-millionth the production of the Pacific central gyre. At this rate, primary production induced by the mining activity of even a dozen vessels would be many orders of magnitude below natural production (Chan and Anderson, 1981). No statistically significant differences were found between nitrate and silicate concentrations in ambient surface water and those within the surface water of a one hour old plume (Chan and Anderson, 1981). Outlook : No short-term or long-term changes in surface water nutrient content and consequent phytoplankton population levels are expected. 84 10. Air-Lift Caused Embolisms in Surface Plume Concern: The discharge from the air-lift mining system is supersaturated with dissolved gases. Exposure of fish to this discharge could cause fatal nitrogen embolisms. Investigation : Research has shown that exposure of fish to supersaturated waters can cause fatalities. However, measurements of oxygen profiles taken during both mining tests showed that the profiles in the plume resembled those in ambient water. Because nitrogen profiles parallel those of oxygen, this potential effect is judged to be unlikely. Outlook : The small discharge flow rates, the subsequent rapid mixing, and the exposure of the discharge to air prior to its release prevents super- saturation of gases outside the volume of initial plume penetration. -- Impacts Not Yet Resolved 1. Pycnocline Accumulation from Surface Discharge Concern : Fine mining particulates may spread and accumulate at the pycnocline as a result of depressed settling velocity. Such a layer, or layers, would cause a reduction in light penetration that could affect biota dependent upon specific levels of light. Since a phytoplankton maximum exists just above the pycnocline, a reduction could shift the optimum light levels into the nutrient poor waters above, thus potentially reducing primary productivity. In addition, such a layer has the potential to inhibit the vertical migration of certain species of mid-water organisms that occur below the mixed layer and utilize light levels to stimulate vertical migration. 85 Investigation : Data taken during test mining were inconclusive about discharge particles accumulating near the top of or in the pycnocline. Mathematical models of settling phenomena indicate that the larger particles will readily pass through the pycnocline while the smaller particles will be held homogeneously within the mixed layer (Lavelle and Ozturgut, 1981). Particle concentration and thus the amount of light diminution has not been examined. Outlook : Because test-mining data yield inconclusive evidence on the accumulation of particulates at depth, it is not clear whether particulates accumulate to significantly increased concentrations in the pycnocline. Future research and monitoring of industry test mining will be conducted to determine if this phenomenon occurs and significantly affects light levels. -- Potentially Beneficial Effects Although the long-term aspects of this category of effects may prove otherwise, each of the following effects appears to have a potentially beneficial aspect to it. 1. Additional Food Supply for Bottom Scavengers Concern : The collector will uncover, injure, or kill large numbers of benthic organisms, This increase in available organic matter will provide an additional, temporary food supply for scavengers. Collector noise could serve as a stimulus to attract scavengers, especially species like the rat-tail fish that communicate by sound. Investigation : Photographs show that bottom disturbances can attract large numbers of deep-sea scavengers. During DOMES I, samples obtained with baited traps indicated that a large population of scavengers exist in the bottom waters. 86 Outlook: Although this temporary food supply will provide scavengers with additional nutritional input, its effect on community size and structure is unknown. The effect would probably depend on several parameters such as the rate of reproductive responses to this temporary food increase. The impact of terminating this added food source is likewise unknown. 2. Bacteria Increase Food Supply for Zooplankton Concern : Growth of bacteria is stimulated by increases in substrates and organic matter. Particles from the surface and bottom discharges could provide an increase in surface area with resultant increases in bacterial biomass and other levels in the food chain. Investigation: Shipboard measurements taken during DOMES in the surface plume showed that a higher bacterial biomass was present near the bottom of the mixed layer than in ambient water from the same depth zone. This biomass increase either means that bacterial growth can occur or that zooplankton grazing pressure was reduced in the plume. Outlook : Ingestion by zooplankton of particles laden with bacteria could enhance productivity in the upper waters. The concentration of total particulates should return to ambient levels within a few days after mining ends. The temporary increase in bacterial biomass is therefore not expected to have any long-term effects in the mining area. 3. Filter Feeding Zooplankton Clean Up Surface Plume Concern : The clay fine silt fraction of the surface discharge that remains in suspension and disperses over a large area is more likely to be ingested by 87 filter feeding plankton. One result could be the aggregation of many small particles into fecal pellets which because of their size would sink more rapidly. This more rapid sinking of the pellets could also serve to remove nutrients that would eventually have been released into the surface waters by the breakup of the pellets. Investigation : Laboratory examination of the elemental composition of oceanic copepod fecal pellets revealed that copepods ingest particles the size of the mining discharge particulates (Hirota, 1981). Those experiments showed that pellet pro- duction rates and mean fecal pellet size are not greatly affected by the presence of mining discharge. The sinking rates for the pellets produced in the presence of a mixture of ambient seawater and mining particulates did show an increase over the rates reported for pellets produced by copepods feeding on natural suspended particulate matter. The sinking speeds for the pellets produced in the presence of mining discharge range from about 50 to 150 m/day (165 to 495 ft/day) depending on pellet volume (Chan and Anderson, 1981). Field experiments in the tropical Pacific (Honjo, 1976), as well as laboratory experiments, indicate that only about eight percent copepod fecal pellets remain in the upper water layers for periods of time that allow substantial recycling of nutrients. Outlook : Pellet formation, while not significant on a short-term, near-field basis, could become an important long-term mechanism for clearing the upper layer of fine mining particulates. 88 -- Certain Impact Without Significant Adverse Effects 1. Increased Turbidity from Surface Plume that Reduces Productivity Concern : Mining particulates affect the primary productivity by decreasing the depth of light penetration. In the DOMES region, most phytoplankton are concentrated just below the mixed layer where more nutrients are available. This zone corresponds to where light is 10 to 20 percent of surface intensity. Reduced light levels from the surface plume would shift the optimum light level upwards into the nutrient-poor waters and thereby reduce total production. Investigation Results of incubation experiments and light profiles in the plume showed that the reduction in productivity from ambient levels in the euphotic zone amounted to 50 percent. This change is the same order of magnitude as the natural variability caused by day-to-day variation in cloud cover. Outlook : The DOMES results showed that the local reduction in primary productivity due to increased light attenuation inside the surface plume was significant. In a commercial mining operation, a 50 percent reduction in the primary production rate in the water column may occur over an area approximately 20 km long and 2 km wide (10.8 nmi by 1.1 nmi) (Chan and Anderson, 1981). The mining ship will continually generate a plume and there will always be a zone where there is a 50 percent reduction. However, the plume will age as it advects and disperses so that a given mass of plume will start at 100 percent reduction, pass quickly through 50 percent, and then approach zero in a matter of days. Plankton in the mixed layers might be expected to encounter reduced light over an 80 to 100 hour period; however, this effect is similar to exposure to several days of cloudy skies. It should be noted however, that, light attenuation values used to calculate the reduction in 89 primary productivity are based on only a few measurements; their accuracy must be evaluated in future field or laboratory tests (Lavelle and Ozturgut, 1981). » One mining ship's "cloud" would be 20 km by 2 km or 40 km 2 (11.7 nmi 2 ). As a percent of the DOMES area this equals: 40 km 2 t 13 x 10 6 km 2 = 3 x 10" 6 = 0.0003 percent If each mine site is served by two mining ships and there are about five mining sites being simultaneously mined during the first generation (Appendix 5), this area increases by a factor of 10 to become 0.003 percent of the DOMES area. This amount is also deemed insignificant. II. C. 1.2. 2. 6 Endangered species The potential impact that mining may have on endangered marine mammals and sea turtles was not addressed as a separate investigative category during DOMES. Section II. C. 1.1. 2 addresses the effect that activity in transportation corridors may have on these animals and emphasizes that the prospects for impacts will be addressed in a site-specific EIS. The Hawaiian monk seal is the only marine mammal listed as endangered (Appendix 8) that has been sighted in the DOMES area. One yearling male monk seal was sighted and identified on Johnston Island, in the northwest portion of the DOMES area in 1968 (Documentation Associates, 1977). The Hawaiian monk seal breeds in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands and normally ranges only within the Hawaiian Archipelago. An occurrence outside of its normal range is extremely rare. A literature survey by Documentation Associates (as part of the DOMES program) of the available scientific information in the DOMES area showed that the occurrence of marine mammals and sea turtles is infrequent. Several species of porpoise, none of which is listed as endangered, have been sighted in the DOMES area. Whale marking and recovery 90 studies conducted from 1954 through 1966 indicate that whales rarely range within the DOMES area (Documentation Associates, 1977). At the mine site, existing knowledge therefore implies that marine mammals and sea turtle occurrences are infrequent and unlikely to be affected by mining. 91 II. C. 2 Effects With Potential for Significant or Adverse Impacts NOAA research has shown that there are four potentially adverse effects of deep seabed mining. Should future investigations reveal any of them to be significant, NOAA licenses and permits would then require the use of efforts to mitigate the impacts (Section II. C. 4). The need for mitigation will be determined in the coming years, mainly in the license phase during which the industry will be conducting reliability tests of commercial recovery equipment (Section II.C.3). For potentially significant impacts, NOAA has set forth in this section possible mitigation measures (mainly for commercial operations under a NOAA permit) which might be considered in the context of a site specific environmental statement for the terms, conditions, and restrictions (TCR) of a license or permit. In the event mitigation of a significant impact is necessary, NOAA will establish the appropriate performance standard (s) and then encourage the applicant to suggest measures and technology to meet the goal of mitigation of specific consequences. Monitoring of future commercial operations, as well as tests, will verify whether or not the standards are being met (Section II.C.4). The Five- Year Research Plan (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981) and monitoring of license and permit activities (see Section II.C.4) provide for investigation concerning the significance of the potentially adverse effects discussed here. If necessary, NOAA will prepare a supplemental environmental document to incorporate research and monitoring findings into this PEIS. Effects found to be insignificant will not be considered in site- specific environmental statements. Research will also investigate other possible means for mitigating effects so that significant adverse impacts can be avoided and mining can proceed as intended by Congress and NOAA. 92 The following discussion highlights the concerns, research, outlook, and possible mitigation techniques for each of the four potentially significant adverse effects. Each subsection discusses a concern in terms of license and permit phases. II. C. 2.1 Destruction of benthos in and near collector track in mine site subareas Concern : The mining collector will disturb sediment in and adjacent to its track. It is assumed that all organisms living in this track of perhaps 20 m (66 ft) width will be destroyed. Those organisms living in between the tracks, which industry hopes will be nearly abutting, will most likely be smothered by the sediment wake of the collector. The width of this inter-track zone could be on the order of the width of the collector track, but could vary depending on the type of operation employed, the topography, or the possible use of strips or islands to accelerate recolonization (see Section II. D. 1.1). Investigation : Macerated biota were, on occasion, observed in the surface discharge during DOMES II research. Many more animals are assumed to have been killed and culled on the seafloor by the collector. The potential for death by smother- ing in between tracks can be inferred from studies in another deep-sea area that showed substantial mortality resulting from accidental burial of a deep-sea community at 1,200 m (3,960 ft) (Thiel and Hessler, 1974). Although the DOMES area is generally much deeper, these findings may be applicable. Outlook : During a commercial operation, the area impacted by the collector, each year, both by its track and windrow, will be about 1,800 krn2 (525 nmi'2) [two ships at 900 km^ (or 262 nrrn'2) each] for a 3 million MT (3.3 million tons) per year three-metal operation (Ozturgut et a! . , 1981) and about one-third that 93 area for a four-metal operation. The resultant mortality of benthic biomass, at an approximate density of 0.3g/m 2 (0.001 oz/ft 2 ), will be about 540 MT (594 tons) per year. If it is assumed that five (three 3-metal and two 4-metal ) first generation miners will operate for 20 years in the mining area, the total area of benthic destruction would be: (1800 km 2 /yr. x 3 mines + 1800 km 2 /yr. x 2 mines) 20 years 3 = 130,000 km 2 or 37,900 nmi 2 Therefore, the amount of seafloor expected to be directly affected by the collectors in first generation mining (operating for 20 years) is about one percent of the DOMES area. According to McKelvey et al . (1979), the initial mine sites may not be randomly distributed throughout the DOMES area. Rather, they may be located within a 2.5 million km 2 (729,000 nmi 2 ) area thought to contain the richest nodule deposits. If this is the case, the impacted area will represent nearly five percent of that area of richest concentration. N0AA is unable to conclude that this scale of impact is significant to benthic populations, although it is clearly adverse. Factors which will be studied include the rate of recolonization, type of species that recolonize, and the resulting linkage between benthic and water column food webs. Present knowledge indicates that this linkage is very limited and not likely to be significantly affected (Section II. A. 1.2. 2). Future research will address these factors (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). N0AA anticipates the impact during the exploration phase to be extremely small. For example, five mine ships each conducting two months of commercial scale test-mining could impact an area of: 900 km 2 x 2 mo. x 5 ships = 750 km 2 or 219 nmi 2 year 12 mo. 94 or less than 0.01 percent of the DOMES area. Even with expanded exploration activities or potential long-term effects, this impact appears to be insignificant. Mitigation : License Phase During the license phase, research will involve the collection of essential environmental information and controlled experimentation in the DOMES area (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981; Jumars, 1981). In addition, demonstration scale tests will be monitored in order to begin recolonization studies. This information will help NOAA determine if TCR for mitigation during commercial operations are appropriate. Based on the best available information at this time, no mitigation measures are appropriate duringthe license phase. Permit Phase Understanding completely the nature and implications of the benthic impact will not be possible until full-scale mining has occurred for a few years. To attain this understanding, it is necessary to develop both theories and monitoring schemes keyed to the initial commercial operations. As informa- tion on the effects and potential significance of this disturbance develops, the importance of other factors, such as shape and spacing of mine sites, will become more evident and be taken into account in further NOAA regulatory actions. In addition, if situations arise during exploration that could cause significant adverse impacts (such as unique benthic fauna associated with a hydrothermal vent), mitigation in the form of equipment and/or operational changes may be required and a new monitoring plan devised before proceeding with additional commercial operations. Examples of mitigation could involve requirements to insure that: o special habitat areas are avoided; 95 o nodules are raked loose by small tines, rather than larger blades; and/or, o rejected sediments be guided back into the collector track immediately behind the collector. At this stage of knowledge, it is premature to require any measures such as these; there is no evidence to indicate that any of these potential regulations would be necessary or beneficial. Thus, it is not appropriate at this time to require mitigation measures for commercial operations. If at a later date, NOAA determines the impacts of collector contact to be significant, based on monitoring and research, mitigation strategies would be implemented. II.C.2.2 Blanketing of benthic fauna and dilution of food supply away from mine site subareas Concern: Possibly of greater concern than direct collector impact is the large area affected by the fine sedimentary particulates (called "fines") that move in response to bottom currents and then settle very slowly. The infauna have no burrowing ability and thus may be smothered. Farther away the thin blanket of fines from the benthic plume may cover and thus dilute the food supply of bottom feeders. Food descending through the water column settles as a thin layer on the sediment where it is consumed by deposit feeders and bacteria. Most deep water benthic animals are small (less than 0.5 mm or .02 in length), live in the upper 1 cm (0.4 in) of the seafloor, and have adapted to this scarcity of food by developing acute chemosensory capabilities (smell). Thus, even slight alterations from this pattern might significantly change natural conditions and diminish an already meager source of food. According to Jumars (1981), "For animals adapted to feeding at the sediment-water interface, it is conceivable that burial of their normal food resources under 1 mm (0.04 in) or less may be critical depending on the time scale over which these food resources recover." 96 The impacts on the various species of benthos will be dependent upon the guild to which they belong (Section II. A. 1.2. 2, Tables 6 and 8). Scav- engers will receive a temporarily increased food supply, and are unlikely to suffer from mortality due to burial. Subsurface deposit feeders are also unlikely to be affected because of their relative isolation from resedimentation effects. Suspension feeders, another important component of the deep-water benthic community, could also be adversely affected. These animals filter their food from the water. An increase in sediments of a few ug/1, a level practically undetectable to the human eye, could render their feeding apparatus less efficient. Surface deposit feeders could be affected if the net food value of the surface deposits is altered (Jumars, 1981). Investigation : Field measurements suggest that fines in the benthic plume, with parti- r culate concentrations about twice that of the ambient, may remain suspended for a week or longer after the cessation of mining operations and be carried tens of kilometers by bottom currents (Lavelle et al . , 1981). Outlook : These fines could cause mortalities far beyond the zone of mortalities caused by mechanical disturbance. NOAA has predicted that the annual commercial mining of a 900 km 2 (262 nmi 2 ) sub-area (roughly the size of the area expected to be mined each year by one mining ship) will result in a rain of fines on an area of 3,000 to 5,000 km 2 (875 to 1,458 nmi 2 ) (Lavelle et al. , 1981). Given that bottom currents are not completely unidirectional, it seems reasonable to assume that during the 20 years or more of operation of each mine site (which could include dozens of sub-areas), the entire site as well as surrounding areas will be subject to a rain of fines considerably higher than ambient. 97 The impact of increased sedimentation rates and particulate loads on benthic fauna is not known at this time. However, monitoring of the brief period of test mining conducted by Ocean Management, Inc. (OMI) in 1978 revealed no repercussions from this impact. Therefore, an unsubstantiated worst case assumption would involve the destruction of less than 100 percent of the benthic fauna in the complete mine site, plus a strip around the site that could average, for example, 20 km (11 nmi) in width if the site was circular in shape [based upon the difference in radii between the 900 and 4,000 km 2 (262 and 1,166 nmi 2 ) circles]. The greater the increase in site perimeter in relation to site area, the greater will be the area of the strip around the site receiving the rain of mining fines. For example, the area of a 20 km (11 nmi) wide strip around a circular 40,000 km 2 (11,662 nmi 2 ) mine site involves an area 39 percent that of the site proper. A similar strip around a 40,000 km 2 square site involves a comparable area 44 percent that of the site. Similarly, a 20 km (11 nmi) wide strip around a rectangular site of 400 km by 100 km '220 by 55 nmi) involves an area 54 percent that of the site. During exploration, our worst case estimate of impact is the destruction of a fraction of the benthic fauna in strips surrounding the test areas estimated above to comprise about 750 km 2 (219 nmi 2 ). For example, the collector of a single mining test of two months duration will directly impact an area of 150 km 2 (44 nmi 2 ) (750 km 2 divided by 5 ships). Assuming that a test occurs in a reasonably compact test area (if not, the test could conceivably involve a spreadout collector path that could, in turn, expose a large area to a rain of fines depending on current direction), one can apply the same ratio of that area to its predicted rain of fines impact area: 900 km 2 = 150 km 2 then X = 667 km 2 or 194 nmi 2 . 4,000 km 2 X 98 As discussed in the outlook for direct collector impact, the rain of fines also appears to be insignificant. Mitigation : License Phase Monitoring will be aimed at understanding the long-term fate of that portion of the benthic plume that travels well away from the collector. Although the impact is currently unknown, damage could be irrevocable. Specifically, information is needed on particulate settling rates and patterns (Lavelle et al. , 1981). A compact pattern of area for equipment testing would concentrate the effect of the benthic plume. A less compact pattern of testing operation would disperse it, potentially over an area one hundred times the size of a compact pattern. NOAA does not, at this time, know which mining configuration would cause the least environmental effects. Our monitoring will focus on the benthic plume to determine the significance of its effect and what mining patterns might reduce any observed problems. In the event monitoring leads to the conclusion that there is a preferred approach that can signficantly mitigate adverse impacts, terms, conditions, and restrictions (TCR) for the license may be modified. If it is necessary to limit the area affected by the benthic plume, the TCR can provide that test mining should be reasonably compact, taking into account topography and efficiency of mining operations. Until further information is collected, no mitigation measures will be considered. Permit Phase The rationale noted above for direct destruction of benthos is also applicable here. Because this category of concern has the potential to affect an area larger than the mining subareas or even the mine sites and because repopulation rates are unknown, but likely to be on the order of decades or longer (Jumars, 1981), possible mitigation measures include: 99 - collector design features to minimize the size of the benthic plume; - reasonably compact mine site shapes to minimize impact area; or, - restrictions on increases in suspended sediments resulting from mining that extend beyond the boundaries of each site, e.g., mining close to boundary only when bottom currents are moving toward interior of site. Applicants for mining permits would be required to discuss in their commercial recovery mining plans how they intend to attain any of the measures that may be required; the site specific EISs will assess the likelihood of success and recommend monitoring procedures for the permits' TCR. We invite public comments on these or additional ideas. I I.C. 2. 3 Potential entry of trace metals into the food web via surface discharge Concern : It is unknown whether trace metals associated with abraded nodule fragments in the surface plume might enter the food chain most readily through ingestion by filter feeding zooplankton. Hirota (1981) hypothesizes that planktonic adsorption of trace metals could affect higher levels of the food chain. Such a phenomenon could affect the plankton and/or be passed on through the food chain. In the latter case, there is a possibility that commercial fish and eventually humans could be affected. Investigation : Although incorporation of trace metals into zooplankton was to have been investigated during DOMES, technical difficulties of culturing successive generations of zooplankton for laboratory observation precluded these investigations. 100 Outlook: While it appears that mining particles are ingested by filter- feeding macrozooplankton and are then defecated, no data yet exist on incorporation into bodily tissues of trace metals in the particulates or long-term effects on zooplankton and their predators. Accordingly, NOAA plans to examine the likelihood of this occurrence through theoretical studies. The study should be completed in time for the final PEIS in September 1981. During the license phase, demonstration-scale mining tests lasting two months or less will produce surface plumes. Since NOAA estimates that there will be five mining tests, this effect if it occurs, could be difficult to detect during a test. Nevertheless, the tests will present an opportunity to augment NOAA's theoretical study by monitoring changes of potentially toxic trace metals in zooplankton as well their predators. According to Hirota (1981), "....perhaps the most reasonable approach to the present status of the problem is careful planning for extensive monitoring of mining effects." In the absence of suitable data, NOAA has determined that the potential for a significant effect during the license phase is remote. Mitigation: License Phase Because of their brevity, the effects of demonstration scale mining tests yery likely will be indiscernible. Therefore, no mitigation measures are appropriate. Rather, the tests will be viewed as an opportunity to augment the theoretical study noted above. Permit Phase If information collected during the license phase verifies NOAA's determination that this impact is insignificant, no mitigation measures will be necessary. However, if the impact is determined to be significant, NOAA 101 could require that, insofar as practicable and necessary, nodule fines be retained on the mining ship. Applicants for mining permits would then be required to discuss in their mining plan how they intend to attain this goal. The site specific EIS would assess the likelihood of success and recommend monitoring procedures for TCR. II.C.2.4 Surface plume effect on fish larvae Concern : Tuna are epi pelagic fish which live and spawn in the open ocean. They have been shown to be attracted to discontinuities in the ocean. The plumes from the mining operations could be considered examples of this sort of discontinuity. Should the spawning period or location be altered by this attraction and the chemical and physical characteristics of the plume prove lethal to larval forms, the effect on the local populations may prove to be considerably more serious than if the larvae were evenly distributed over the DOMES area. (Personal communciation - Andrew Dizon, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu, HI.) Investigation This concern was not examined during DOMES I or II research. Outlook During commercial mining, a steady-state surface plume defined by a 1 ug/1 concentration over ambient at the sea-surface will cover an area about 85 km by 10 to 20 km (45 nmi by 5 to 11 nmi) (Lavelle and Ozturgut, 1981). First generation mining may involve eight ships (Appendix 5). Thus, the area of the sea surface covered by the plumes could be around 10,000 km 2 or 0.1 percent of the DOMES area. Because the effects of the plumes are unknown, this concern is addressed in the Five-Year Research Plan (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). 102 During exploration phase tests, each ship could generate a plume that may cover about 1,300 km^ (360 nmi'2), or 0.01 percent of the DOMES area for two months, Based on the level of activity, the potential for a significant effect during demonstration-scale mining tests is judged to be remote. Mitigation: License Phase Because the effects of mining tests are projected to be minimal, no mitigation measures are appropriate. Permit Phase If no significant detrimental effects are discovered prior to commercial operations, no mitigation measures will be necessary. However, if N0AA determines this impact to be significant, it could require that the point of discharge be below whichever is the deepest -- the pycnocline, the lower level of the euphotic zone, or the oxygen minimum zone. According to Hi rota (1981), discharge of this type "....would seem to be the most effective manner to minimize the effects of increased loading of fine particulates." The financial implications of such a possible requirement were examined by Fl ipse (1980) and found not be be excessive. However, fish larvae are known to occur throughout the water column; hence, this often-discussed potential mitigation measure would have to be examined in detail prior to becoming a requirement. 103 I I.C. 3 Information to be Required from Industry The Act requires that NOAA prepare a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) on the issuance of a license and permit. It is assumed the site will lie in the general DOMES area; if not, a new PEIS will be prepared, as required by the Act, as well as or including a site-specific EIS based on environmental information prepared by the applicant. Also, if new mining technologies are to be used, a supplement to the PEIS may be required. The magni- tude of the effort will be worked out with the applicant on a case-by-case basis. A site-specific EIS will be prepared for license phase pre-testing activities and will also include either general or specific information on the testing activities. If specific information on testing is not included, a supplement to the EIS will be prepared. An EIS also is required prior to the issuance of a permit. Each of these stages of activity is discussed below in terms of environmental and operational aspects. II. C. 3.1 License phase pre-testing activities Following receipt of an application for a license, NOAA will prepare an environmental impact statement based upon this PEIS and certain site and operation specific information. Most of the activities expected to be conducted during exploration (Appen- dix 3.4.1), including navigation and positioning, remote sensing, seafloor sampling, and subsystem testing (e.g., towing a collector on a cable) are judged to have no potential for significant environmental impact, based on decades of experience with ocean survey equipment and procedures. II. C. 3. 1.1 Environmental information The applicant shall provide environmental information for NOAA to prepare the site-specific EIS required by the Act, including relevant information obtained during past exploration activities. What is needed regarding pre-testing activities will probably be modest because these are essentially remote sensing and sampling activities which have no potential for significant environmental impact. 104 II. C. 3. 1.2 Operational information Information must be provided on the type of equipment and planned frequency of use during exploration with respect to: o Navigation and positioning - Seafloor transponder emplacement o Remote sensing - Acoustic imaging, television, photography o Seafloor sampling - Drag dredging, core sampling, boomerang sampling, grab sampling, box coring, physical properties instrumentation emplacement o Subsystem testing - Towing collector on a cable II.C.3.2 License phase testing activities At least three hundred and sixty-five (365) days prior to the first demonstration-scale mining or processing test, sufficient data must be furnished to enable NOAA to supplement the initial site-specific environmental statement. Tests may not be undertaken in the absence of concurrence by NOAA and the filing of a final supplement to the EIS. Any or all of the information will be accepted by NOAA at the time of application or any time thereafter; early submission of information may minimize pre-test delay for site-specific EIS preparation. The test plan(s) will be evaluated with respect to probable effects based on this PEIS as well as additional information developed during prepara- tion of the site-specific EIS. II. C. 3. 2.1 Environmental information All parameters should be measured in accordance with DOMES procedures (Ozturgut et al. , 1973) or the equivalent, as proposed by the applicant and approved by NOAA. Procedures will be identified in a technical guidance 105 document to be prepared by NOAA and available at about the time the final PEIS is published. It is not NOAA's intention to require site-specific efforts on the part of applicants anywhere near the magnitude of the DOMES program; the level of effort need only be enough for NOAA to verify that the proposed site's characteristics fall within the range of values observed during DOMES I. If so, the environmental analysis and findings in this PEIS can be updated and used for the site-specific EIS. If a proposed site is one of the DOMES sites, no additional pre-test environmental data will be required. The characteristics of relevance are: o Upper water column - Current measurements Solar radiation and light penetration Distribution of physical and chemical properties Trace metals Suspended particulate matter Phytoplankton characterization Zooplankton and micronekton characterization Fishes o Lower water column - Current measurements Distribution of physical and chemical properties Suspended particulates Sedimentology Near-bottom macrozooplankton Fishes Benthic population characterization Special attention should be given to the presence of endangered species in the proposed site. 106 In conjunction with testing, additional sampling of these parameters (except sedimentology) will be required [similar to the DOMES mining tests described in Section II. B. 1.1 (see Burns et al. , 1980, Ozturgut et al . , 1980 and Ozturgut et al. , 1981)]. In general, the licensee will be expected to monitor short-term, near- field effects; NOAA will address long-term, far- field effects (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981). Work will be done under NOAA technical guidance, with specific TCRs develped J with the licensee on a case-by-case basis. I I.C. 3. 2. 2 Operational information Information would be needed on the following activities relating to equipment and facilities testing: o Mining system(s) to be tested -- - Nodule collection technique details - Seafloor sediment rejection subsystem detail - Mineship nodule/fines separation scheme - Pumping method o Test plans -- - Detailed test plans as well as test site location and dimensions to evaluate the mine test area with respect to benthic plume considerations (see Section II.C.2.2). - Transportation corridor(s) to be used by test vessel (s) and support vessel (s) During testing, the licensee will be expected to monitor certain operational parameters, as worked out with NOAA on a case-by-case basis -- - Nodule collection rate - Surface discharge flow rate - Col lector track 107 o Onshore facilities -- If onshore facilities are to be built for testing of refining processes, the application or subsequent data should include: - The location and affected environment of facilities, including waste disposal facilities, - An assessment of the environmental consequences of construction and operation of the facilities; - Any mitigating measures that may be proposed; and - The status of any required Federal, State, or local permits, licenses, or coordination processes relating to protection of the environment. If the onshore facilities are expected to be environmentally controversial, the licensee should consult with NOAA as early as possible. N0#A invites comments on whether these are the appropriate character- istics to address, what parameters are appropriate and how they should be addressed for both information for site specific EIS and for monitoring. Suggestions will be considered during preparation of the technical guidance document. As the PEIS estimates are compared to test monitoring and research results, this list of data needs may change. II.C.3.3 Permit phase When an applicant applies for a permit, certain additional information should be provided. At that time a supplement to the site-specific EIS may be prepared. Decisions now on requirements are premature; nevertheless, NOAA's present views on necessary information beyond what was provided at the license stage include: I I.C. 3. 3.1 Environmental information It is possible that certain data submitted during the license phase will need to be supplemented. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 108 II. C. 3. 3. 2 Operational information (examples) o Mitigation plans (if applicable at that time) o Mining pattern planned o Selective-mining plan o Manganese tailings stockpiling plans o Transportation corridor(s) to be used by nodule carriers o Processing plant location and details (see Section III). 109 I I.C. 4 Monitoring Strategy Although specific parameters will be monitored (Section II. C. 3), at this time NOAA sees no basis for prescribing specific standards. If the applicant's work plan for either a license or a permit is judged acceptable, a monitoring plan will be devised by NOAA in accordance with a set of initial terms, conditions, and restrictions (TCR) imposed on the applicant. The TCR applicable to the surface discharge will be developed in consultation with EPA since the Act requires that a discharge permit be obtained under terms of the Clean Water Act. Monitoring will involve docks ide inspection of equipment as well as at-sea inspection and sampling. This monitoring strategy will be devised to: insure that the mining equipment and operation do not deviate significantly from the approved plan; and, verify NOAA's assessment of plan acceptability. The general logic of the monitoring plan is shown in Figure 22. The "monitor and learn" step is designed to answer the questions, "are environ- mental effects consistent with the PEIS and EIS estimates?" Precisely what is meant by consistency is discussed above in Sections II.C.l and II. C. 2. - Basically, the license phase is viewed as an opportunity to verify the low probability predictions (see Section II.C.l) and to further examine the effects of remaining concerns (see Section II. C. 2). Consequently, monitoring and accompanying research will be focused on the magnitude of mortality of benthic fauna in and near collector tracks in mine site subareas; blanketing of benthic fauna and dilution of food supply away from mine site subareas; potential entry of trace metals into the food web; and, the affect of the surface plume on fish larvae. 110 INITIAL TERMS. CONDI V IONS & RESTRICTIONS MONITOR & LEARN K ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (2) - C org .11 (.2) .15 (.3) .2 (.15) .27 co 2 3.4 (4.5) 1.2 (.5) 1.0! > (2.8) - parts per million B 178 (30) 167 (31) 145 (30) 100 Ba 2835 (650) 1505 (1373) 3926 (2015) 3900 Be 3 (.7) 3 (1) 3.5 (1) - Co 83 (31) 62 (27) 116 (90) 113 Cr 57 (12) 50 (20) 53 (16) 64 Cu 440 (160) 222 (70) 595 (1000) 230 Mo 12 (16) 8 (5) 24 (60) 10 Ni 183 (76) 112 (66) 341 (660) 210 Pb 34 (6) 26 (8) 61 (40) 34 Sc 33 (6) 30 (3) 21 (6) 25 Sr 175 (100) 343 (100) 317 (180) 710 V 89 (22) 99 (20) 102 (26) 117 Zn 243 (100) 95 (13) 160 (64) 165 Y 171 (90) 124 (60) 97 (32) 150 * Ignition losses - water and other volatiles not analyzed 116 0) CD c ■Ju z: <: s»£ X cc ^r co u. o o co ►— « 4-» CO o o CO o 1 CU CO CU I— «3- «3- z CM CU r-« CO -Q CO CM O O CO CM O O o O O «3" CO «d- CM <* o o •r- «*r CU c O za O • co CO • o_ • o to O O «tf" CO CD CM T— 1 O 10 c r— O CO • o CD O t—i 1— O cu O I— « c 1— « -0 O en rvi O C_> O O ac 3 CO co en CM O O Q 3 • •< ■< O «a- •r- -a 4-> E 2: • 1—4 a. o_ O O co .c i- E O t— t c£ »— • «=*- CM CM CO O > O • O JQ ST O • O (0 1— Q. CO CO •r- CO $- «s*- *4- .C H- • rvi O • O ac r- CO co «* t— t— 1 O CM fO CO O - O —J «— 1 rH W)r^ CU r^ ■u a^ cfl r-\ O O & •1-1 O CO CJ 6 CJ 14-1 rH O w •-s T3 4-1 PI d ctf CU cu !-i M R0CESSING FOUR-METAL PROCESSING MAJOR ACTIVITIES *-> M'. 1 ;':-., 4-> ENERGY FUELS FUELS ■o "O 3 3 ■U Q.'-^ *— -* &- r— 4-> u i. d--~ *— * S- r— b i. C S. *—* >> (O >*. >> C i- in ^— * >: ro PO >> >> •— ' >> 01 u\ ■ — . <_>^^ a ~». — >, ai O <— . O 4) ^v s_ c ro ■i- 3 O c s. c ro T x pm C ro o E J- -* • .,_ i— r— r— O) ■(-> ro o . E L. J* ^M* •t— f— ^- ^- 4-> S- Vt i. 4-> ^•** r— 01 1— +-> S- (/> i. +1 ^~ 01 3vi3 -o u O i~ aivo un r— CT «1«T 3V£. -© O o u one ooo ^- O^T i/.*? ■D O C 0) X) o a> o «3 O a> o -o o e ai xi ai ■u o at o ro Vt O 0) o O r— <0 ZC O o o L. c o CI J- 2 u to O c X o u £ c od .-* o «_> oo »■* t— o z CM • o o • o CO o • o ANOWUW «3- o • o CO o • o •—I o • o f—l o • CSJ o • o DIN3S • o CO «— 1 • f-4 co 1— 1 • o r-4 o • o 1— • o • WRNVHINVI in LO • LO LO • co CO • CSJ CSJ CO • CSJ co • wniyva o «y <-* •-4 o • i— 4 «— 4 Q «— 1 CO • co CO • CO oo LU ! t— Q£ Z 1— < oo ►- => LU —1 O _l CC o< a. is 00 (utuj/piii .OD ST.03SV9 o • csj CSJ LO • o> CO • CO • CO 1— < o • CO I— 1 (J^A gOL) alios LO • cm CO • co CO • CO LO • o • (■»*/-«" qOl) ^ainon «3" • co i • csj • CO • o CO • o TYPE OF PROCESSING PLANT E e O C7> ^- c «-> •«- U JC 3 U "O -J • 1 CSJ en c J= o ia u— ' 3 *-» -o — ■i- 3 2 oo • CO 4. Reduction/Hydrochloric Acid Leaching c 4-1 "a 1 oo • LO SlNVld 1V13W-33MH1 SlNVld lV13W-anOJ •a •o 3 CSJ O OO a» ■a 3 IA C CJ t. jS 43 < i o a. E O u T3 en s- 1TJ T *• eI+j c •a 4-> cr> IA ■a • « 8J • •O U 3 C 01 c 3 Qlt- P £ c w a* o at t. ■•-> a. nj U IA «/» ••- c QJ t- O 3 4-> *J <— CJ •!- ^- O 4-> — O 01 o o a> E IT3 a a* JO 3 a. E O o at u t_ 3 O oo 158 of the importance of the subject, NOAA, EPA, the Bureau of Mines, and the Fish and Wildlife Service have embarked on a multi-year research program to determine if a potential major problem could exist. In the future, EPA will decide if nodule processing facilities can be adequately controlled under existing effluent guidelines or if new rules are required. In any case, the control requirements placed on a nodule processing facility will depend on the types and quantities of pollutants in the discharge stream and the levels of pollution already existing in the area where the facility is proposed. III. A. 3.1 Construction As with the other onshore processing facilities, the normal construction related environmental impacts will be encountered during construction of the processing plant. Because of their relatively short-term nature and the various mitigation measures imposed by State and local construction laws and regulations, these impacts are unlikely to be a serious threat to the local environment. Moreover, because of the expected size of the plant facilities, the processing plant construction activities could have a significant effect on the local construction industry. The siting of a nodule processing plant will involve environmental impacts similar to those resulting from the siting of any other large industrial facility. III. A. 3. 2 Operations The metal recovery section of the nodule processing plants consumes high levels of electric power; other processing operations require large quantities of steam. Although the energy requirements are comparable to many types of existing industrial plants, supplying the required amounts of energy could present some environmental problems. Because of the emphasis in recent years on the decreased use of oil and gas as sources of industrial power, it is expected that coal will be used wherever possible to generate the steam required 159 for processing and that some of the steam may be used, prior to its use in processing the nodules to generate some of the required electric power on-site. The Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act prohibits the use of oil or natural gas by new industrial plants with boilers exceeding 100 million BTU's per hour capacity, which would include a nodule processing plant, unless a waiver is obtained from the Secretary of Energy. Further influencing the assumption that coal will be the hydrocarbon fuel used in the plant is uncertainty regarding the future availability and cost of oil and gas. Depending on the nodule processing technique being used, this would result in the burning of between 266,000 and 697,000 MT (292,000 to 766,000 tons) of coal per year (derived from Table 16). This use of coal as the primary source of energy for steam generation will necessitate access to a railroad for the delivery of the coal as well as a fairly large coal storage facility on-site. While the environmental consequences of delivering and storing this amount of coal would not appear to be significant, burning coal will impact on air quality emissions such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulates. Even with some on-site electric power generation, however, it is expected that a three-metal plant will be required to purchase approximately 25 megawatts and a four-metal plant about 75 to 100 megawatts of electricty from the local power grid. Depending on the location of the plant, it is quite likely that high-voltage transmission lines will have to be constructed in order to supply this amount of electricity. In fact, in certain areas, existing power generating facilities may not be capable of providing the required amounts of electricity, in which case the local power company might have to either up-grade its existing facilities or construct new ones. Although coal is discussed as the primary fuel in this document, as generally applicable, future site-specific cases undoubtedly will provide exceptions. 160 Hawaii and other islands might utilize geothermal or OTEC power in lieu of shipping coal, oil, or gas; at-sea processing also might utilize OTEC power in the future. Nodules processing will require the use of freshwater (not necessarily potable) for steam generation, cooling, and other process uses, including its addition to the waste stream to improve slurry pumping character- istics. The 6 to 23.8 million 1 (1.6 to 6.3 million gal) daily requirement, depending on the processing technique, is not an extremely large amount of water compared to other types of industrial plants, but would be significant in areas such as southern California where freshwater supplies are limited. There are various measures which might be utilized to reduce water consumption, e.g., recycling cooling water or the water used in waste slurries. Also to mitigate excess freshwater consumption plants might utilize treated municipal waste water or agricultural run-off. In addition to these mitigation measures, most States with limited freshwater supplies have laws which assure that surface waters are appropriated only for beneficial uses which are not prejudicial to the public interest. Such laws may prevent processing plant siting in areas where water availability could be compromised. At least part of each nodule processing technique involves dissolving the nodules and putting their minerals into solution and then selectively removing the value metals from the solution. In this "leaching" procedure, potentially hazardous and/or toxic chemicaTs such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and acids, e.g., sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid, will be used. Fairly sizeable quantities of these chemicals will be shipped, stored, /and used in nodule processing plants. As is the case with any industry which utilizes chemicals, there is always the possibility that a natural disaster and/or human errors may result in the accidental release of potentially harmful liquids or gases. The chances of such a release are considered to be very small. For example, in their study of the characteristics of manganese nodule processing 161 plants, Dames & Moore and EIC Corp. (1977) estimated that if there were 10 processing plants, there would be on the average only one gaseous release every 10,000 operating years. The dangers of an accidental release of hazardous and/or toxic substances could be minimized by incorporating relatively simple environmental design safeguards. For example, inclusion of valves limiting contents of storage vessels, inclusion of dikes and sumps in basic plant designs, avoidance of flood zones and active faults, and avoidance of sites with adverse atmospheric dispersion characteristics can reduce risks at essentially negligible costs. The operation of a nodule processing plant will have important socio- economic impacts on the local community. Once the plant begins three-shift per day operations, it is expected that direct employment will reach a total of 500 to 1,000. Positions are expected to be equal parts managerial and clerical, skilled workers, and unskilled. Depending on the existing industry in the area, a comparable number of secondary and induced jobs could be created. It is possible that economically depressed areas with high levels of unemployment, other things being equal, could be attractive for plant location. Community infrastructure wil 1 also be affected. Sewage, garbage, and trash will be treated by normal municipal operations. Traffic patterns, residential location, commercial opportunities, demand for schools, housing, health care, and other private and public services will be the secondary effects of the plant. Studies underway at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Texas A&M University, have estimated that a processing plant's capital cost would be' over $500 million and that a plant's annual payroll would be over $25 million per year. In most areas, economic benefits should sub- stantially offset the demand for services, especially if the local labor market can provide most of the unskilled and some of the skilled workers. 162 II I. A. 4 Disposal of Nodule Processing Waste Of all the activities associated with the extraction of value metals from manganese nodules, disposal of processing waste will perhaps be of the greatest concern for two reasons: (1) the sheer volume to be disposed; and (2) the unknown chemical and physical nature of the wastes. Because the value metals comprise only a small percentage of the nodules, each tonne of nodules that is processed for three-metals will result in roughly a tonne of waste materials when combustion ashes and other by-products are considered. Processing may alter nodule constituents into soluble compounds of hazardous or toxic elements, as is presently being assessed by an interagency effort (see Section 1 1 1. A. 3). III. A. 4.1 Construction The environmental impacts resulting from the construction of waste pro- cessing facilities will not differ significantly from those associated with construction of the other onshore nodule processing facilities. The major problems will be heavy equipment noise, dust, water runoff, and soil erosion resulting from preparation of large tracts of land for the construction of tailings ponds and/or landfills. These impacts however will be mitigated by measures imposed by Federal, State, and local authorities as part of the construction permitting process. Siting considerations of concern in siting other onshore facilities are also of concern in siting tailings ponds and landfills. These concerns are accentuated by the potentially hazardous and toxic nature of the process waste materials. There is little construction associated with ocean disposal techniques, except for a pipeline for returning wastes to the marine terminal or for a pipeline to an ocean outfall. 163 III. A. 4. 2 Operations III. A. 4. 2.1 Onshore Disposal Two of the major concerns with the disposal of nodule processing waste are the large quantities of waste and their unknown chemical and physical characteristics. The total solid component of a three-metal plant wastes is expected to be around 3 to 4 million MT (3.3 to 4.4 million tons) per year while four-metal plants are expected to produce on the order of 0.5 to 0.75 million MT (0.55 to 0.82 million tons) per year. Onshore disposal of such large quantities of solid waste material in either landfills or tailings ponds will require relatively large areas of land. The ability to use a landfill depends on the water content of the wastes, which can be decreased if an energy intensive drying step is included. In general, only slags from a smelting process appear suitable for landfill. For tailings ponds, land reclamation would largely depend on the physical characteristics of the tailings and the degree to which the tailings stabilize as free water evaporates or is removed. Depending on the processing techniques and the net evaporation rate typical of the region in which the disposal facilities are located, it is possible that the tailings could remain unstable for years and, as a further consequence, that the land could remain unsuitable for other uses for an extended period of time. The contamination of local ground water, surface waters, or aquifers as a result of seepage of liquid wastes from slurry tailings ponds and leachates from landfills may be one of the more significant potential problems associated with the onshore disposal methods. Negative environmental impacts could be mitigated by: (1) locating the disposal facilities in arid or semi-arid regions; (2) locating the facility in an area where the sub-surface geology consists of relatively impermeable soil or rock; or, (3) providing a compacted, relatively impervious base of clay-type soils or a man-made liner for the landfill or 164 tailings pond. III. A. 4. 2. 3. Ocean Disposal Ocean disposal technology is available but would have to be adapted to handle the particular types and quantities of waste that will be produced. The main questions relating to ocean dumping of nodule processing wastes are legal, and technical. Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, a permit is required to transport material from the U.S. to sea for dumping. In order to receive such a permit, the applicant would have to demonstrate that there would be no deleterious effects on the marine environ- ment as a result of the ocean dumping operation and that there are no other alternative disposal choices if the material is hazardous or toxic. Given all the unknowns concerning the characteristics of the nodule processing wastes, it is not possible to say at this time whether or not ocean dumping would be allowed. Further, ocean disposal of three-metals processing wastes would include manganese. This resource may be more difficult to reclaim in the future from the ocean than from land disposal sites, assuming manganese tailings will become valuable in the future (see Section II. D. 1.1, "Resource Conservation Issues" No. 3). The use of an ocean outfall pipe as a means of nearshore ocean disposal is also a possibility. This method is presently being used for the disposal of copper processing tailings at the Utah International Island Copper Project on Vancouver Island, Canada (Western Miner, 1974). Such a point source disposal method requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the EPA under the Clean Water Act. The wastes must meet the ocean discharge criteria established by EPA under that Act, a fact that will depend on the determination of the exact nature of the process wastes. Because of climatic and economic factors and the problem of locating 165 suitable land disposal sites, the nodule mining industry is likely to seriously consider ocean disposal as a potential waste disposal method. III.B Mitigation Under Existing Laws In considering the location and operation of future onshore processing facilities, two broad classes of environmental impacts become apparent. The first (Table 19) are those which generally can be avoided by careful planning. These relate primarily to conflicts among natural resource and land uses currently recognized in Federal statute and can be precluded by selecting a site which does not create such conflicts. The second class (Table 20) contains those environmental impacts which are inherent in the industrial process, but will differ in magnitude as a result of sit£, design, and operational characteristics. In most cases, existing Federal permits, standards, and regulations ensure that adverse environ- mental impacts are minimized; in others, e.g., noise, sedimentation, water consumption, impacts are local and properly under the jurisdiction of State and local authorities. Table 20 includes possible mitigation measures and environmental require- ments for various effects. Generally", there are measures to protect almost all impacts; the few areas where Federal authority does not exist are properly covered by State or local authorities. Required permits and consultation with the agen- cies are included. NOAA concludes that these authorities are sufficient to mitigate any potentiall adverse impact arising from onshore processing, including the transportation and waste disposal aspects. III.C Onshore Alternatives, Including Proposed Action Under existing legislation, NOAA has no authority to approve or disapprove permits for onshore activities. Nevertheless, NOAA is responsible under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (P.L. 96-283), NEPA, and the CEQ regula- 166 cfl H Ph E B CJ * CO • CO 0) •H CO Cfl 0) -rl w CD 0) CU I4H O ^01 ^^. CU 4H CJ cj ' » ^»* 4-1 "*-- 4-1 4-1 C SO] 14 \ CO 44 3 1-4 0) X) 00 •H a £ XI c 01 Cfl CO CO CO 4-1 XI cfl o •H CO fe XI 0) rH 6,3 4-1 4J 01 CU X) C -rl Cfl 3 co CJ O -rl X) > C 0) CJ 01 4H | O l-i 01 CU l-l C r4 Cfl CO 01 B 4J •r-l CU 4-1 4-1 CO Cfl CU CU 4J a, Cfl rH 3 4-1 4-1 o O P 01 CI 14 O CO s CO O H •H co l-i U 4-1 01 01 i-l -H cu Q co g a O- CJ 4-1 S-I 1-4 CO 4J XI 0) 0) 00 Pi 33 o- o c cfl a. o O 0) 3 rf 3 P, 13 ■a XI CO 4-1 4-1 CJ r4 3 •H r3 -H cfl 43 CJ CJ CD C XI cfl .C to CO CU C CO CO CO O CO -r-l 4-1 T-l 00 P. 0) 4J l-l CD •H CU rQ t^ I-H cfl B •H Cfl 0) CO CU u oi a 4-1 0) 4J O N XI Z 3 > -H Cfl 4-1 O IH 4-J O U •H C l-l l-l |£ iH CJ CU > rC CJ cfl a B co CU 4J 01 CO CU CJ cu cfl 01 4J 111 rl 3 3 P-, 0) "rl •H H CO CJ -co 3 •H -H 4J ^3 •H 4-1 £ M C 4-1 ai q 01 4-1 > 4-1 O O > XI o cfl ■rl CU |j co S-i CO 01 4-4 l-l 1j 0) 3 l-l O O rH S & a. m PL, W Pi o D. cfl Pi cfl Ph S3 4-1 ft Pi > o 35 H 3> < r^- 23 CN O CM n H vi ** < 25 NO CM CN m rJ O o o CN CD i-i o o CN) l-l H C» 00 1 o o u CO .-o U CJ CJ CJ U cn in LO o o o o o 1 1 1 co iH 1— 1 c n m m m m m •H ^3 4-1 > 43 cm 4-1 4-1 u w u r-. Cfl rH < •J 1-1 CT. < > CO w CO rH l-l CJ 3 Pi CU 4-1 0) T-l 4-1 o CO CM c CO l-l CJ 4-1 •H 01 O /-s 01 0) r-> O O • CJ -~-N 4-1 s-\ Pi CO i 1-14-14-1 ^^ CO . ai xi • E, • CO 4-1 CJ 1-4 4-1 CJ Nl C_) 4-1 O CJ XI CU CJ cfl cj XI X) cfl . Ph o • 1— 1 ^D Cfl rH l-l r4 • S • lH l-l S co 3 CO H N CO cfl i-H > O CO o CU CO CO o o 0) co • cfl r~- . cs ' — »-» a> • OC • 0) • c & CCO 3 U (Jl p O CU cfl 3) C 3> 3 3> CO •H CO r-l •H CO JS a CO •H CJ CJ oi co U XI NO CO \D 4-1 4J 0) CJ NO 01 XI NO 1-4 NO 01 CU i-H co CO C rH O 14-1 l-l Cfl CJ rJ 1-4 rH X C --H Cfl rH X X t_ u <*■* S N CO O 0) O cfl Cfl to 4-1 4-1 CO 4-1 01 01 rH OC' rH CJ 4-1 O rH a. -h o o- 0) P. -H CO > 4-1 •H l-l T-l o c ■H cfl O -H •H 4-1 3 C CO o CO l-l rC a CO ,£> XI rO -H CO •h a. V4 01 l-l cfl co 3 ri- co co XI CO O -H O 3 0) XI CU CU CO al o CU 0) V4 4J 4-1 a oi 4-1 4-1 4-1 r4 r4 XI 3 Qt CO 6C O Cfl T-l 4J CO CO XJ Cfl cfl X) 3 cfl 3 -H C 3 c a 3 OC cfl cu 3 T-l 4-1 3 -H 4-1 CO cO •H 4-1 •H cfl CT O C r4 cr o T-l cr o CJ X) w < <5 co O i-l o > < i-H 4-1 4-1 O 4-1 CO 0) rH OC 3 cu > rO 01 > 3 l-i a s co C U) XI O -H 4-1 Xl cfl cfl XI CO !h cfl 3 o •H CO ■H CU Cfl CU CO CJ cfl X. cfl 4-1 N CJ X CO x a rC cu 3 n cfl co 0) N « CU 01 CU T-l l-l B o xi i-i C l-l 4J g co co g ^ rC OJ •H CO 13 C XI CO O Cfl X) Cfl O 01 T-l O 0) CO 4-1 X) i-H CO •H -H ■H 3 4H -H 4H > CJ 4H > CO Cfl O •H 0) O l-l O 4J l-l X) O XI l-l l-i 0) 1h l-l 01 CJ O 4-1 In > CO > CO cu c > c cu 3 a 01 3 r4 O rH 3> CO < S < w P-i cfl CO cfl Cl, CO cfl Ph CO Cfl rJ 4H . r-l rA ■— I CO CU 1— 1 <• 1 •H 3 t^-H cfl cn >! B M-l O ^H l-l O 0) 4H C cu 5 ^H CO •H 4-1 4H T-l rH Cfl r4 M 43 |S0 CO 3 l-l -H O X) XI Cfl rH 4H O 4-1 -H l-l 4-1 0) O CO cu o 4J Cfl ►fj 4-1 01 O 4-1 4-1 Cfl o> 3 B 3 i CO <: x> 4-1 a XI C Cfl CO rH 4-1 CJ 01 CU g CO OC H CU o o 01 CO 4-1 CU •H Cfl CJ 3 4-1 >, X) Cfl O 3 z Of CJ 14-4 CO CO c ,c a oi 01 Cfl rH ■h e I-H T-l w XI CO •H •H -r-l 4-1 01 CU Cfl o Xl s CU U XI J3 CU J3 l-l rC 0£ £> CO l-l CO 4-1 3 0) 4H O 23 U CU C 4-4 C 4-1 Cfl 4-1 O O •H 43 U Cfl •H 3 O O o X) 4-4 cfl •H -H •H 3 •H rH X 4-1 0) 4-1 ^ -H rH P5 co CO S h S 4-1 3 O l-l Q) > -H r4 4«S 4H M H in 3 to CO CO 0) O 1IT3J1 r4 Cfl co > CJ O CU cu X Oi U 0) CO OC O cfl cfl o B •rl >, 23 < a i-i a cj co CJ J3 •> C Xi r4 rO W Pn 3 -H CO a x) C XI CU C O CO •H xl U 4-1 4H s O 4-1 Q) CU 01 01 -H 0) r4 01 N 0) O r4 3 O XI CU r-l h •H i— 1 CO CO l-l 4-1 1-J 4-1 M 14 It 14 •rl l-l -H 01 QJ OC < 4J CO XI cu cO 01 CO CO CU 3 X» 0) CO CU B - CO CO M ■H -H XI C 14-1 fj 4-4 C 3 4H I-i 4-1 l-l 00 0) J3 CO OC cfl B g CO l-i CU CO l-l C3C d ecu l-i O CJ CO 3 -H 4-1 cn 3 CU cfl O CU 4-1 i-H 0) T-l 0) -H CJ ai *■» 3 CX Cfl CJ Cfl -rl r4 XJ w O, 4J tH 4-1 4-1 CO 4J CO C 4-1 XI l-l O XI CU OC r4 .^ CJ H cu co c ai C 0) C CU cfl c d 4-i oi q a c Cfl Cfl 3 l-i O Q B 3> 5 M X) M X) CO M CO CO r-J CU CO -H 35 4-1 M O Ph . . . m # , . r-l CM CO O O < fa w o 00 , nv. 0) 0) CO N X! •H C! S cfl •H r-l 3 -u •H CU cu B ai CO CO cu cfl U CU a u < •a 3 to co co 4-1 c CJ u 0) a) 4J XJ o H 1-1 •H fa 15 cu f> M CU CO CO l-i cu cu u > a 2! Xl C O cfl -h C 4J CU CJ O CU CO 4-J O X) M C fa Cfl CU 3 cr i-l *•* 4-1 3 cj cfl m tH ° 5 PL, fa CO C 3 O O CJ xi cfl i-l N -H to a _C CO i CO •i-t o en en 00 CN fa o n rH cy> cy» io i-n m HMO in i-i fa fa fa . rt ai • fa fa In fa* fa O U U CJ cj m vo o o CO •H CN fa tH C CN CU iH •H 4-1 I CO O ON m a CO 3* vO rH CJ rH > u CO 00 o 13 U P Ou .a cfl H 2: o U CO H cd H B S fa *** H W C CU cfl X) tH 4J tH OJ 4J Cfl C 6C •H CO OJ X) e co O Cfl l-i CU 14-1 S-l CO CO 3 CO cfl cu 3 CU l-l 4J CU Cfl XI CJ tH O -H J 13 XI cu 4J cfl c •H CO CO |J a) cu XI > •H c cfl CJ Cfl" l-l CU o 4-1 Cfl X) CJ i-l O -i-l •J Ss XI CU XI 4J C cfl cfl C rH •H°e CO Cfl CU fa XI OJ M-l 3 O O" •H CO c Cfl 33 a) l-l l-l cfl O X) cu •rl S O -H < fa CO cfl cu l-l CO X) l-l cfl N cfl X. o > < 3 cu l-l Cfl 00 3 •H CU J3 i-l CO o Cfl l-l Ds 4J 3 CO o 3 U o 3 4J H o < X) b § M O 4J 3 cfl O 3 -H •H 4-1 S cfl •H l-l rH O W -H r4 0) CU 00 4-1 S-i CU cfl P r3 O 4-1 CO C •H Cfl o o 3 -H cfl p! 4J 00 3 -H tH CO OJ X) -«- 35 XI n_- 3 Cfl 4J CJ 3 < O •H l-l 4-J CU Cfl 4J r ^2 CU CO 00 3 3 O -H U ^J 3 CU -H O H U Q 3 O CU CO IH CU cfl O 14-1 fa o •H XI o B l-i o 3 to O XI •H C 4J Cfl XI CU 4-1 cfl 3 00 •H CO CU CO X) CO a 4-1 < 3 4J •H l-i l-i cu rH (1) 4J IS M-l X) CO 3 rH CU IH O •H o O O 3 X) OJ 4-J Cfl CO a cu •H > CO -H OJ fa" XI CJ x: -h 4-1 s •H CU S cj 4-1 O U •H O iH 4-1 XI 3 rH O -H U IS XI 3 cfl l-i fa XI 3 X cfl 4-1 rH •H 1= S ! 4-1 fa O •H CU tH 3 4-1 cr 3 -H O 3 CJ 3> cfl •H U XI X cu o o 4-1 4-1 cfl tH e U-l o co 4-1 3 o cu o CO XI 4J Cfl l-l tH OJ cfl 3 tH N CO cu cfl CU fa £ l-l OJ 3 cfl >. CJ 4-1 ■H -H U > l-l -H 3 4J .3 O cfl •H O B -h co b si co > o c CD CO 4-1 E co cfl i-l H CO Oil 0) CO u c c o CO •H 1 4-1 o 1—1 14-1 3 c oc o 01 u u 0> fa CO c ■H (J o o u co o£ I & •H 3 cr 0) O CO 4J 13 U CU CO O XI 5 CO (fl a 4J U CO c i-l CO ■a c CO & CJ fa c a o cu o "xT cu ~- Cfl 00 O i-H O CM U iH a oi « w tN tH CO O 00 1-1 cm e cu C St) O OJ o B2 o cu cj a in T— I I o Pi fa u co co CN CM CO oi pj u co Pi fa cfl pi • iH • U 3h So O cu in m Pi pi fa CJ m • 4J 4J C CO cu a e o a O -H a" > • CO 4J CJ 4J CU • u C to o CO u 00 0) ■-H J= > CO •H M-l •H Pi o 4J VD CO vo c •H • T3 U I-l • O C/J o • fa U S I 01 OL CO c < CO I S 01 c o H CU i-l 6 ^ ON 4-1 ^1- CJ I < iH o i-l CTi O - I CO ^H CU CO ^f .-I CO CO I 01 6C CO C CM x-v co r< vo SOi iri 1-1 & CO 4-1 cfl C \D O CU i-l J B v — ro — C rfl C O •H 4-1 CO H 60 O •H (J > 4J CO a c o a 'O cu o > -H O M-l W >4-l a co S u c CO c o 3 M B C a -h O 4J •H CO 3 C cfl CU iH o a. c cfl CU t 3 o <4-4 T3 c c O CO CJ iH c CO C 6C •H CO CU T3 OJ •H T3 C CO XI C CO S T3 Q. iH •H 4) 3 i-l cr x W CO M 4J CU Cfl U-l M >4-l CU 3 D. eg o c c o CU cj s C O CO cj S o CN S-i co 4-1 4-1 C 01 CU c T3 •H •H M CJ 1 CJ CO a. 3 )-i CO o 43 C •H OJj X) 01 M Q * CO u CU 4J CO 3 14-1 O c o XI i c o o OJ co 3 XI c CO CO 4-1 •H CO CJ O 4-1 •H c CU c rH CO cu 14-1 c •1-1 3 c o H o •H c in CJ 4-J IM CJ 00 CU 0) 3 P en I-i i-l X) 3 4-1 4-> •H CO cfl 4-1 3 X) c w CO o* c o 0> 3 •1-1 cO U # O hJ * M M > hJ M M H CJ o <: o a. B o M CM 0) CO JJ2 CJ o XI ■0 4-1 c C cfl Ol a. 4-> 1-1 OJ •h a a J3 cfl a CO H cfl c a X. cfl CJ w o H 4J XI 4-1 a CO cfl >l CO CO C a o •H ■H 1 4-1 CO 0) 4-1 4-1 U o OJ &, c CO •H a M cfl CO M 169 u z i < to <; Ah w n) •^ CO <« Q» PL, 4-1 ^, CO CJ cu O 4-> o cd A, O r-wr M I o XI 4-i C -H cd e •u o co a "T7T 2 o co I a ■H 3 o* (U CO 4-i .« cu & y -a S e Sea cu •U CO o m ±j S a O cu o m 4-1 CO (X 4-1 C cu •H -H o e G ai cd CD XI e (X O a o <4-4 CO « C X) OC o U c c_> CO -H XI c cd 0> -H cd cu o » <4-l CO c XI o n CJ cd u o — ?> XI -H C 4J tfl cd cd CD O 4J o u CD CU > s ■H O a 0) oc Vj cd cd H cu 01 M CO 4J Ed o 0) 4J cd 4-1 w o e CU CO 4J a co cd •H M CO 00 o 4-1 CO 3 01 o U X> 3 U CO CO o to a cd x x. cu XI co CN a* to cj o 4J •* U I < H O .-i a> o -* M 4J • C CJ • CJ CO 01 S CO •H CM o sr 85 ^ o 4-1 •* cj r^ < U d •H • ■< CO C != cd 0) CM •h «* CJ ^ 4-1 .H U ro •< H M • 01 CJ /-n 4J • m cd co sr 3 • co C I cd » iH cu en co r-« . ^ o> cj 3 H • CO CO >4-l • U O CD X 4J in o y in cd CtJ y CU < rH o >> a. U VO o cu . > CU O CJ y y • u cu co 3 Pd . O D CO X) 4< B cd a. cd co 4-1 cd CO 4J 01 XI XI a co cd co 0) y o M 4-1 c 01 to a c o u •H O 4J "*-. cd xi > s u cd 01 CO .-t C cd o o u y 0) 3 O >4-l •5 3 § . B " a cy c o y X) C co Cfl X) c cd Mx) ■H C co cd 01 4J Q co 01 CO •H O 85 CO 3 O CU CO cd CO 3 Q <4-i 01 3 a* el o y oc M ai c to* cfl 4J c oc 01 c B i-i •H I-I XI 3 0) XJ CO £>» C XI i-l O e u -h CO C0 4-1 ■h y C 3 3 O y u CO 0J CO O U C H (0 o (day e oc c •H CO CO CU y o i-i to 3 o 85 170 rH 01 14H o 01 •r-> 0) o II C to c c CO T3 •H co 0) B B U s a w cfl X) 60 O T3 C o - c uh e 3 LW 0] -H c co O r, •a i-i O 4J H o p o p 0) 60 u CO 4-1 ^ to < o) Pl, 4-1 w « 4-1 W5- I •a c CO o 4-1 CO 4J 0) i-l sb CO 0) B a o - IH CO c y ° h O cfl ^ CO . £ •H 4-1 ,£) 4-1 •H 01 o 60 t* JS CO a 4-1 CO -o •H >1 60 e e ai CO I-l C 4-1 tJ 3 0) Ul CO C CO -O 4-1 a rH CO 4-1 0! 3 60 rH g H fl) gjj o CO 01 01 i-l .-1 3 •H c u Oi O O.MH 4-1 o u a en 13 a. o u c_> 0) CO o c c o CO •H B 4-1 u CO o r-H C4-J 3 c 6i o 01 cj U a* 0) CN 00 o en -3- i-l oi o o 4J 0) O e- in o CN vO Pi «S cj d o o CN -H I o a o o CO a. CJ in vO rH I o VO PS c_> CO CN I o CN CN H O w E-l M 0) 4-1 CO 3 6C c •H c •H V-l Q a> 44 4JN co o CN rH -* o> <; o (0 o\ ^ U 0) • > o 01 O • CJ CJ CO 1-1 0) • SUSP . o CO T3 CN 0) c -* Pi cfl ^ cfl 01 X) >-! C cfl cfl •-I c CO 6C CO -H O CO a. cu CO T3 '4-1 C O (U 01 CO B tl C O -H 3 -H 4-1 0) B y a o O rH cfl CO 1-j O 0) cfl T3 0) c >-i cc) CO ^H C* CO 60 CO iH O CO a cu CO T3 Cfl 14-4 <4-l "T3 PCX) 3 cfl C C« fH cfl 6 4-1 CO •H CO I-l ii U 41 a o a. O rH O < en V4 0) 4-1 CO s li-1 -tf n t=> -H 0) en ci cfl C cu *a oi PCS CO CO g r-l C Cfl CO 60 4-1 CO O CO a cu co -a B 4J Cfl CN C C^ •H r- XI u x) o u c o • CO O c/i >,H 3 iH CO C.4J ir> a c fH 3 0) co 6 4-1 >^ 5 60 u < U -H c 0) > o C C •H tt w 4J CO 1-4 Q) xl a o o. c O rH O TO S SS 0) w i 0) 6C cfl C CN ,-v CO C- VO S o-. m rH CO 4-1 CO C vO O 01 tH U S w cfl a O XI H C cfl o (-1 D. c 0) s •H CO 01 3 C 60 cfl cfl 0) -H C cj Ou cfl C B cfl 0) SCO rH 3 cfl O 4J >4H XI CO e c cfl O CO O OHO CO CO CO CN CN CN CN cfl 4-J • X) CJ u c < • co co >. • CO 4-1 J3 4-1 01 Li IH rO o cfl n a. co v-' CO rH 6t O •H l-i XI oi a > -H O >4-l IH H 4J C -H O cfl -3- CU CO rH 4-1 CN <« r^ • I-l ffi CJ P-l JZ r-l • a co 01 Vj M-j • C cfl O C3 •H 0) |4 IS 4J CO cfl o) cj n M 4H rH 01 O rH 4J .O 01 Cfl S 3 CU rH 41 OH •H 0) 4-1 CO 0) IH XI 0) a. >h 01 c c O -H -H o CN w rJ 5 3 co 3 a c O CO •H 0) 4-1 4-1 CO CO C cfl •d 3 0) X) c o •H 4J I co c o o CO CO o c o u 01 CO 3 XI % rJ •K CO 01 6£ c o CJ CO rl CO 4J 4J n OI 0) C X) •H ■H U CJ £ CI Cfl O 4J 4J O O £> "H X! » 4J c c O 0) •H ^1 4J 3 « rH C 60 rH O C O -H •H a. 4-i l-i •H 01 t-l CO .£ 01 o 4-1 4-1 O. o cfl 01 B 3 XI CO tH H > rJ CO CO o a. CO CO CO 3 cu I-l o J2 CO C o cu CO <4H 171 tions, to prepare an EIS on deep seabed mining, including foreseeable environmental impacts that would result from onshore processing. Further, NOAA permits or licenses for activities affecting the coastal zone must be consistent with the state approved coastal management program. Also relevant is Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions , which requires an environmental review of processing abroad if the processing of the product would be prohibited in the U.S. because toxic effects on the environment create a serious public health risk, or a natural or ecological resource of global importance (designated by the President) is involved. If an applicant requests foreign processing NOAA would have a responsibility to consider impacts in the foreign locations. P.L. 96-233 requires that processing on land of minerals recovered pursuant to a NOAA commercial recovery permit be conducted within the United States unless, among other things, NOAA determines that such processing at a place other than within the U.S. is necessary for the economic viability of the commercial recovery activiies of the permittee. This is a significant economic issue which NOAA may be required to address in issuing a commercial recovery permit. Basically, it would involve the comparison of costs and revenues associated with proposed United States and foreign processing sites. Two statutory purposes govern NOAA involvement in the permitting of onshore activities: (1) to ensure that the environment is adequately protected; and (2) to expedite or facilitate development of the manganese nodule mining industry. Sections 1 1 1. A and III.B, conclude that further NOAA involvement is not required to ensure adequate protection of the environment; sufficient authority already exists in the authorities of NOAA and other Federal, state, and local agencies to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, NOAA's only reason for involvement in the onshore permitting process would be to facilitate development of the ocean mineral mining industry. This 172 role would further the underlying purpose of P.L. 96-283, to promote the availability of the deep seabed mineral resources for the benefit of the United States and other nations. Three alternatives for NOAA involvement exist (Table 21) Alternative 1, No Involvement , and the general technology and environmental impact review associated with it represents the least administrative effort that NOAA can under- take and still comply with P.L. 96-283. This approach may not comply with NEPA requirements, insofar as foreseeable secondary impacts must be assessed in site-specific EIS's. Alternative 2, Informal Involvement , proposes NOAA as the "lead agency" for facilitating development of the ocean mineral mining industry but falls short of recommending that NOAA be given expanded authority to approve all licenses and permits, i.e., for activities both at-sea and onshore. Under this alternative, NOAA would prepare an environmental impact statement that could serve as NEPA compliance for other agencies' actions such as EPA NPDES permits and Corps of Engineers dredge and fill permits. NOAA would secure the participation of as many Federal and state cooperating agencies as practicable and would provide for public involvement as well. NOAA may also facilitate permits from other agencies to the extent practicable and desirable in a particular application. This degree of involvement is justified under P.L. 96-283. Alternative 3, One-Stop Permitting , represents the maximum NOAA involvement possible. Under this alternative, each public agency (Federal, State, and local) responsible for permitting the activity would provide the lead agency (NOAA) with a list of requirements which must be met to obtain its approval. If the applicant meets these requirements, NOAA would grant an approval on behalf of all relevant parties which permits all aspects of the project to proceed. NOAA authorizations would preempt those of State and local governments. 173 I ! o X 1 01 ^ 0) rH Om > rH ft 1 rH 1 01 6 3 2 O • CO rl O o o p o o m < ca o i-i m *J < — i h u > s o u « •H "O (0 •HO n : o a p u JS 1 11 h O M C 0» O -H ^ O <0 -3 > O « > 0> u H 9 O O OC 3 4J rH « 60 00 OJ l-i M u © -u *o e o ii c. eowrtOsu-H ox b o o a x 60 O •H'ObfBrHQ « -h « ■H « r-l 0) X Tj M n -a m u °a bo > S wwxhOB o* c f> o. «o e tax b 4> 4J o C h *0 C -H -rl oio ■H'O'O 3 ah x «w Bee o> Tl B M Oil SHH >i u u o Becouoicoeo O "H -o ^ rt -h -h u o o> M a oi o m at : 9 « • oi *-> B 4J 0)iHX -o XCWit] SE OS JJTtOtJ H V iHOI'OiJBOISOOrH'B Id o vi oj ex >> j-> CO 6 o & -H t g CHU 8 o> oi o ai a C U U U > 3 0) U 0) 4J -H CO 9£ il B ffl 4J O *-> ae-Hoex > 3 oi | a. co -h ovooti o o •• 4 h « • $ VU >> «0tJt-» »M. ft co *j co OfH id ** o B a -n o) cd r-i m e S CO O C rH 60*9 4J u S o Jh o« en oh « O O XrtOBHSUUOW'O « O °H 0) T3 a, 4J> OCOOBCOWIB0 a h an o» u n oi o -h m a D.-C3 B c M oi co o c 5 a 4J rt u x -a s a uxes oi ex e t* -o t* at «m c • h a u ti a oi ti 9 o o. & co co eo (*• > B n B «w eat "Hup. ><4cD 60 O*rtOaXrHO0>rS Cfe OJ «M «0 (0 90IWB-<-IC)C.bU>r-l _ M rH O 0) OWOrtrHH a H u < o to o) co h < X -H AJ p% 0) 4J x a 60 u to— i a o b il hT'OHM C 3 I >3 O «n w eg w co «h 2 C CK'H C> OH UOrl OAH B O.C0 rHrtl-UrHU-HtJ-HCO • Z CS OiS'OHU UM OIO U£ 01 S O B O < rH U< O UM OH 111) O 01 i-l 01 -H 0c«rt X3<->h Mb ^■s *J S-* T-t CJ 4J h iicn x ti >> coco im e s^ g 5 '>-' 0) MX «9 — O CO r-sUtoa.<-N4j , 3Wo<-v rt H «w O CM X 60 Ogh s •o u CO < (i) B CO £ s W 55 a> « o • M CO H O 3 ^ S3 ■H 60< > 0) fH M CO * M g r> M O" o rt o- CO o s w d O rt z^o o SB >* SB O S£ ,QQ or! c< CC O (U M K > fc 3 S co > w W M QHtd HUE > W H o X Q In 09 3 >% frf f-M ft. 01 s P-WO J* >« W H H K 4J Slg a X >> iJ &. rH C 55 O A rH rj O ►J H >, rt u b] CO rH rH •H -H H > •H rt «w 4j u 1 H M -H rH -H rt «-> B 1 O "O > *■» ai u > > 01 rH 1 "H g B C -H ^ rt O " >» a p. O "J S > B ^ M > £ O rH 0» -H CO rH S rH g C C J8 HH tl > W O. O C O O H H 9 O B ■< o > o 2 > r-l It) rH c o oi co d u "a w i-t > -JJ 01 o <-» u f-H C 1 -H •w B 60 O. ^ n o .4 O i-l U u B rt B Oi M B -H rt o -j u < 55 ^ rt -H 6- £ V) 174 NOAA could also assume responsibility for other Federal authorizations. An amendment to P.L. 96-283 would be required for NOAA to have this degree of in vol vement. Alternative 2 is the preferred course of action for NOAA. It is clear that congressional intent in the Act requires NOAA to take an active role in facilitating development of the manganese nodule mining industry. Also, NOAA must assess foreseeable impacts to comply with NEPA. Alternative 1 would not fulfill these requirements. Under Alternative 3 NOAA would undertake authoritiy currently exercised by other agencies. NOAA does not see the need or desira- bility of providing this degree of NOAA involvement. Additionally, environmental controls within the expertise of other agencies would be duplicated by NOAA, under this option. Ue see no advantage of this alternative from an environmental per- spective. Finally, it is also unlikely that Congress would amend the Act in the near future to give NOAA the authority necessary for formal one-stop permitting. Alternative 3 is, in NOAA's judgment, not possible at this time. The experience of the Department of Interior (DOI) in implementing its program for outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration and development through informal working relationships with the private and public sectors indicates that the preferred alternative, if properly managed, can be effective. Informal NOAA involvement in expediting permit approvals would be roughly analagous to DOI's approach to OCS development. NOAA's role in the Consolidated Application Review for the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion process may serve as a model for consideration under this alternative. Alternative 2 also maintains the maximum flexibility for modifying the extent of NOAA's involvement in the process of permitting onshore activities as the ocean mineral mining industry develops. Alternatives 1 and 3 are not environmentally preferable, because of uncertainties in the legal regime. Therefore, Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferred alternative as well as NOAA's preference. 175 Conclusion An informal, facilitating role for NOAA in the onshore permit process together with its lead agency role for environmental review is preferred environmentally, in terms of sound efficiency as well as intergovernmental policy. The specifics of the role that is desirable would be a matter of dis- cussion between NOAA, the applicant, and other agencies in a particular case. *J* 177 IV. LIST OF PREPARERS The following people contributed to the preparation of this PEIS. Unless noted otherwise, these preparers are in the Washington office of their respective agencies. Special thanks are due to Linda Fenlon, who orchestrated the word processing effort for the PEIS and its many drafts; also, Nancy Edwards, Joyce Tannenbaum, and Isobel Sheifer. John Ellis' cooperation in the preparation is also gratefully acknowledged. Although not listed below, dozens of other people with Federal agencies, academia, or the public critically reviewed early drafts of this document. Their input was invaluable. NAME TITLE, PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY, AND YEARS OF RELEVANT EXPERIENCE ROLE IN PEIS PREPARATION Adams, David A. Assoc. Prof, of Forestry & Univ. Studies North Carolina State U. Raleigh, N.C. Sec. III.B Ph.D., Plant Ecology 18 years Andrews, Benjamin V. Maritime Consultant P.O. Box 7 Menlo Park, Calif. Appendix 3 Aurbach, Laurence B.S., Naval Archit. and Marine Engineering M.B.A. 28 years Environmental Programs Chief (Deep Seabed Mining) Sec. II. C. 2 Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy II.D NOAA III.C Basta, Daniel J.D. 10 years Deputy Director Office of Ocean Resource Coordination and Assessment NOAA Sec. III.A.B Bigford, Thomas E. B.S., M.S., Engineering 10 years Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Ecology & Conservation NOAA MMA, Marine Affairs; MS, Marine Biology 7 years Sec. I II.A,B.2 Appendix 3,8 Assisted in inte- gration of all sections. Brown, Francis C. Director of Process Engineering EIC Corporation, Newton, Mass. Ph.D., Chemical Engineering 8 years Appendix 3 178 NAME TITLE AND PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Burns, Robert E. Cruickshank, Michael J, Crump, Edward W, Dehart, Grant Flanagan, Joseph P. Haffner, Bernard (Deceased) Hoyle, Brian J. Manager, Special Projects Office Office of Marine Pollution Assessment NOAA (Seattle, Wash.) (Ex-DOMES Project Manager) Ph.D. , Oceanography 30 years Mining Engineer (Marine) Offshore Resource Evaluation Branch U.S. Geological Survey (Reston, Va.) Ph.D., Oceanography and Limnology 25 years Staff Assistant Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA B.S., Physics 19 years Technical Assistant & Hearings Officer Office of Coastal Zone Management NOAA M.S., Architecture, M.C.P., City Planning 8 years Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA M.S., Environ. Sys. Mngmt. (Ocean Affairs) 14 years Senior Economist Office of Business Policy Analysis U.S. Dept. of Commerce M.S., Economic Geology Attorney General Counsel's Office NOAA ROLE IN PEIS PREPARATION Sec. II. C. 1,2, 4 Sec. II. D. 1.1 Appendix 3 Appendix 3 Sec. Ill Asst. Manager, PEIS effort. Sec. II. A App. 1,2,4 Appendix 5 Sec. I. A J.D., L.L.M. 6 years 179 NAME Jugel, Karl Kinter, George Lane, Amor L. Lavelle, William Lawless, James P. Mason, Mary Anne McGuire, Donald M, TITLE AND PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY ROLE IN PEIS PREPARATION Sec. III.A,B Physical Scientist Sec. Ill Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA B.C.E.; M.E.A; M.S., Management 18 years Former OCS Program Coordinator Office of Ocean Resource Coord. & Assessment NOAA B.A., Am. Hist. & Lit.; B.A., Politics, Philos. & Economics 6 years Assistant Director for Research, Planning & Admin. Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA B.S., M.S., Electrical Engineering 15 years Research Oceanographer Pacific Marine Environmental Lab NOAA (Seattle, Wash.) Ph.D., Physics 20 years Regulatory Programs Chief (Deep Seabed Mining) Sec. I. A Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA J.D. 5 years Ocean Programs Specialist Sec. I I.D.I Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA B.A., Political Science 4 years Oceanographer Sec. 1 1. A National Oceanographic Data Center NOAA Guided early ef- fort on Environ- mental Assessment Report Sec. II. C. 1,2 M.S. , Geosciences 15 years 180 NAME Ozturgut, Erdogan Padan, John W. Rucker, James B. Snider, Jeanne P. TITLE AND PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Senior Scientist Science Applications, Inc. (Bellevue, Wash.) (Ex-DOMES II Chief Scientist) Ph.D., Oceanography 20 years Environmental Assessment Chief (Deep Seabed Mining) Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA B.S., M.S., Mining Engineering 25 years Physical Scientist Office of Ocean Programs NOAA Ph.D. , Marine Geology 10 years Environmental Research Chief (Deep Seabed Mining) Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy NOAA ROLE IN PEIS PREPARATION Sec. II. C. 1,2 Managed PEIS Effort Sec. I.C II.B.1,C,D App. 5,6,7 Sec. II. C. 4 Tables 1,15 Ph.D., Oceanography 7 years [Managed preparation of Five-Year Research Plan (NOAA, 1981)] 181 V. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AGENCIES TO WHOM EIS SENT This Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is being sent to the following International, Federal, State, and local agencies, industry, interest groups, and individuals. Federal Officials and Agencies U.S. Senate and House of Representatives - concerned committees, members, and staff: SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION Robert Packwood, Chairman (Peter Friedmann, Cindy Carlson) Howard Cannon (Jim Drewry, Dave Smith, Deb Stirling) Ernest F. Hoi lings Ted Stevens (Bill Phillips) Slade Gorton (Chris Koch) Daniel K. Inouye (Peter Trask, Kirk Caldwell) COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES James McClure, Chairman (Chuck Trabandt) Henry Jackson (Jim Bruce) Lowell Weicker, Chairman, Subcommittee (Bob Wicklund) on Energy Conservation and Supply Howard Metzenbaum, same subcommittee Spark M. Matsunaga (Pat Takahashi) Mark 0. Hatfield COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS Robert T. Stafford, Chairman (Curtis Moore) Jennings Randolph (Phil Cummings) John Chafee, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution George Mitchell, same subcommittee FOREIGN RELATIONS Charles Percy, Chairman (Fred Tipson) Claiborne Pell (Gerry Christianson) Larry Pressler, Chairman, Subcommittee on Arms Control, Oceans, International Operations and Environment Alan Cranston, same subcommittee 182 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES Walter Jones, Chairman (Ed Welch) Gene Snyder (Mike Toohey, Charles Drago) Norman D' Amours, Chairman Subcommittee on Oceanography (Howard, Gaines, Tom Kitsos, Ono Hussing) Joel Pritchard, same subcommittee (Curt Marshall) Gerry Studds (Bill Woodward) John Breaux (Ted Kronmiller) Edwin Forsythe Paul McCloskey (Jack Sands) COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS Morris K. Udall, Chairman (Debra Sliz) Manuel Lujan James Santini, Chairman, Subcommittee (Sharon CocKayne) on Mines and Mining Don Marriot, same subcommittee Don Young COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS Clement Zablocki, Chairman (Peggy Galey) Wil liam Broomfield Don Bonker, Chairman, Subcommittee (Carole Grunberg) on Human Rights and International Organizations Jim Leach, same subcommittee (Larry Sulc) Jonathan Bingham, Chairman, Sub- (Vic Johnson) committee on International Economic Policy and Trade Robert Lagomarsino Edward Derwinski Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Attorney General Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Environmental and Technical Evaluation Division Economic Development Administration Maritime Administration Fishery Management Councils Department of Defense Air Force Army Corps of Engineers Navy 183 Department of Education Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Resources Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Mines Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Fish and Wildlife Service Geological Survey National Park Service Department of State Department of Transportation Coast Guard Federal Railroad Administration Federal Highway Administration Materials Transportation Bureau Environmental Protection Agency Federal Trade Commission General Services Administration Marine Mammal Commission Members of National Advisory Council on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Interest Groups American Association of Port Authorities American Fisheries Society American Institute of Planners American Littoral Society American Mining Congress American Petroleum Institute American Society of Planning Officials Audobon Magazine Center for Law and Social Policy Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. Coast Alliance Coastal States Organization Conservation Foundation Cousteau Society Defenders of Wildlife Earth Resources Group Edison Electric Institute Environmental Action Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Lav/ Institute Environmental Policy Center Environmental Task Force Friends Committee on National Legislation Friends of the Earth Fund for Animals International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies International Institute for Environment and Development Isaak Walton League League of Women Voters Education Fund 184 Special Interest Groups-- continued Marine Technology Society Monitor International National Audubon Society National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. National Commission on Marine Policy National Environmental Development Association National Federation of Fishermen National Fisheries Institute National Geographic Society National Ocean Industries Association National Parks and Conservation Association National Recreation and Parks Assocation National Science Foundation National Wildlife Federation Natural Resource Defense Council Nature Conservancy Oceanic Society Sierra Club Solar Lobby Sport Fishing Institute United Methodist Law of the Sea Projects Western Oil and Gas Association Wilderness Society Wildlife Management Institute Wildl ife Society World Dredging Association World Wildlife Fund - U.S.A. States (Office of the Governor) Hawaii Alaska Washington Oregon California Texas Louisiana Alabama Mississippi Florida Embassies Italy United Kingdom Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Belgium Canada Netherlands Japan France Federal Republic of Germany 185 Deep Seabed Mining Consortia Jeff Ansbaugh (Ocean Mining Assoc.) Gordon Arbuckle (Patton, Boggs & Blow) Edward Dangler (Ocean Minerals Co.) Dave Davies (Kennecott Copper Corp.) Marne Dubs (Kennecott Development Corp.) Steve Elbert (Standard Oil, Indiana) Northcutt Ely (law offices of) Howard Goldberg (Kennecott Copper Corp.) Sam Goldberg (INCO) Richard Greenwald (Deepsea Ventures, Inc.) Royal Haggerty (Deepsea Ventures) John Halkyard (Kennecott Exploration, Inc.) A. H. Hanssen (Kennecott) Phillips Hawkins (Ocean Mining Associates) Michael Head (INCO) Jack Huizingh (INCO) Alan Kaufman (Counsel to OMI) Raymond Kaufman (Deepsea Ventures) Walter Kollwentz (Ocean Management, Inc. /AMR) Frank Lawrence (Deepsea Ventures) Charles Morgan (Lockheed) John Rhea (SEDCO, Inc.) John Shaw (INCO) Bill Siapno (Deepsea Ventures) James Wenzel (Ocean Minerals Co.) Conrad Welling (Ocean Minerals Co.) James Wood (U.S. Steel) Individuals (Affiliations listed for identification purposes only) David Adams (North Carolina State University) Walter Adey (Smithsonian Museum of Natural History) Jagdish Agarwal (Charles River Associates, Inc.) George Anderson (University of Washington; DOMES I Chief Scientist) Benjamin Andrews (Manalytics, Inc.) Lance Antrim (Commerce - Office of Policy) William Aron (NOAA - NMFS) Laurence Aurbach (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Daniel Basta (NOAA - Coastal Zone Management) Michael Bean (Environmental Defense Fund) William Beller (Environmental Protection Agency) Mark Benjamin 'University of Washington) Thomas Bigford (NOAA - Ecology & Conservation) Debbie Blizzard (Florida State Office of Planning and Budget) Jack Boiler (National Research Council) Jack Botzum (Nautilus Press) Evelyn W. Bradshaw (Ocean Education Project) Dan Bragg (Texas A&M University) Francis Brown (EIC Corp.) 186 I ndi vi dual s-- continued Robert Burns (NOAA - DOMES Director) Robert Bybee (Exxon Corp., USA) Eapen Chacko (United Nations) Augustine Chan (University of Washington) Thomas Chapman (University of Wisconsin) Johnathan Charney (Vanderbilt University) Sarah Chasis (National Resource Defense Council - New York) Edward Chin (University of Georgia Sea Grant College Program) Jin Chung (Colorado School of Mines) John Clark (Conservation Foundation) Sherrard Coleman (Defenders of Wildlife) Rita Col well (Univ. of Maryland Sea Grant Program) John Craven (University of Hawaii) Eugene Cronin (Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.) Ford Cross (NOAA - NMFS) Michael Cruickshank (U.S. Geological Survey) Edward Crump (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Edward Davin (National Science Foundation) Grant De Hart (NOAA - Coastal Zone Management) Shana Dennis (British Embassy) Jeffrey Doranz (Department of Labor) Scott Drummond (SEACO, Inc.) David Duane (Office of Sea Grant) James Dunham (U.S. Bureau of Mines) Sylvia Earle (NACOA, California Academy of Science) Terry Edgar (U.S. Geological Survey) John Emerick (Colorado School of Mines) Edward Evans (Edward Evans & Associates) Frederic Eustis, III (White and Case) Ralph M. Field & Assoc. Leonard Fischman (Economic Associates, Inc.) Joseph Flanagan (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Jack Fl ipse (Texas A&M University) Kenneth Forbes (Maritime Administration) J. William Futrel 1 (Environmental Law Institute) Wendell Gayman (Sea Science Services) Mike Gibbs (University of Mississippi Law Center) L.F.E. Goldie (Syracuse University) Fred Grassle (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) John Hall (NOAA - NMFS) James Harding (Univ. of Georgia Marine Extension Service) Larry Harris (University of New Hampshire) William Hayes (NOAA - NMFS) Stanley Hecker (Mississippi - Alabama Sea Grant Consortium) William Hedeman (Environmental Protection Agency) Thomas Henrie (U.S. Bureau of Mines) John Herbich (Texas A&M University) Robert Hessler (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) William Hettler (NOAA - NMFS) Ralph Hicks (Sierra Club) 187 Individuals-- continued Alex Holser (Department of Interior) Theresa Hooks (Hooks, McCloskey & Associates) Brian Hoyle (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Anton Inderbitzen (National Science Foundation) M. C. Ingham (NOAA - NMFS) Tim Janaitis (Interstate Electronics) Raymond Jenkins (Dillingham Mining Co.) David Jensen (Department of State) Karl Jugel (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Peter Jumars (Office of Naval Research) Andrew Kauders (Economic Development Administration) Milton Kaufman (Monitor International) Robert Kifer (NOAA - Coastal Zone Management) Judith Kildow (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) A. P. King (British Embassy) George Kinter (Department of State) Hideto Kono (Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Dev.) Gary Knight (Louisiana State University) Jeff Kroft (Dames & Moore, Inc.) Amor Lane (NOAA - Office of Marine Minerals & Energy) Edward Langey (AMAX Exploration, Inc.) William Lavelle (NOAA- Pacific Marine Environmental Lab.) James Lawless (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy) Richard Lekatski (National Ocean Industries Assoc.) Richard Lehman (NOAA - Ecology & Conservation) Tom Loughlin (NOAA - NMFS) Maurice Lynch (Virginia Institute of Marine Science) Frank Manheim (U.S. Geological Survey) Mary Ann Mason (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Jerry McCormick Donald McGuire (NOAA - National Oceanographic Data Center) John Mero (Ocean Resources, Inc.) Robert Meyers (University of Wisconsin) James Mielke (Library of Congress) J. Robert Moore (University of Texas) Francois Morel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Ian Morris (Univ. of New Hampshire Marine Program) Geoffrey Moser (NOAA - NMFS) Roger Nelson (Utah International, Inc.) John Noakes (University of Georgia) Elliot Norse (Council on Environmental Quality) Nossaman, Krueger and Marsh, Attorneys at Law Dan Nyhart (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Shigeyoshi Oba (National Research Institute for Pollution & Resources, Japan) Rice Odel 1 (Conservation Foundation) Robert Ozretich (University of Washington) Erdogan Ozturgut (Science Applications Inc.; Domes II Chief Scientist) John Padan (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Mati Pal (United Nations - Ocean Economics & Technology) Harold Palmer (Interstate Electronics Corp.) P. Kilho Park (NOAA - Research & Development) 188 Indi vi dual s--conti nued Denzil Pauli (National Research Council) Jack Pearce (NOAA - NMFS) Al Pernichele (Dames & Moore) Melvin Peterson (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) Anne Potter (Technology Applications, Inc.) Kathryn Potter (Bureau of Industrial Economics) Andrew Prokopovitsh (U.S. Bureau of Mines) Leigh Ratiner (Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin) Lewis Regenstein (Fund for Animals) Adrian Richards (Lehigh University) Paul Ringold (NOAA - Ecology & Conservation) Oswald Roels (University of Texas) Donald Rogich (U.S. Bureau of Mines) Peter Rona (NOAA - Atlantic Oceangr. & Met. Lab.) Niels Rorholm (Univ. of Rhode Island Sea Grant Program) David A. Ross (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) James Rote (NOAA - NMFS) James Rucker (NOAA - Research & Development) Howard Sanders (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) Francis Schuler (NOAA - Office of Sea Grant) Julie Schwartz (Liskow & Lewis) Carl Semmler (Friends Committee on Legislation) Al Sherk (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Richard Shomura (NOAA - NMFS) Edward Shykind (Department of Commerce - Office of Policy Analysis) Craig Simon (Dames & Moore) Wade Smith (MITRE Corp.) Henry Snelling (Stanford Law School) Jeanne Snider (NOAA - Office of Ocean Minerals & Energy) Richard Stroud (Sport Fishing Institute) Larry Swanson (NOAA - Office of Marine Pollution Assessment) Steve Swift (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) Richard Tinsley (Continental 111. National Bank and Trust) Tom Troyer (Caplin and Drysdale) Donald Truesdel 1 (U.S. Bureau of Land Management) William Van Horn (U.S. Bureau of Land Management) Richard Walentowicz (Environmental Protection Agency) Arthur Warner (Department of Energy) Isabelle Webber (League of Women Voters Education Fund) George Weissberg (Dames & Moore) Mark Wilbert (British Embassy) Beatrice Willard (Colorado School of Mines) Robert Willard (U.S. Bureau of Mines) William Woodbury (U.S. Bureau of Mines) Jack Wool ley (Department of Commerce) Michael Wright (World Wildlife Fund - U.S.) Edward Yang (Environmental Law Institute) Donald Ziehl (U.S. Geological Survey) Robert Ziegler (Arctic Dredging and Construction Co.) 189 Page VI. APPENDICES 1. References 191 2. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary 197 3. Projected Deep Seabed Mining Systems and Processes for First Generation Development 211 4. Public Involvement 1975 - Present 251 5. Effects of Prohibition or Long Delay in Initiation of Deep Seabed Mining 259 6. Comparison of Impacts of First Generation Deep Seabed Mining and Impacts from the Equivalent Amount of 271 Land Mining 7. Energy Implications of Deep Seabed Mining 275 8. Federal Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals and Turtles 277 9. Photos of Surface Plume During Test Mining 281 r 191 Appendix I References Ahl strom, E. H., 1971. Kinds and Abundance of Fish Larvae in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, Based on Collections made on EASTROPAC I. Fish. Bull. Vol. 69: pp. 3-77. Ahl strom, E. H., 1972. Kinds and Abundance of Fish Larvae in the Eastern Tropical Pacific on the Second Multivessel EASTROPAC Survey, and Observations on the Annual Cycle of Larval Abundance. Fish. Bull, pp. 1153-1242. Antrim, L., P. L. Spencer, and W. W. Woodhead, 1979. Cobalt, Copper, Nickel, and Manganese: Future Supply and Demand and Implications for Deep Seabed Mining. Office of Ocean, Resource, and Scientific Policy Coordination. Department of Commerce, 60 pp. Benjamin, M. M., 1981. Trace Metal Exchange Between Ferromanganese Nodules and Artificial Seawater. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Bischoff, J. L. and D. Z. Piper, 1979. Marine Geology and Oceanography of the Pacific Manganese Nodule Province. Plenum Press, N.Y., N.Y. Blackburn, M., 1976. Review of Existing Information on Fishes in the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES) Area of the Tropical Pacific. Final Report, NOAA Contract No. 03-4-022-35125, Institute of Marine Resources, University of California, La Jolla, California; 79 pp. Bragg, Daniel M., Gulf Coast Manganese Nodule Processing Plant Location Criteria, August 1979. Texas A&M University Sea Grant report prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, 160 pp. Bruland, L. W., 1980. Oceanographic Distributions of Cadmium, Zinc, Nickel and Copper in the North Pacific. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 47: 176-198. Burns, R. E., B. H. Erickson, J. W. Lavelle, E. Ozturgut, 1980. Observations and Measurements During the Monitoring of Deep Ocean Manganese Nodule Mining Tests in the North Pacific, March - May 1978. NOAA Tech. Memorandum, ERL MESA-47, 63 pp. Chan, A. T., and G. C. Anderson, 1981. Environmental Investigation of the Effect of Deep-Sea Mining on Marine Phytoplankton and Primary Productivity in the Tropical Eastern North Pacific Ocean. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Charles River Associates Incorporated, 1980. Draft Final Report - Energy Requirements for Metals Production: Comparison Between Ocean Nodules and Land-Based Resources, in press. 192 Crutcher, H. L., and R. G. Quayle, 1974. Mariners Worldwide Climatic Guide to Tropical Storms at Sea. Naval Weather Service and NOAA National Climate Center, Ashville, N.C. NAVAIR 50-1C-61. 114 pp. plus 312 charts. Dames and Moore, 1980. Draft Final Report - Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Continued Reliance on Land Mining to Produce Metals Available from Manganese Nodules, in press. Dames and Moore, E.I.C. Corp., and B. V. Andrews, 1977. Description of Manganese Nodule Processing Activities for Environmental Studies, Volume II, Transportation and Waste Disposal Systems, 108 pp. Dames and Moore, E.I.C. Corp., 1977. Description of Manganese Nodule Processing Activities for Environmental Studies, Vol. I, Processing Systems Summary, 132 pp. Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic Center, (Hydrographic Chart No. 520) Washington, D.C. Detweiler and Zahn, 1980. Decade of the Oceans, in Marine Technology '80 Conference Proceedings Marine Technology Society, October 1980, Washington, D.C. Documentation Associates, 1977. Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES) Literature Survey. Documentation Associates Information Services Incorporated, Los Angeles, CA, 231 pp. DOMES Project, Feb. 24, 1976. Summary of minutes of the DOMES mining industry meeting. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington), 12 pp. (unpublished manuscript). Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, Development Document for Interim Final and Proposed Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and New Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Industry, Vols. I-II, Point Source Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (EPA 440/1-75/061 ). Flipse, John E. , The Potential Cost of Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Regulation, July 1980. Texas A&M University Sea Grant report prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, 47 pp. Frazer, J. Z., 1978. Resources in Seafloor Manganese Nodules. Paper presented at seminar on deep-sea mining at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 1978. Gauthier, M. A., and J. H. Marvaldi, 1975. The Two-Ship CLB System for Mining Polymetallic Nodules -- Characteristics and Possibilities -- Brief Comparison with the Hydraulic Concept. Paper presented at Brighton, England, conference, 12 pp. 193 Grassle, J. F., 1978. Diversity and Population Dynamics of Benthic Organisms. Oceanus, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 1978. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Hall, A. S., C. R. Houle, F. M. Teeny, and E. J. Ganglitz, Jr., 1977. Trace Metals - DOMES Samples, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Wash., 154 pp. Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, March 1980. The Feasibility and Potential Impact of Manganese Nodule Processing in the Puna and Kohala Areas of Hawaii, draft report prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Marine Minerals, Rockville, Md., Hecker, B., and A. Z. Paul, 1979. Abyssal Community Structure of the Benthic Infauna of the Eastern Equatorial Pacific: DOMES sites A, B, and C. J_n: J. L. Bischoff and D. Z. Piper, Eds., Marine Geology and Oceanography of the Pacific Manganese Nodule Province. Plenum Press, N.Y., pp. 287-308. Hirota, J., 1981. Potential Effects of Deep-Sea Minerals Mining on Macrozooplankton in the North Equatorial Pacific. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Honjo, A., 1976. Coccoliths: Production, Transportation and Sedimentation. Marine Micropaleontology, Vol. I, pp. 65-79. Horn, Horn, and Delach, 1972. Lamont - Doherty IDOE/NSF Technical Report 3. Jumars, P. A., 1981. Limits in Predicting and Detecting Benthic Community Response to Manganese Nodule Mining. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Landing, W. M., and K. W. Bruland, 1980. Manganese in the North Pacific. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 49(1980) 45-56. Lane, A. L., May 30, 1979. Memo for Record, Regarding Information for House Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee on Manganese Nodule Value Metal Statistics. N0AA, Marine Minerals Division. Lavelle, J. W., and E. Ozturgut, 1981. Dispersion of Deep-Sea Mining Particulates and Their Effects on Light in Ocean Surface Layers. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Lavelle, J. W., E. Ozturgut, E. T. Baker. S. A. Swift, 1980. Discharge and Surface Plume Measurements During Manganese Nodule Mining Tests in the North Equatorial Pacific. Contribution No. 447, N0AA/ERL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Wash., 34 pp. 194 Lavelle, J., E. Ozturgut, S. Swift, and B. Erickson, 1981. Dispersal and Resedimentation of the Benthic Plume From Deep-Sea Mining Operations: A Model with Calibration." Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Legand, M. , P. Bourret, P. Fourmanoir, R. Grandperrin, J. A. Gueredrat, A. Michel, P. Rancurel , R. Repelin and C. Roger, 1972. Relations Trophiques et Distributions Verticales en Milieu Pelagiques dans L'Ocean Pacifique Intertropical. (Tropic Relations and Vertical Distribution of Pelagic Organisms in the Intertropical Pacific Ocean.) Cah. O.R.S.T.O.M. Ser. Oceanogr. , 10(4): 301-393. McKelvey, V. E., N. A. Wright, R. W. Rowland, 1979. Manganese Nodule Resources in the Northeastern Equatorial Pacific. Chapter in Marine Geology and Oceanography of the Pacific Manganese Nodule Province, 1979. Mero, J., C. Masuda, and M. Gauthier, 1974. Industrial Mining of Polymetallic Nodules - Technical Comparison of Both Hydraulic and Two-Ship Continuous Line Bucket System. Paper presented at Bordeaux, France, conference, 20 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1976. Progress Report. Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study -- Phase I. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA--15. 178 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1978a. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report, April 1, 1977 - March 31, 1978. Annual Report to the Congress from National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 183 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1978b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Listing and Protecting the Green Sea Turtle " Chelonia mydas ," Loggerhead Sea Turtle " Carreta carreta ," and Pacific Ridley Sea Turtle " Lepidochelys olivacea " under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Wash., D.C., July 1978, 144 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini station, 1980a. Point Reyes - Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement. NOAA, Wash., D.C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1980b. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement. NOAA, Wash., D.C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981. Five-Year Marine Environmental Research Plan (1981-1985). To be submitted to the Congress in 1981. Nossaman, Krueger and Marsh, May 29, 1980. An Analysis of Applicable Law Concerning Seabed Mineral Processing in California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, report prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Minerals Division, Rockville, MD. 195 Odum, Eugene P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edition. W. B. Saunders Co. , Phil a., PA. Ohman, M. D. , E. Ozturgut, R. J. Ozretich, 1979. A Seasonal and Spatial Summary of Oceanographic Data From the Northeastern Tropical Pacific (DOMES Region) summer 1975 and Winter 1976. Special Report No. 91, NOAA Contract 03-6-022-35101, Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 117 pp. Oregon State University, 1978. Identification of Representative West Coast Areas for Manganese Nodule Processing Activities. Unpublished report to NOAA, by School of Oceanography, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon, 114 pp. Ozretich, R. J., 1981a. Increased Oxygen Demand and Microbial Biomass. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Ozretich, R. J., 1981b. Dissolved Components of the Discharge. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Ozturgut, E., G. C. Anderson, R. E. Burns, J. W. Lavelle, S. A. Swift, 1978. Deep Ocean Mining of Manganese Nodules in the North Pacific: Pre- mining Environmental Conditions and Anticipated Mining Effects. NOAA Tech. Memorandum ERL MESA-33, 133 pp. Ozturgut, E., J. Lavelle, and R. E. Burns, 1981. Impacts of Manganese Nodule Mining on the Environment: Results From Pilot-Scale Mining Tests in the North Equatorial Pacific. Chapter 15 in Marine Environmental Pollution, 2. Dumping and Mining by R. A. Geyer (editor), in press. Ozturgut, E., J. Lavelle, and B. Erickson, 1981. Estimated Discharge Characteristics of a Commercial Nodule Mining Operation. Chapter in Journal of Marine Mining, in press. Ozturgut, E., J. W. Lavelle, 0. Steffin, S. A. Swift, 1980. Environmental Investigations During Manganese Nodule Mining Tests in the North Equatorial Pacific in November 1978. NOAA Tech. Memorandum ERL MESA - 48, 50 pp. Richards, F. A., Devol , A. H., Ozretich, R. J., and Anderson, J. J., 1976. Chemical Oceanography of the DOMES. Preliminary report to the DOMES Project, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 123 pp. (unpublished manuscript). Roels, 0. A., A. F. Amos, 0. R. Anderson, C. Garside, K. C. Haines, T. C. Malone, A. Z. Paul, and G. E. Rice, 1973. The Environmental Impact of Deep-Sea Mining, Progress Report. NOAA Tech. Report ERL 290-OD 11, available from National Technical Information Service, (C0M7450489/5), Springfield, Virginia, 185 pp. Ryan, W. B. T., and B. C. Heezen, 1976. Smothering of Deep-Sea Benthic Communities from Natural Disasters. Final Report, NOAA contract No. 03-6-022-35120, Lamont - Doherty Geological observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, N.Y., 132 pp. 196 Shomura, R. S., 1980. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Personal Communication, October 24, 1980. Smith, K. L. Jr., et al_. , 1979. Free Vehicle Capture of Abyssopelagic Animals. Deep-Sea Research Vol. 26A: pp. 57-64. Thiel, Hi., and R. R. Hessler, 1974. Ferngesteuertes Unter Wasserfahrzeug Erforscht Tjefseeboden. UMSCHAU 14:451-453. U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, 1979. United States Oceanborne Foreign Trade Routes, Wash., D.C. Western Miner, December 1974. Island Copper Mine - Tailings Disposal and the Environment, pp. 23-24. 197 Appendix 2. Acronyms, abbreviations, and glossary Acronyms EA EAR EIS PEIS DOMES - NEPA LOS BLM NOAA EPA USCG USGS CLB PDP SPM OMA OMI OMCO AFERNOD - DWT TCR pH TPD TPY NPDES - IMCO RS RSA Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Report Environmental Impact Statement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study National Environmental Policy Act Law of the Sea Bureau of Land Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Geological Survey continuous line bucket program development plan suspended particulate matter Ocean Mining Associates Ocean Management Inc. Ocean Minerals Company Association Francaise pour L' Etude et la Recherche des Nodules dead weight tons terms, conditions, and restrictions a measure of acidity/ alkalinity tons per day tons per year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization Reciprocating States Reciprocating States Arrangement Chemicals and Trace Metals Ag - silver Al - aluminum Cd - cadmium Co - cobalt Cr - chromium Cu - copper Fe - iron Mn - manganese NH4 - ammonium nitrate Ni - nickel Si - silicon Zn - zinc 198 Measurements - distance u - microns mm - millimeters cm - centimeters m - meters km - kilometers in - inches ft - feet yd - yard smi - statute mile nmi - nautical mile - rates nmol/kg - nanomole per kilogran °C/m - degrees centigrade per meter ug-at/1 - microgram atoms per liter kg C/d - kilograms of carbon per day cm/s - centimeters per second in/s - inches per second g/1 - grams per liter or ppM fng/1 - milligrams per liter or ppm ug/1 - micrograms per liter or ppb ppM - parts per thousand ppm - parts per million ppb - parts per bil 1 ion mg/m3 - milligrams per cubic meter g/m^ - grams per square meter oz/ft^ - ounces per square foot - weight ug - micrograms mg - milligrams g - grams kg - kilograms MT - metric ton or tonne oz - ounce lb - pound - others °F - degrees fahrenheit °C - degrees centigrade of celsius m^ - square meters m3 - cubic meters yd^ - square yards yd3 - cubic yards ft2 - square feet ft^ - cubic feet ml - milliliter 1 - liter gal - gallon a - acres ha - hectares d - day 199 Glossary Abyssal — Depths greater than 4,000 m (13,200 ft). Abyssal hills -- Elongate, sediment covered features of the seafloor with a relief of 50 to 300 m (165 to 900 ft) and a 2° to 3° slope. Adsorption -- The adhesion of a thin film of liquid or gas to a solid substance. Advection -- The horizontal or vertical flow of sea water as a current. Aeration -- Changing in treating with air. Air Stripping -- Treatment of pregnant solution with air in order to remove dissolved values. Ambient -- The environment surrounding a body but undisturbed or unaffected by it. Amp hi pods -- An order of elongate, usually laterally compressed, mostly benthic crustaceans. Anaerobic -- Conditions in which air is excluded from the environment. Beneficiate - To upgrade the richness of an ore by the mechanical separation of minerals; usually followed by another method to extract the metals. Benthic -- Pertaining to seafloor. Benthic plume -- A stream of water containing suspended particles of sea- floor sediment, abraded manganese nodules, and macerated benthic biota that emanates from the mining collector as a result of collector disturbance of the seafloor and subsequent rejection of seafloor sediment from the mining system. The far-field component of the benthic plume is termed the "rain of fines". Benthopelagic -- Pertaining to seafloor of deeper portions of open ocean. Benthos -- Organisms living on or in the seafloor. 200 Bioaccumulation -- The accumulation of a substance, usually considered a pollutant, in the tissues of an organism above ambient levels. This can occur through ingestion of food or absorption from the water. Biochemical oxygen demand -- A measure of the quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation (decay, degradation, etc.) of organic matter. Biomass -- The amount of living matter per unit of water surface or volume expressed in weight units. Bivalves -- One class of molluscs, generally attached to hard substrata or burrowing into soft sediment, that possess a hinged shell and a hatchet-shaped foot. Includes clams, oysters, and mussels. Brachiopods -- A phylum of attached, marine, mollusk-like animals in which the body is enclosed in a calcareous bivalve shell. Brittle Star -- A class of phylum Echinodermata of spiny-skinned, starfish-like, bottom-dwelling, mobile organisms with five or more elongated, brittle arms. Bryozoans -- A phylum of minute, colonial, aquatic animals with body walls often hardened by calcium carbonate that usually grow attached to plants, rocks, or other firm surfaces. Calcareous -- Consisting of or containing calcium or calcium carbonate. Cathode specification -- Refers to the purity of the metal during the refining process. Centrifugation -- The process of using a rotating device to produce centrifugal force to separte liquids of different densities or to separate suspended particles in an aqueous suspension. Chlorophyll a -- One of a group of green pigments, identified as chlorophyll a, b, and c, occurring in plants that are active in the process of photo- synthesis. The concentration of these pigments is used as an index of the standing crop of phytoplankton. 201 Clay -- As a size term, refers to sediment particles ranging in size from 0.0039 to 0.00024 mm. Mineral ogical ly, clay is a hydrous aluminum silicate material with plastic properties and a crystal structure. Clarifier -- A centrifuge, settling tank, or other device for separating suspended solid matter from a liquid to produce an essentially solid-free liquid stream and a more concentrated solids stream. Coelenterates -- A phylum of mostly colonial marine animals that exist in both a free-swimming and an attached stage. Includes corals, sea anemones, and jellyfish. Copepods -- Minute shrimplike crustaceans that often occur in large con- centrations ("insects of the sea") in the surface waters and are an important link in many marine food chains. Coprecipitation -- Separation of two or more metals during the same metallurgical step. Coprophagy - Eating, by detritivores, of fecal pellets after pellets have been enriched by microbial activity in the environment. Crustaceans -- A class of animals with a segmented external skeleton and jointed appendages. Includes barnacles, crabs, shrimp, lobster, copepods, and amphipods. Ctenophore -- Spherical, pear-shaped, or cylindrical animals of jellylike consistency, ranging from several centimeters to about one meter in length. Also called "comb-jellies" because the outer surface of the body bears eight rows of comblike structures. Dead weight tonnage -- The difference between the loaded and light displacement tonnage of a ship. Decapods -- An order of crustaceans which includes shrimps, lobsters, and crabs. 202 Deposit feeder --An animal inhabiting bottom sediments feeding on organic detritus by digesting or otherwise separating it from inorganic particles. Detritivore -- Detritus consumers; includes worms, crabs, snails, shrimp, and amphipods. Pi agenesis -- The chemical and physical changes that sediments undergo after their deposition, compaction, cementation, and recrystallization which result in the formation of rocks. Diatoms -- One of a class of microscopic phytoplankton organisms, possessing a wall of overlapping halves impregnated with silica. Diatoms are one of the most abundant groups of organisms in the sea and the most important primary food source of marine animals. Diffusion -- The spreading or scattering of matter under the influence of a concentration gradient with movement from the stronger to the weaker solutions, Distillation -- The evaporation and subsequent condensation of a liquid. Divergence zone -- Zone of horizontal flow of water, from a common center, associated with upwelling of water from the lower water column. In the DOMES area, such a zone separates the North Equatorial Current from the North Equatorial Counter-Current. Epibenthic -- Organisms living on the surface of the seafloor. Epipelagic -- That portion of the oceanic province extending from the surface to a depth of about 200 meters (660 ft). Euphotic zone -- Depth zone with sufficient light for photosynthesis to occur. Ex-vessel value -- The value of the catch as it is sold by the fisherman at the dock. Fecal pellet - Excrement of marine animals, frequently found in sediments. 203 Filter feeding or suspension feeding zooplankton -- Animals that feed by filtering plankton or detritus from the water by means of cilia, bristles, hairs, and/or tentacles. Filtration -- To remove suspended particulate matter from a liquid by passing it through a \fery fine sieve. First generation mining -- Hydraulic mining of deep seabed manganese nodules in the DOMES area by four or five international consortia, coming into production between 1988 and 1995 at a rate determined by the world demand for nickel. Flocculant -- An agent that induces or promotes flocculation, or produces floccules or other aggregate formation. Flocculate -- To aggregate into lumps, as when fine or colloidal clay particles in suspension clump together and settle out of suspension. Foraminifera -- An order of protozoa, that are often microscopic, single-celled (or acellular) animals possessing a shell of calcium carbonate, silica, or chitin. Some species form an important part of marine sediments. Fracture zone -- An extensive linear zone of irregular topography of the seafloor; characterized by seamounts, steep-sided ridges, and escarpments. Gastropods -- A large class of mostly bottom-dwelling molluscs. Most forms have a spiral shell; includes all snails and slugs. Haul outs -- Shoreline, or ice, where marine mammals such as seals, walruses, and sea lions come ashore to establish territory, mate, and bear young. High temperature sulfuric acid leaching -- Nodule processing method that utilizes high temperature and pressure cooking of the nodules in an aqueous sulfuric acid solution. Hydras - Small (few mm to 1 cm in length), carnivorous freshwater animals that are related to corals, jellyfish, and anemones. 204 Infauna -- Animals living in soft bottom sediments. Intertropical convergence zone -- Zone just north of the equator where the northeast tradewinds meet the southeast tradewinds. The mean position of the zone oscillates north and south depending on the strength of the tradewinds. Interstitial water -- Water contained in the pore spaces between the grains in rock and sediments. Isopods -- An order of crustaceans with generally flattened bodies. Most are deposit feeders. Lime boil -- A chemical reaction between lime and ammonium sulfate where steam is introduced to the reacting slurry. Ammonia is released and gypsum is formed. Lime precipitation -- To separate a solid form from a solution by adding lime. Live-bait fisheries -- A method of fishing that catches fish on hooks at the surface after exciting them by throwing live bait. Longline fisheries -- A method of fishing that employs lines up to about 93 km (50 nmi) long with up to 2,000 baited hooks (dead baited) per line. Macrofauna -- Marine animals retained on a sieve of 0.5 to 1.0 mm (0.02 to 0.04 in meshes. Macrozooplankton -- Zooplankton ranging in size from about 1 mm to 1 cm in length. Meiofauna -- Usually refers to animals that will pass through a 0.5 or 1.0 mm mesh sieve and be retained on a 0.05 mm mesh sieve. Mesopelagic -- That portion of the oceanic province extending from about 200 m (660 ft) down to a depth of about 1,000 m (3,300 ft). Micronekton -- Early planktonic stages of fish and other actively swimming organisms, such as squids. Microzooplankton -- Zooplankton ranging in size from 60 u to 1 mm. 205 Mine site -- Area selected by applicant for exploration under terms of a NOAA license or recovery under terms of a NOAA permit. Mixed layer depth -- Depth of bottom of the mixed layer. Mollusc -- A phylum of soft, unsegmented animals, most of which are protected by a calcareous shell. Includes snails, clams, oysters, squids, and octopi . Mysid -- One of an order of shrimp-like, elongate, crustaceans which often are transparent and benthic. Near-field -- 1 to 100 km (0.5 to 55 nmi) from ship. Nepheloid layer -- Suspension of fine sediment and organic matter found near the ocean floor. Nephelometer -- An instrument for measuring the concentration or particle size of suspensions by means of transmitted or reflected light. Neuston -- Surface dwelling organisms. Neuston layer -- The water surface film. Neutralization -- To change the pH of a solution to 7. Non-Ferrous -- Not containing iron. Ooze -- A fine-grained pelagic sediment containing undissolved sand or silt- sized, calcareous or siliceous skeletal remains of small marine organisms in proportion of 30% or more, the remainder being amorphous clay-sized material or dead organisms, including fecal material. Organic detritus -- Consists of decomposition or disintegration products or dead organisms, including fecal material. Ostracods -- A subclass of crustaceans with the body enclosed in a bivalve shell. Often called mussel or seed shrimps. Oxidation -- Combination with oxygen; increase in oxygen content of a compound. Oxygen minimum zone -- A subsurface water layer in which the dissolved oxygen is very low. 206 Pelagic -- Relating to or living in the open sea. Pelagic clays -- Fine grained pelagic sediments, rich in silica, that are found predominately in the deepest portions of the ocean. Phytoplankton -- Plant forms of plankton. Plankton -- Passively drifting or weakly swimming organisms. May consist of plants, animals, and eggs or larval stages of fish. Polychaete worms -- An order of the phylum Annelida; marine worms with segmented bodies; includes fan worms and clam worms. Potential temperature -- The temperature that a water sample would attain if raised adiabatical ly to the sea surface. Predator -- An organism that captures and feeds on other organisms. Pregnant liquor -- A value-bearing solution in a hydro-metallurgical operation. Primary productivity -- The amount of organic matter synthesized by organisms from inorganic substances in unit time in a unit volume of water. Purse-seine fishing -- A method of fishing that surrounds the fish with nets that hang down from the sea surface. Pycnocl ine -- Zone where density increases rapidly with depth. It separates the well-mixed surface waters from the dense waters of the deep ocean. Rain of fines -- Far-field component of the "benthic plume" that consists mainly of fine sedimentary particles which drift with the bottom current and slowly settle to the seafloor generally outside of the mining "subareas." Raffinate -- The solvent-lean, residual feed solution with one or more constituents having been removed by extraction or ion exchange. Reductant -- A reducing agent, one which readily parts with valence electrons and by becoming oxidized reduces the acceptor of these electrons. Carbon and hydrogen are important chemical reductants. 207 Reduction -- A chemical reaction in which electrons are added to the constitutents of the reactant. A reaction which takes place at the cathode in electrolysis. Reduction/ammoniacal leaching -- Process for removing Mn, Ni , Cu, and Co from the nodules by the reduction of manganese dioxide to manganese carbonate with carbon monoxide and the removal of the metals from the nodules by leaching with aqueous ammonia. Reduction/hydrochloric acid leaching -- Nodule processing method that involves the reduction of the manganese with hydrogen chloride gas and the removal of the Mn, Ni , Cu, and Co from the nodules by leaching with hydrochloric acid. Refractory -- Difficult to reduce; the organic matter in the sediment is composed of high molecular weight organic molecules that tend to be resi stent to bacterial attack. Salinity -- A measure of the quantity of dissolved salts in sea water. Saprotrophs -- Microscopic organisms (bacteria, fungi, protozoa) which break down organic matter and release inorganic nutrients back into the environment. Scavenger -- An organism that feeds on dead organic matter. Sea anemone -- Sedentary marine animal of the phylum Coelenterata, having a columnar body and one or more circles of tentacles surrounding the mouth. Sea cucumbers -- A class of the phylum Echinodermata; elongate, tube-like, bottom-dwelling organisms that feed by ingesting sediment. Seamount -- A submarine mountain, volcanic in origin, generally rising 1,000 m (3,300 ft) or more from the seafloor. Sea star -- A class of the phylum Echinodermata; true starfish with a flat, usually five-armed body. Sea urchins -- Bot torn- dwel ling marine animals with a skeleton composed of immovable hard plates; many species possess long, sharp spines. 208 Selective mining -- Mining the richest zones of a mineral deposit first. Serpulids -- Tubeworms (polychaetes) that build calcareous tubes on submerged surfaces. Settling pond -- Earth embankment behind which processing plant wastes are deposited in slurry form. Short-term -- Hours to days in duration. Siliceous ooze -- A fine-grained pelagic sediment containing more than 30% siliceous skeletal remains of pelagic plants and animals. Slurry -- Pulp not thick enough to consolidate as a sludge but sufficiently dewatered to flow viscously; a mixture of nodules and water. Smelt -- To melt or fuse an ore to separate the metal. Spore -- A walled, single to many celled reproductive body of an organism, capable of giving rise to a new individual either directly or indirectly. Sub-area -- The area(s) to be mined by one consortia in one year; part of the mine site. Sulfide precipitation -- To separate the metal sulfides from solution. Suspended particulate matter -- Concentrations of organic and inorganic particles found suspended in the water column. Standing stock -- The biomass or abundance of living material per unit volume or area of water. Surface mixed layer -- Layer of surface waters that overlap the thermocline. It is characterized by fairly uniform temperature, salinity, and density values. The waters are well-mixed through wave action and are high in oxygen content. Nutrient content is low because of uptake by phytoplankton. Tailings Pond -- A waste-disposal pond within a sealed earth embankment where tailings are allowed to settle out of the liquid. The liquid is allowed to evaporate or is decanted off. 209 Tanaids -- An order of very small crustaceans that live buried in the mud or in self-constructed tubes. Temperature inversion -- In oceanography, a water layer in which temperature increases with depth. Test site -- Area(s) selected by licensee, within his mine site, for tests of a mining system(s) under terms of a NOAA license. Thermal ridge -- An east-west oriented feature of the water column in the DOMES area that is characterized by an upward bulge of the 25°C isotherm toward the water surface. This causes the mixed layer and thermocline to be shallower than normal. Thermocline -- Layer of water, at the base of the surface mixed-layer, in which there is a sharp decrease in temperature with depth. Trophic level -- A successive stage of nourishment as represented by links of the food chain. In a representative food chain, phytoplankton constitute the first trophic level, herbivores the second and the carnivores the third level. Year class strength -- Relative term used to describe the number of fish surviving to a certain age from a single spawn. Zooplankton -- Animal forms of plankton. 211 Appendix 3. Projected deep seabed mining systems and processes for first generation development authorized under a license/permit from NOAA. 3.0 Introduction 3.1 At-Sea Activities 3.1.1 Mining System and Operations 3.1.2 At-Sea Processing 3.1.3 Support Systems 3.2 Transportation to Shore 3.3 3.4 3.2.1 Shipping Routes 3.2.2 Vessels 3.2.3 Loading 3.2.4 Fleet 3.2.5 Fuel 3.2.6 Shipyards 3.2.7 Labor 3.2.8 Navigation Onshore Activities 3.3.1 Port Facilities 3.3.1.1 Slurry Terminal 3.3.1.2 Dry Nodul e Terminal 3.3.2 Port-to-Plant Transportation 3.3.2.1 Slurry Pi peline 3.3.2.2 Conveyor 3.3.2.3 Railroad 3.3.2.4 Trucks 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.4.2 3.3.4.3 Nodule Processing Plants 3.3.3.1 Types of Processing Plants 3.3.3.2 Description of Processes 3.3.3.3 Processing Plant Operations Waste Disposal Facilities 3.3.4.1 Types and Quantities of Nodule Processing Waste Usual Practice for Disposal of Mineral Processing Waste Nodule Processing Waste Disposal Methods 3.3.4.3.1 Containment Structures (Tailings Ponds) 3.3.4.3.2 Landfill 3.3.4.3.3 Ocean Dumping 3.3.4.3.4 Near Shore Ocean Disposal 3.3.4.4 Waste Transportation Development of Technology During Licensing 3.4.1 Exploration and Testing 3.4.2 Processing Page 213 213 213 219 220 221 221 222 222 222 225 225 226 226 227 227 227 231 232 232 232 233 233 233 233 234 234 238 238 241 241 241 243 243 244 245 245 245 248 213 Appendix 3. PROJECTED DEEP SEABED MINING SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES FOR FIRST GENERATION DEVELOPMENT 3.0 INTRODUCTION Four international mining consortia involving United States' corporations were formed in the 1970s to share the cost of exploration and development of first generation mining and processing systems (see Table 2). A fifth consortium, AFERNOD, consisting solely of French organizations, has been engaged in similar activities since 1971. These consortia have completed initial research in one specific area of the eastern Pacific Ocean where manganese nodule density and composition appear to be sufficiently high for commercial mining. The at- sea portion of the following scenario is based on that area, called the "DOMES" (Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study) area, and on the mining technologies investigated as of late 1979. Several alternative courses of development exist for the collection, transportation, and processing of nodules and disposal of wastes. Table 22 presents and briefly describes some requirements of each alternative. Dis- cussions below address each alternative in Table 22. 3.1 At-Sea Activities 3.1.1 Mining Systems and Operations Industry has been developing two main types of mining systems: hydraulic and continuous line bucket (CLB). Hydraulic systems are favored by most of the consortia; all three demonstration scale tests monitored by DOMES in 1978- 79 used hydraulic systems. A CLB system is under consideration by Japanese and French companies but is only briefly discussed in this document. Table 23 describes some general characteristics of each mining system. Several operational aspects of nodule mining apply to both hydraulic and CLB systems. For example, industry estimates that vessels will mine 24 hours per day for an average of 300 days per year. The remainder of the year will be devoted to mechanical overhaul (about 30 days) and to transit and down- time for weather (about 35 days). Secondly, each mine site will be serviced by one or more ships designed to recover a total of 3,000 to 10,000 metric tons or MT (3,300 to 11,000 tons) of nodules (dry weight) daily. The larger tonnage operations will probably require at least two ships to operate efficiently. Within a given mine site, mining will probably take place in one sub-area at a time. For example, one year of mining with one vessel might take place in a 900 km 2 (262 nmi 2 ) sub-area (Ozturgut et aK, 1981), approximately 25% of which could be unmineable due to topographic constraints on the collector apparatus. A 3 x 10 6 MT/y (3.3 x 10 6 tons/y) operation could involve twice this area, or 1,800 km 2 (524 nmi 2 ). The collector will travel along depth contour lines covering about 100 km (54 nmi) daily, in such a manner as to sweep the bottom in nearly abutting swaths much as a farmer plows a field. Based on developing collector technology, each swath could be up to perhaps 15 m to 20 m or 50 to 65 ft. wide for hydraulic systems, much wider for CLB. 214 Table 22. Schematic overview of first generation mining operations. Where listed, numbers in parentheses denote amount of vessels involved per mining operation. AT SEA Continuous Line Bucket (CLB) Hydraulic Pump System (towed or self-propelled) Support Activities 1. Nodule transport vessels (2 to 8) 2. Supply vessels (1) 3. Exploration/mapping vessel (1) 4. Operate about 300 days per year ON SHORE Port Facilities (including 12 m. or 40 ft. minimum mooring site) 1. Slurry terminal a. 180 to 270 m. (600 to 900 ft.) waterfront b. 4 to 10 ha. (10 to 25 a.) land c. Total of about 10 to 50 ha. (25 to 125 a.) d. Storage 2. Dry nodule terminal a. 4 ha. (10 a.) minimum land b. transport system for nodule handling Port-to-Plant Transportation 1. Slurry pipeline a. 1.5 ha. (3.8a.) of land per 1 km (0.6 smi) traversed b. pumping station at port 2. Conveyer a. land needs similar to slurry pipeline b. feasible up to about 32 km (20.5 mi.) 3. Railroad a. use existing lines 4 . Trucks I Nodule Processing Plants and Operations Operate 24 hrs. a day year round Two types of plants a. Three-metal (1) Copper-nickel-cobalt (2) Process 2.3 to 3.6 million tonnes (2.5 to 4.0 million tons) dry weight per year. b. Four-metal (1) Copper-nickel-cobalt-manganese (2) Process 0.6 to 1.4 million tonnes (0.7 to 1.5 million tons) dry weight per year. i Waste Disposal Facilities 1. Containment structures (tailings ponds) a. Three-metal plant — 40 ha. (100 a.) at 13 m. (40 ft. depth per year b. Four-metal plant — 8 ha. (20 a.) at same depth per year 2. Landfill a. Three-metal plant — half of tailing pond size and depth each year b. Four-metal plnat — half of tailing pond size and depth each year 3. Ocean dumping a. two barges of solid wastes per week or use outbound nodule transport ships b. waste slurry to port for nolding, could require at least an additional 4 to 6 ha. (10 to 15 a.) of holding ponds. 1. 2. 215 Table 23. Ranges and mean values of mining systems (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1976). A - Hydraulic Systems Parameter Seafloor nodule coverage Nodule moisture, by weight Collector efficiency (nodules collected/total nodules encountered) Sweep efficiency (mineable area swept/ total mineable area) Track width Range Mean Value 10 kg/m 2 10 kg/m 2 30% 30% 50 to 85% 67.5% 40 to 75% 57.5% 10 to 25% 17.5% of collector w idth Depth of cut into seafloor 3 to 10 cm Sediment rejection efficiency of collector (sed. rejected/total sed. intake) 90 to 99% Benthic discharge nodule loss, % of daily production 1 to 5% Surface discharge nodule loss % of daily production Benthic discharge, % solids by volume Lift system solids content. % solids by volume B - Continuous*^ Parameter Bucket collection efficiency (nodules collected 4- nodules encountered) Intra swath efficiency (area contacted by buckets t area of swath) Inter swath efficiency (area of all swaths t mineable area) Depth of cut into seafloor 2 cm Sediment rejection efficiency of buckets (sediment rejected 4- total sediment excavated*) 80 to 90% Bucket ascent velocity ^-7.4 km/hr Midwater sediment loss, % of load at start of bucket ascent ? Surface sediment loss, % of load at start of bucket ascent ? Nodule losses after collection Nil 6.5 cm 97.5% 3% 1% 1% 5 to 30% 17.5% 10 to 30% 20% ket System Range Likely Value 80% 90% 80% 2 cm 85% 3.7 km/hr 90% 10% Nil 216 Hydraulic mining systems (Figure 24) are designed to recover nodules in a slurry of seawater pumped either by conventional slurry pumps or by airlift systems through a pipeline from a seafloor collector to a surface mining ship. During nodule collection, bottom sediments also will be hydraul ically drawn into the collector. As much of this sediment as possible will be rejected at or just above the seafloor before being drawn into the pipeline. However, some sediments will travel the entire pipeline and be discharged at the water surface. To improve the efficiency of this lift system, nodules may be crushed at the lower end of the pipeline. Conversely, nodules may not be crushed until recovered aboard the vessel, brought to port, or brought to the process plant. Hence, this report refers generically to nodules, be they crushed or whole. Results from past research provide a glimpse of an average (based on Table 23-A) hydraulic mining operation. Assuming a production of 5000 MT (5500 tons) of dry nodules per day, the collector will contact 1.1 km^ (0.4 nnn'2) each day. An additional 0.8 km^ (0.3 nmi^) will remain unmined owing to the inability of the system to sweep the seafloor in perfectly abutting swaths. The total area traversed daily will be 1.9 km^ (0.7 nmi^). On an annual basis that area may be inflated up to 25% due to topographic limitations or low nodule concentration. The daily throughput in the system is shown in Table 24. The hydraulic collector wil 1 be either towed or self-propelled; industry is testing both designs. Towed collectors will rest on the seafloor and be pulled by the surface mining vessel. The mining pattern of such a collector will depend on the course plotted by the surface vessel. To increase mining efficiency, the collector may be pulled along a depth contour. Self-propelled systems, thus far represented only by the Archimedes screw design of the Ocean Minerals Company consortium, will differ principally in two ways: the degree of control over the collector's ability to follow a pre-determined path; and, the collector (U.S. Patent no. 4,232,903; Nov. 11, 1980) will operate within a generally kidney-shaped area beneath the mining ship. Each such area would presumably be swept clean before moving to an adjacent area. The two-vessel CLB system (Figure 24-B) involves a series of 1 m (3.3 ft) buckets attached to a continuous line that travels from the mining ship to the seafloor, along the bottom, up to second mining ship, over to the first ship and back down again. The original method, utilizing a single ship, is still under development; the two-ship system has received more industrial attention in recent years. Whereas the hydraulic system discharges sediments only at the seafloor or water surface, sediments scooped up by the CLB system would wash out during retrieval of the buckets (Table 23-B). The rate of wash out and the amount of sediments contributed to the water column depend largely on sediment type, bucket size, and retrieval rate. Because of current industry interest and development in hydraulic mining, the CLB system, as a viable recovery system, is not discussed further in this appendix. Further information on this system may be found in Mero et al . (1974), Gauthier and Marvaldi (1975), Shaw (Personal Communication, 1976), and Mero (Personal Communication, 1977). 217 o CL 5 \ R i/) Q. 3 c CD CL c/> 09 CL o k. cn 0) •■" • ^— • MM* — cr X < a: u_ "^T - c / o / ^_ o b w. » CO cn ■o CO CO 0) k_ Q. £ o o TJ CU CO 4-> co cu cu 4*2 u o a ^ & o o cu c •d -H d .H cO CO 00 3 C O •H 3 ex d e .h d -u a C o o o •H iH *~\ d ea cti v.-' u •d • •* >»^*N 33 O oo /-s cr» . * CO CO d 00 >-t d d •H PQ d w •H /-» •d 5-1 CU O CO •r-» d CO C CU o cu • 5 -Q /*"N •P cu 3 •4-1 > o O cO 53 & CO >. X. rD CO 4-> Li O T3 bOrQ CU cO v_ ' N •H >rl P M)H 1 Pi CO 1 -H d . 4-1 4-> *— * >, , >, c i. (/> ^— * >.. IO CO >i >> '— , >> «u Vt o*-» oo 4) ^-» >— >> CU ^■^ o »-* o a> -» ■»». ■C £. c CO •r- 3 O C s. c fO V s ^~ c CU +■> a> 4-> S- V) S. *» CU 3 SO •a o OJU3 IP) p. o«* tn^r 3M. ■o y O S- one urn ^- 0«T in«r ■c o c at x> ai ■»-> O tlO (O en O ai o T3 O c o ai o o ■— a. IO r— o <0 r— O i— - - . Sulfuric Acid Plant •Reduction/HCl - - - - - - - - 1.4 40.0 300 1.40 94.5 1.2 - - Leaching Plant •Smelting Plant 1.4 50.0 300 1.40 70.3 0.8 3. Waste Disposal •On-site and/or Off-site Disposal Landfill - 20.0/yr 20 0.09 0.23 1.5 8.7 160.0 - 4.0/yr 5 0.02 0.12 N/A 2.7 27.0 Tailings Pond - 40.0/yr 4 Neg. 0.66 - N/A N/A - 7.2/yr 3 Neg. 0.06 - N/A N/A Manganese Storage - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A- N/A N/A N/A N/A •Off-site Disposal Ocean Dumping - - N/A - N/A - - N/A - - N/A — N/A - N/A N/A Abbreviations: m 3 /yr, cubic meters per year; t/d, tons per day; KW, Kilowatt; N/A, data not available; 1/yr, liters per year; km, kilometer; Neg., negligible. a. All values are rounded; all units are metric. b. - indicates none. c. Assumes: 8 km of rail. d. Assumes: 32 km pipeline. e. Assumes: 3050 meter length, 24 hour continuous operation. Source: Computation based on material in Dames & Moore (1977). 229 < Transport Ship <€ 99 19 W 9P Trestle Fuel OH Line Control — » ■ ' i Power Station rt Pipelines Crew Parking n / (0 O a, Water Tanks oo Pump Bldg. n a o xz C/) ■a -a ih Parking -"^—3 ° ^ -Office V Dolphins f Inlet .q Sump Access Highway Gate "\ s 800 ' Deep Nodule Slurry Ponds Q. 0) O a o o 00 10' High Dikes Nodule Pipelines to Process Plant Figure 27. — Illustrative slurry terminal (Dames and Moore, et al., 1977). 230 containment areas to hold nodules awaiting onshore transportation to the processing plant, tailings holding facilities (only if ocean disposal is used), and a facility for loading fuel destined for the mineship by way of returning transports. The terminal might be a dedicated facility at which one 50,000 to 70,000 dead weight tons ship could call every four to 10 days. Land requirements for the terminal would be similar to those for any comparable commercial port facility. Between about 180 and 270 m (600 and 900 ft) of waterfront and 2.4 to 10 hectares, ha. (10 to 25 acres, a.) of adjacent level land would be required for dockage and land facilities. Water depth (draft) in the dock approach and mooring site would have to be at least 12 m (40 ft). Salt water used for slurrying the nodules would probably be recycled; the processing plant would de-water the slurry and return the salt water to the terminal for holding and reuse. Additional salt water would be drawn from the harbor to replace that small amount of water not recovered during dewatering or lost to. evaporation. The total volume of salt water required by slurrying would vary depending on the quantity of nodules, whether the nodules are whole or fragmented, the distance of transportation, slurry velocity, and other factors. Terminals would also load fuel onto the nodules vessels for transport to and supply for mining vessels. The amount of oil transported would be well below the volume for the transport to be considered a tanker ship. Fuel oil storage onshore is assumed to be located off-site; a pipeline station would probably be the only on-site requirement. Fuel oil may be piped directly to the ship's side for bunkering while the cargo is being discharged or it could be delivered by barge to the offshore side of the moored ship. If an ocean waste disposal system is utilized, process tailings may be held at the marine terminal for shipment out to sea. These tailings could be delivered to the terminal in a slurry with large quantities of salt water and could be stored in separate containment ponds. To load or unload tailings, a substantial pumping system would have to be installed which would probably require several thousand kilowatts of electricity during the period of pumping. This electrical power could come from on-site diesel engines or gas turbines or could be purchased from electrical utility companies. The total land area required for waste handling facilities for a first generation operation could require at least 4 ha. (10 acres), and up to several times that for large volumes of tailings storage. Therefore, the marine terminal for slurry nodules and slurry waste, including tailings waste ponds, transport water storage, and ship loading pumps may occupy from 6.4 ha. (16 a.) to as much as 20 ha. (50 a.) for large volume tailings storage. Where onshore space is limited, an offshore terminal may be an option. Moorings can be located in deep water where adequate space is available for a slurry ship to moor safely and transfer cargo. Modern mono-moorings permit the ship to swing freely about the center of the mooring area, where a surface buoy provides securing lines (or chains) to the ship. For a 70,000 DWT ship, an area about 610 meters (2,000 feet) in diameter is the minimum required in deep water, plus deep water fairway access channels. Offshore mono-moorings in deep water are feasible with slurry systems and larger vessels in southern California and Texas waters. The rough ocean 231 waters of northern California and the Pacific Northwest probably would not be practical locations for offshore mono-mooring buoys. However, buoys and slurry pipelines could be put inside harbor entrances in deep water if space is available. The slurry, recycle water ajid fuel lines, and possibly tailings waste slurry line, would all be underwater pipelines from a shore terminal to underneath the buoy, where flexible hoses rise to the buoy and float on the surface to the ship side. There the lines can be lifted aboard for connection to appropriate outlets. Mooring lines would be connected to the buoy and the ship and would be handled by a small boat upon arrival of the ship. The ship alone could drop the 30 to 45 centimeter (12 to 18 inch) hose and mooring lines quickly in an emergency. Pumping clear salt water would, within a few minutes, empty the pipe and hose of slurry down to the sea floor. The buoy would be moored with multiple spread anchors, chains, and clump weights of adequate design for the transport vessel. The same buoy system could be used to load waste tailing products aboard the ship for disposal at sea, with a return line of the closed loop system to recycle water for slurrying tailings. Finally, fuel oil and other bulk liquids could be handled in a separate hose and pipeline simultaneously with nodule or tailings pumping. The water front dock, ship mooring dolphins and pipeline connections would be omitted, being replaced by the mooring. Depending upon the eleva- tion and distance from the mooring, an auxiliary pumping station may be needed to speed off-loading of the slurry transport ship. Support facilities are required at the waterfront for buoy mooring systems. Small craft for line handling, a work barge with derrick for anchor handling, and maintenance boats are usually specially provided for the mooring, These boats require shallow water berths and maintenance. The total installa- tion of a mono-mooring system, including its support boats and facilities, would cost about as much as a conventional slurry berth. 3.3.1.2 Dry Nodule Terminal Nodules could be shipped to shore in either a dry whole bulk form or in a dried and ground form. In either case, the terminal facilities would be slightly different than described above for a slurry system. A marine terminal for dried and ground nodules would probalby resemble a terminal designed to handle dry bulk chemicals, fertilizers, or cement. Enclosed handling and storage equipment would be required for dust control and to reduce loss of material. Because of the 30 to 40 percent loss of water weight during shipboard nodule drying, either lower cargo tonnages could be handled or fewer vessels would be needed and terminal arrivals would be less frequent. The essential elements of a dried and ground nodule term- inal are the ship dock, the pier or wharf, shore side or shipboard centrifugal suction cargo unloaders, and an enclosed conveying system to a stockpile building. From the stockpile building, another enclosed conveyor would lead directly to the processing plant or to closed rail car loading equipment. With the most compact terminal arrangement, at least 4 ha. (10 a.) of land 232 plus waterfront would be required for a first generation terminal handling about 0.6 million to 1.4 million MT (0.7 to 1.5 million tons) per year for a four-metal plant (see Section 3.3.3.1 of this Appendix) or about three times that volume for a three-metal plant (also, Section 3.3.3.1). The dry nodule facilities would not handle slurried processing waste for at-sea disposal. A separate terminal and tug-barge system would be needed because the transport ships servicing these terminals would lack the required material handling capabilities to transport and dispose of slurried waste at sea. 3.3.2 Port-to-Plant Transportation Land transportation of nodules from port terminals to processing plants and the transport of waste to disposal areas would depend, to a large extent, on the physical form of the nodule material. If the material is brought to port wet, either as broken nodules or crushed and ground, it could be transported to the processing plant in a slurry pipeline. If the nodules are ground and dried, either conveyor or rail transportation appears most likely, depending on the onshore transportation distance. Unless a requirement is imposed to dry waste before disposal, the transportation of waste from the plant to the disposal site would probably be by slurry pipeline. 3.3.2.1 Slurry Pipeline A slurry pipeline system might consist of a slurry pumping station adjacent to the terminal storage ponds, a buried steel pipeline, and storage ponds at the processing plant. For distances less than about 13 km (8/smi), a bank of pumps could be used; greater distances would probably require booster pumping stations, unless positive displacement pumps are used. The latter could transport slurry about 56 to 64 km (35 to 40 smi ) without intermediate booster stations. A second pipeline could be installed to return transport salt water to the terminal for reuse or to return plant waste to the port for disposal at sea. A pond could be required at the plant site to provide for nodule storage in case of a plant shut down and could also provide a surge pile of nodules in case of a pipeline shut down. It is estimated that a slurry pipeline would require approximately 1.5 ha. (3.8 a.) of land per 1 km (0.6 smi) of pipeline and would utilize between about 1 million to 3 million m3 (1.2 million to 3.6 million yd^) of recycled water per year to move the nodules. This water would most likely be sea water but may be fresh water. 3.3.2.2 Conveyor Long distance, high capacity conveyor systems have been in use in the mining, construction, and bulk handling industries for many years and could be used for transporting bulk nodules to plant sites up to about 32 km (20 smi) from the port. Such a conveyor system would be enclosed for dust control purposes. Land requirements would be approximately the same as for a slurry pipeline. 233 3.3.2.3 Railroad A nodule processing plant could be located to use existing rail lines with no new track construction except for sidings and/or new spur lines at both the port and the plant. It is assumed that the freight cars would be hauled by diesel electric locomotives. The nodules could be loaded into the freight cars at the port terminal by means of an overtrack hopper and could be unloaded at the plant by means of bottom dumping. Transfer from the dumping area to the plant storage areas could be by conveyor, truck, or slurry. 3.3.2.4 Trucks The use of trucks to haul nodules from the terminal to the processing plant is possible. Truck size will be limited by highway load limit regula- tions to about 18 MT (20 tons) capacity. The units would be covered to prevent loss of fines through wind erosion. The size of the operation and the haul distance are major factors in determining the number of trucks. For example, 66 trucks would be required to service a 3-metal plant located 80 kilometers (50 miles) from port. 3.3.3 Nodule Processing Plants 3.3.3.1 Types of Processing Plants A key element in determining the structure of a nodules processing plant is the decision as to whether or not to recover manganese in addition to nickel, copper, and cobalt. If recovery of only the latter three value metals is desired (three-metal plant), the reduction of manganese must be carefully controlled. Not only is chemical reduction an energy intensive and expensive step, but it would be highly desirable not to further complicate the required nickel/copper/cobalt separation steps (see section 3.3.3.2) with the presence of dissolved manganese if it could be maintained as the relatively inert, benign oxide. If, on the other hand, manganese recovery is desired (four-metal plant), the required selectivity of the reduction step(s) is dictated primarily by the economic constraints involved in producing metals of the required purity. The manganese may be recovered as an integral operation of the sequence of reduction and purification steps in a process plant designed to produce all four metals, or may be recovered from the partially processed nodule residues from which nickel, copper, and cobalt have already been extracted. In either case, the amount of wastes produced from a four-rnetal plant will be less than those from a three-metal plant per unit of nodule treated since the major constituent (manganese) will have been recovered for sale, not rejected. Since the first nodule processing plant has yet to be built and the location has not been selected, the estimates of requirements of processing facilities are based in part on assumptions and judgments. However, this information should be indicative of typical requirements of a nodule process- ing plant and should be adequate to serve as a base for a general assessment of the environmental impacts. 234 A major factor in determining whether or not to produce manganese in a "four-metal" plant will be the near-term market for this metal. Because of the high percentage of manganese (25.2% average) in the nodules, a single nodule processing vessel recovering 0.9 million MT (1 million tons) of nodules per year could be expected to supply about one third of the manganese consumed annually in the United States at 1979 rates. Thus, a company interested in processing manganese nodules must balance the scale of operations needed to make the endeavor economically attractive against the potential ability to penetrate the near-term manganese market, considering future changes in that market. It is currently estimated that a first generation four-metal plant could be designed to process about 1 million MT (1.1 million tons) of nodules per year, dry weight. Total production of manganese would be 200,000 to 250,000 MT (220,000 to 275,000 tons) per year. The alternative to a four-metal plant is one designed to produce copper, nickel, and cobalt only, with the option of producing manganese as a secondary product. The minimum production level needed to make a three-metal plant economically attractive is based largely on nickel production since that metal is the most important to the economics of nodule mining. It is currently estimated that the smallest sized initial three-metal plant would be designed to process about 3.0 million MT (3.3 million tons) of nodules per year (dry weight). Production from such a plant would be about 50,000 to 75,000 MT (55,000 to 82,500 tons) of total product each year. The following types of processes have been identified as the most likely three-metal processes for first-generation plants: 1) cuprion reduction ammoniacal leach; 2) ammoniacal leach; and 3) high temperature sulfuric acid leach. One of two additional steps is likely in first-generation four-metal plants: 1) hydrochloric acid wash and 2) smelting and leach. 3.3.3.2 Description of Processes There are several options for nodule processing depending on whether a three-metal or four-metal plant is used. Table 28 briefly presents the chemical processes required to recover each of the four primary metals. 3.3.3.3 Processing Plant Operations A processing plant can be viewed conceptually as a "black box" into which flow nodules, energy, reagents, water, and labor and out of which flow products, solid and liquid wastes, airborne emissions, and noise. Also flowing out will be the pay of the work force, payments to local businesses for supplies and services, and tax dollars. The plant can be expected to operate three shifts per day about 330 days per year. There would be about 300 to 500 employees at the plant site itself, divided among the three shifts, depending on plant volume and processing techniques employed. Energy is a major input and will consist of a combination of hydrocarbon fuel and purchased electrical power. Based on the current uncertainties regarding oil supplies and prices, it is generally expected that coal will be the hydrocarbon fuel chosen. However, oil or natural gas could be substituted under special circumstances. Depending on the process, coal usage could range from 900 to 2,140 MT (1,000 to 2,350 tons) per day. It is expected that plants will take advantage of heat produced in processing to generate some of 235 CO 4-1 s cd •p i i O § cd 4J I CU 0> V) 43 4J r< o «4H O O CU n 1 4-t Cd u •H a. +J •H rH o cd a) x> ri o ex, o / £3 » •rl 43 6 43 cu -u J-i -H 1? 4-1 CU O TJ -d cd -H •H 4J 3 <4-l c3 cr rH O -H 3 C_> rH CO / t T3 £3 rt toO £3 M tH CU £3 O, £3 £X >-> *H O X> £ O O CD rH ri CO 43 CU 4-> o O ^5 CJ a, CO O CU CO CU iH rH •H .J £3 CU Q i ' T3 i I •iH CU -3 CU 3 CO •H CO a* co rH cd •rl 43 o 43 iH a< CO £X £3 O 43 ■H O 4-» cd O CU 3 rH T3 CU rH u cd u £3 cd O -H •H £3 u 9 §•1 o cd 1 cd 4J 8 i CU cu u co cu 13 rH •rl T3 rt O O £3 s 4-> B cu CO cu cu O £3 a -3 O P. CM cd toO £3 •> CO 4-1 iH cd co CU >> 43 rH o •> u CU 4-1 4J a cd cu U rH o cu cd T3 > £3 W cd o cd rl o rH ■3 o rl T3 43 o cd >> CU 33 rH 4-> £3 CU 4-) cd rH 4-1 rH CO cd rH cd 43 * 8 rT cd • • T3 CU 4-1 rH •H U > 92 3 CU O B £3 cr 4J a l O •rl MH CU rl •rl rJ Cd rl 3 4-1 O P- Pn o 236 the electric power required during processing. Full on-site generation is possible, but would be a last resort since it would be an inefficient use of the capital of the operator. Quantities sought from outside would range from about 25 megawatts per year for a first generation three-metal plant to nearly 100 megawatts for a first generation four-metal plant. Although the types and quantities of reagents will probably vary from process to process, the combination of the major materials used directly in nodule processing is summarized in Table 29. It is anticipated that most reagents will be shipped to the plant in commercial concentrations by bulk transportation methods. The exceptions would be those reagents which are particularly hazardous or which could be easily generated onsite, e.g., hydrogen sulfide. The large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels, reagents, and products will require access to an economical bulk transportation system. Trucks may be economical over short distances and railroads or barges over long distances. Fresh water will be used for the generation of steam, cooling, process steps, and perhaps the slurrying of wastes. For steam generation and cooling, there are limits on water hardness and suspended solids in order to avoid process system fouling. This water would have to be fresh water, but would not need to meet drinking water standards. The quantities of water required range from 6 million to 24 million liters (1.6 million gal. to 6.3 million gal.), per day depending on three- or four-metal plant designs. Cooling water is expected to be recycled. Some process waters will be lost as waste. Airborne emissions, such as combustion products from the burning of hydrocarbon fuel, are significant potential pollutants. These emissions should be limited by the Clean Air Act, which requires that the best available control technology will be used. Control technology should be sufficient to adequately limit dust from grinding and flume reagents. Since copper, nickel, and cobalt are about 3% of the nodules by dry weight, solid waste in a three-metal plant will amount to approximately 97% of the nodules weight. For a four-metal plant, the recovered metals account for about 30% and solid waste 70% of the dry weight. Thus, whether three or four metals are recovered, a sizeable percentage of the nodules will be unused. This is comparable or even less wasteful, to land-based mining; many domestic ores, such as copper, contain less than 1% of the primary metal. 237 Table 29 Composition of process materials and supplies (Dames & Moore and EIC Corp., 1977) Gases: Ammonia - Commercial Anhydrous Hydrogen - Commercial 99% Minimum Hydrogen Sulfide - (Liquid) Commercial 97.5% Chlorine - (Liquid) Commercial 99.5% Nitrogen - Commercial Liquids : Organic - Liquid ion exchange/chelating agent dissolved in dilutent at concentration appropriate to each process Sulfuric Acid - Commercial 93% Nitric Acid - Commercial 60% Sodium Hydroxide - Commercial 50% Fuel - Vehicular and combustion fuel as required Oxygen - Commercial Water - Salt & Fresh Solids : Limestone Lime % Calcium 80 (Calcium Carbonate) 79 (Calcium Oxide) % Magnesium 15 (Magnesium Carbonate) 12 (Magnesium Oxide) % Inerts 5 9 Flocculants - Commercial Polyelectrolytes Additives - Commercial Electrowinning Additives Sodium Sulfate - Anhydrous, Photo Grade Boric Acid - Commercial Granular, 99.9% Carbon - Commercial Activated C Borax - Technical, Anhydrous, 99% Electrode Paste Salt - Commercial Rock Salt Energy needs : Coal -generated electricity 238 3.3.4 Waste Disposal Facilities 3.3.4.1 Types and Quantities of Nodule Processing Waste It has been pointed out that the amount of waste produced varies greatly from process to process, particularly between three- and four-metal processes. The chemical and physical properties of the wastes also vary, since their nature is determined by the sequence of treatment steps to which they have been subjected. The design and operation of a nodules processing plant will be carried out in such a way to insure compliance with applicable regulations covering the discharge of solid, liquid, and gaseous effluents. In particular, this will require that the following design features or variations thereof be adopted: 1. All combustion gases will be scrubbed with limestone slurry for sulfur removal and that the combustion processes will be controlled so as to permit compliance with nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emission regulations. Alternate scrubbing techniques are, of course, possible. 2. Process wastes which are combustible will be burned on site. 3. Adequate measures will be taken for dust control at appropriate places within the process, with effluents discharged after further treatment, as required. 4. Gaseous emission control in high temperature operations will be achieved by the use of hooding and high volume ventilation, with the fugitive gases being scrubbed prior to release to the atmosphere, as required. 5. All vents on process tankage will be manifolded to scrubbers or protected with conservative units. 6. Process solid and liquid waste, including plant run-off, will be combined with leached tailings or granulated slags, neutralized if required, and disposed of in a suitable manner. The majority of the solid wastes from the three-metal processes consists of finely divided "tailings," residues of the nodule which have been chemically and physically altered and from which the desired metals have been extracted. This material will exit the process plant in slurry form, being accompanied by an approximately equal amount of water which contains small amounts of dissolved materials including sea salts and trace elements. In addition, lesser but significant amounts of solid residues, in slurry form, may accompany the tailings. The physical form of the tailings from all three-metal process plants would be similar and closely related to wastes currently produced in processing nickel iferous laterites at Nicaro and Moa Bay, Cuba. The bulk chemical composition would be different, however, consisting mainly of manganese oxides and carbonates. These materials are dense and will settle and may compact on 239 long standing in waste containment areas to forms which can be stabilized to prevent dispersion. It is to be expected, however, that new or revised techniques will have to be developed to handle this material. The bulk of the residues from a three- or four-metal smelting process will be quite different, however, consisting of granular slags. Similar materials are produced in large volume in the production of nickel and copper from terrestrial ores and are known to be inert and stable over long periods. This material is also essentially free draining, and need not be accompanied by equal amounts of liquid wastes if the latter can be disposed of by alternate techniques such as impounding and evaporation. The wastes from the reduction/hydrochloric acid leach process are more difficult to characterize, since there is no directly analogous terrestrial process on which to base analogies. The wastes consist of roughly equal amounts of leached tailings accompanied by other process wastes and fused salts. The former would have properties which would be analogous to those from three-metal plants but the latter would consist of dry, bulk material. However, since it would be subject to dissolution on standing by contact with water, it will have to be contained to prevent its migration. Nodules contain many components which appear on lists of hazardous or toxic substances in either their elemental form or in certain compounds. These total less than 0.5% of the nodules by dry weight. Table 30 identifies and groups the elements found in the nodules and shows the percentage by weight for each group. As the nodules occur in nature, these constituents are chemically bound in the complex matrix of the nodules and do not appear to be accessible to the environment from actions of natural systems. While harmless in their natural state, it is not currently known to what extent or in what manner these constituents might be transformed during processing operations. This large data gap is currently being addressed through several channels. In concert with NOAA, the Bureau of Mines (U.S. Department of the Interior) is characterizing process wastes. Industry tests may also contribute data on constituents. Perhaps most significantly, the five-year research plan generated in response to the Act also addresses processing wastes and their characterization. These efforts should provide data on the stability of waste components, possible toxicity, relative concentrations, and more. As noted in the preceding section, both three- and four-metal processing plants will generate considerable solid waste. Depending on the processing techniques used, the rate of processing, and the form of waste disposal, waste from each nodule processing plant may accumulate at a rate of from 4 to 40 ha. (10 to 100 a.) per year at a depth of about 13 m (40 ft.). 240 Table 30 Major categories of elements in manganese nodules. (Dames & Moore and EIC Corp., 1977) Major and Value Metals Innocuous Non-Minor Elements Known Toxic Elements, Chemically Bound Element Manganese, Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Zinc, Molybdenum Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Calcium, Aluminum, Titanium, Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Chlorine Barium, Lanthanum, Vanadium, Chromium, Silver, Cadmium, Thallium, Lead, Arsenic, Antimony Percentage by Dry Weight of Group in Nodules 29% total Innocuous Minor Elements Boron, Carbon, Scandium, Strontium, Yttrium, Zirconium, Niobium, Gallium, Tin, Bismuth Oxygen as Oxides and Pore Water 14% total 0.5% total 0.3% total 44% total 56% total 100% total 241 3.3.4.2 Usual Practice for Disposing of Mineral Processing Wastes The most common method used by the mineral processing industry to dispose of tailings and other processed wastes is in a slurry form behind an earth embankment. The reservoir behind the embankment is sealed to eliminate contamination of the environment and the slurry liquids are either allowed to evaporate or are decanted and recycled, or both. Alternative process waste disposal methods are dependent on the character of the wastes. Whereas a tailings slurry must be placed in a reservoir because of its fluid character, innocuous dry solid wastes may be disposed in a landfill or sold for recycling. For instance, granulated slag can make suitable fill or ballast, and gypsum and lime waste are sometimes used as soil additives. Dry solids with potential pollution problems would be disposed in a safe manner, if not recycled. 3.3.4.3 Nodules Processing Waste Disposal Methods A variety of options are available for treating process wastes which range from relatively simple chemical steps such as treatment with lime to much more complex operations such as washing, drying, or chemical fixations. Treatment of wastes with lime serves to stabilize them by adjusting the pH and precipitating potentially toxic materials. The more complex alternatives are all much more costly, and are not practiced in the extractive metallurgy of terrestrial ores. The advantages of adopting such techniques would require a demonstration that they mitigate a problem encountered by the more conventional disposal techniques. Such a demonstration would require production of a significant amount of "real" nodules wastes so that their properties can be determined experimentally, rather than by analogy. The deep seabed mining industry is expected initially to follow typical mining disposal practices. Thus, it is expected that the first generation processing wastes will be disposed on land by means of containment structures ("tailings ponds") or landfills. The legal feasibility of ocean dumping is uncertain at this time, because of possible limitations placed on sea disposal of wastes by the Ocean Dumping Act and the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Materials (the London Con- vention), though it has obvious economic advantages to industry. The serious- ness of its potential environmental consequences and lack of data on the nature of the wastes, necessitates consideration of ocean disposal in this PEIS. 3.3.4.3.1 Containment Structures (Tailings Ponds) In this method, the mixed and neutralized slurry waste would be pumped through a pipeline from the plant to the disposal area. At the disposal area, the slurry would be directed into ponds which would depend largely on natural evaporation to dry and stabilize the wastes (Figure 20) Several ponds would be in use at the same time; one pond would be in active use while others would be in various stages of drying. To facilitate drying, clear or nearly clear surface water could be drawn off and either returned to the plant for reuse, placed in a broad shallow pond for more rapid evapor- ation, or, if clean enough to meet water quality standards, be discharged into a nearby waterway. 242 DECANT STATION FUTURE POND S ><^ > DECANT STATION MONITOR WELLS DECANTED TRANSPORT WATER TO PROCESS PLANT OR EVAPORATION POND ^ TAILINGS SLURRY FROM PROCESS PLANT Figure 28. — Illustrative tailings ponds (Dames and Moore, et al. , 1977). 243 A relatively large and flat land area will be required for the tailings ponds. A three-metal processing plant and a four-metal plant would require about 40 ha. (100 a.) per year and 8 ha. (20 a.) per year, respectively to a 13 m (40 ft.) depth for tailings disposal over the 25-year operating period of a processing plant. After a tailings pond area has been completely filled, it would be covered and revegetated. The physical and chemical characteristics of the material, coupled with the climatic conditions of the region, will determine the extent to which the tailings will stabilize, what vegetation will grow on the material, and therefore what uses may be made of the area after the disposal operations are completed. If the tailings never completely dry (a sediment condition referred to as a hydrous slime) or if covering fill chemistry is greatly changed, vegetation growth or use of the area could be restricted indefinitely. NOAA's five-year research plan on mining mandated by the Act will investigate this possibility. 3.3.4.3.2 Landfill This disposal method consists of placing dry or nearly dry process wastes in a landfill with alternating layers of cover materials consisting of natural, on-site soils. The method is similar to the practice of land reclamation which is common in the strip mining industry. After construction of a given section of the landfill, the entire section will be covered with top-soil and revegetated. To protect the disposal area from flooding and to prevent surface runoff from escaping the disposal area, a containment and flood control dike would probably be constructed around the disposal facility. Conventional construction equipment consisting of scrapers, trucks, bulldozers, and graders would be utilized to smooth and distribute the waste dumped on the fill. Assuming equal process volumes, the land requirements for this disposal method would be roughly half that required for the tailings pond method, i.e., approximately 20 ha. (50 a.) per year for the four-metal plant, both about 6 m (20 ft. ) deep. 3.3.4.3.3 Ocean Dumping This method would consist of transporting the nodule process wastes from the plant to a port facility and into the hold of dumping barges or outbound nodule transport vessels. It is assumed that the wastes are suitable for obtaining a dumping permit and have been suitably treated. Conventional dumping barges are simply loaded through the weather deck hatches and dewatered to the sea by overflowing. At the disposal site, barges open a hatch in the bottom and the wastes slide out -- a simple and inexpensive procedure. Because of the large volumes to be handled, even under the smallest load, about two (6,000 to 8,000 MT or 6600 to 8800 tons) barge loads per week of solids would be dumped. This would be about a single 6000 DWT barge towed not far beyond the 370 km (200 nmi) limit, weather permitting. Alternatively, a pair of 8000 DWT barges and tugs could dump over 920 km (500 nmi) at sea, at a much higher cost. These barges and their tugboats are substantial vessels and investments, but they are proven and economical equipment. 244 The principal disadvantage of dump barges is that the surface disposal of the tailings may leave a near-surface plume of sediment, which would spread as it falls through the ocean to the bottom. Also with the barging system, little other use of the dump barges is possible and when the slurry is loaded into the dump barge, overflow of slurry liquids may occur. Another feasible mode of waste tailings disposal would be to pump the slurry aboard ship, dewater, transport to the deep sea, and pump the slurry overboard using the shipboard equipment. This dumping method is more expensive than bottom dropping, because of the pumping requirements. One advantage of the slurry ship is the possibility to dump the waste through a pipe suspended from the ship to a deeper water level, well below the surface. This would place the plume below the surface water and sunlight penetration zone, at depth at which some potential harmful effects may be mitigated. Since a separate fleet of dumping barges would not be required if the transport vessels were also used to dispose of the tailings, the transport vessels would most likely be used to dump the tailings at sea if ocean disposal were selected. Another alternative for at-sea tailings disposal involves the use of the ore carriers to transport dewatered wastes to the deep sea and then to discharge them to near surface waters with a relatively simple pumping system as the vessel is underway. This would require relatively little additional equipment and probably not decrease the time required for the return voyage greatly. The rate of discharge could be controlled, within limits, to obtain desired plume characteristics if necessary. The ocean disposal of waste tailings would also require facilities at the marine loading terminal, new or larger ships or barges, and some small labor, fuel, and maintenance inputs. The marine terminal for the ship would have to be large enough to store at least one week's volume of waste, and would probably include transport water tanks, slurry ponds, pump station, pipeline access to and from the process plant, electrical power in moderate amounts, and road access. Installation of waste slurry ponds at the port terminal could require 4 to 6 ha. (10 to 15 a.) of adjacent land depending on processing volume and plant type. 3.3.4.3.4 Near Shore Ocean Disposal The near shore disposal of process wastes would be through an ocean outfall pipe that extends from a shore facility to a certain depth of water offshore. The technology for outfalls is available and is presently being used for the ocean disposal of effluents from municipal sewage treatment facilities on all U.S. coasts and for sewage sludge disposal off southern California. An ocean outfall is also being used by the Utah International Island Copper Project on Vancouver Island, Canada for the underwater disposal of copper processing tailings into Rupert Inlet at a depth of 46 m (Western Miner, 1974). An outfall should be located at the greatest practicable distance from shore and should be designed to provide the maximum dispersal of effluent. The location and physical configuration of the outfall should be determined by the depth, distance from shore, circulation and mixing characteristics of the particular ocean location, and factors influencing interactions of wastes with the environment. The advantage of this method of ocean disposal is 245 lower costs entailed when compared to the continuous transportation of wastes to sea for dumping. A potential disadvantage is the present uncertainty over the exact chemical makeup of processing wastes and the possible harm to the environment if toxic metals are present in the effluent. 3.3.4.4 Waste Transportation If all wastes are combined into a single slurried waste stream, the most likely means of waste transport would be by slurry pipeline. The physical characteristics of the pipeline would be very similar to the pipeline used to move slurried nodules from the port terminal to the processing plant (see Section 3.3.2.1 of this Appendix). Further, from a technical viewpoint, use of the pipeline would permit the waste disposal area to be located a considerable distance (100 km or 60 smi or more, for example) from the plant. As noted previously, it is not necessary to combine all wastes into a slurry form for disposal. In two of the processing techniques, a large part of the rejects are expected to exit in a dry form (fused salt from the hydro- chloric acid process and granulated slag from the smelting process). Based on site-specific factors such as land availability and net evaporation, part of the waste could be disposed of as a slurry and part as a dry material. The slurried portion would probably use a slurry pipeline while dry bulk transportation methods such as conveyors, rail cars, or trucks would be used for the dry material. Conveyors or trucks are probably the most likely means by which solid waste would be transported to a near-plant site. Distant dry bulk disposal areas, including at-sea, could utilize other methods. 3.4 Development of Technology During Licensing 3.4.1 Exploration and Testing The multidisciplinary nature of deep seabed mining activities has resulted in some confusion with regard to terminology and it would be useful here to clarify the meanings of various significant terms as they have been traditionally used in the minerals industry. The sequence of activities* in bringing a mine to production is: 1. Prospecting (searching, locating, surveying, random sampling, reconnaissance, exploring.) 2. Exploration (sampling, location, delineation, characterization, evaluation.) 3. Development (evaluation, blocking out, mining, and processing systems testing, pilot testing.) *The terms in parentheses are sometimes used to describe these activities though they may not always be synonymous. 246 Under the law, prospecting is excluded from regulation (section 101(a)(2)) but exploration, which by definition includes development (section 4(5)), is prohibited except under license (section 101(a)). The Act defines exploration to mean: "(A) any at-sea observation and evaluation activity which has, as its objective, the estabishment and documentation of- (i) the nature, shape, concentration, location, and tenor of a hard mineral resource; and (ii) the environmental, technical, and other appropriate factors which must be taken into account to achieve commercial recovery; and (B) the taking from the deep seabed of such quantities of any hard mineral resource as are necessary for the design, fabrication, and testing of equipment which is intended to be used in the commercial recovery and processing of such resource;" In carrying out these activities, four major types of operations are of concern: namely, navigation and positioning of the surface vessel (or plat- form); measurement in place of the environment, including the deposit, by remote sensing; physical sampling of natural materials for measurement and testing; and, testing of equipment for mining and processing. These activities may be further elaborated: Surface Vessel Navigation and Positioning. Navigation and positioning of the surface vessel does not normally require contact with the seabed. Where high accuracy of positioning is required for detailed survey work or for equipment test and evaluation, electronic trans- ducers may be placed on the bottom as reference points (Figure 29). These instruments are about the size of a 5-gallon drum and are buoyed above the seabed attached to a block anchor of concrete or other inert substance which may weigh about a hundred pounds. The transponders are recoverable but the anchors are not. They may require to be placed about 10 km apart, a density of approximately 1,000 per exploration site of 100,000 km 2 . Remote Sensing Tools and Techniques . Remote sensing of the deep seabed and its environs includes measurement techniques utilizing reflected sound pulses, visual observations, and induced radiation. In most cases the measuring instruments are towed quite close to the bottom and the imagery transferred by cable to the surface, or stored on tape or film in the towed vehicle for recovery later. Sound pulses for acoustic imagery, which is somewhat like radar imagery, are generally of low energy and generated by electro-mechanical means at the surface ship or on the towed vehicle. Explosives are not used in this type of work as deep penetration of the bottom is not required. Total darkness prevails at ocean depths below a few hundred feet and all visual observation whether by television camera, photographic camera, or manned deep submersibles 247 Thrusters Bottom Transponder I Side S f^i - Sled Transponder Side Scan Acoustic Transducer Pipe I String £,'./ Obstacle Avoidance Thrusters >sT^ Speed Bo t ton Transponder WO Figure 29. — Some aids for navigation and positioning used in deep seabed exploration and systems development (Detweiler and Zahn, 1980). 248 must be carried out by artificial light. This requires generally several kilowatts of electrical illumination which must be maintained during the periods of observation. Measurements taken by induced radiation are not common, mainly because the technology has not been perfected for sustained use and the equipment must remain stationary during the measurement which may take from several minutes to several hours. The general principal is that a natural material, if subjected to natural or artificial radiation under controlled conditions, will respond by emitting a characteristic radiation of its own by which it can be identified. On removal of the instrument, the induced radiation is extinguished and the material reverts to its original state. By this means, deep seabed materials such as nodules, can be chemically analyzed in place. Techniques used in the measurement of the physical properties of seabed soils, involves placing instrumented packages or towing instrumented vehicles or sleds on the bottom. The measured data are generally stored on tape and recovered with the package, but continuous measurements may be sent to the surface ship for the preparation of maps as the survey continues. Sampling Tools and Techniques. Sampling of the deep seabed may take place while the ship is stationary or under way. Sampling on station is the traditional method where hydrographic casts or bottom corers are winched over the side and retrieved on completion of the task. A round trip may take 3 to 4 hours. Dredge samples are taken with the ship moving slowly with the sample bucket on the bottom over a distance of a kilometer or so. In nodules sampling however, the trend is toward the use of unattached boomerang samplers which may be dropped in clusters of 5 or 10 and which automatically return to surface after contact with the bottom. The exploration vessel may utilize the 3 to 4 hours between dropping and retrieval, in placing further clusters at designated spots within steaming range. In this way idle ship time is reduced. The samplers may be equipped with core barrels, grabs, box corers, cameras, or any other instruments required. An expendable weight, generally concrete, is released on the bottom, to make the sampler positively buoyant for the trip to surface. Initially, samples may be placed tens, or even hundreds of kilometers apart but for evaluation of deposits, the spacing will eventually be reduced to one kilometer or less. Testing of Equipment for Mining and Processing . The testing of systems for commercial recovery which may take place under the terms of a license may involve any activity up to and including full scale testing of prototype commercial operations. The difference between the activities under the license and under the permit, is that in the develop- ment and testing phase, operations would not be sustained for long periods. They would probably be more varied in that several systems might be developed and evaluated at the same time or sequentially, and they would generally involve more intensive scrutiny and instrumentation. 3.4.2 Processing In order to characterize the resource requirements and operating considerations which will arise during the course of industry development before January 1, 1988, i.e., operations with a license prior to commercial recovery with a permit, it will be necessary to assume a scenario for these 249 activities. While many sequences of development are possible, depending upon management risk-taking attitudes, time and funding constraints, etc., a reasonable assumption is that the development effort would be divided into three major phases: o Bench scale research and development (R&D) o Pilot plant testing o Demonstration plant testing. It is likely that bench scale R&D will proceed through several phases from purely exploratory work to a point at which the objective of the work would be to provide design data for a pilot plant. The people involved in the research effort would support the operation of the pilot plant. An independent process evaluation would be carried out and presented to management in order to obtain approval to construct the pilot plant, since to this point no new facilities would have been required and all process and business options would have been open. Some of this may well have been carried out before the licensing process is initiated. This work should require less than 1 MT (1.1 tons) of nodules and could be carried out in a relatively small, conventional laboratory. Since an inconsequential amount of wastes would be generated, treatment and disposal should be typical of land mining operations. The construction and operation of a pilot plant would probably require significant additions of facilities and personnel. Key operational objectives of the pilot plant would include: a demonstration of the process concept in an integrated plant, i.e., with recycle, until steady state is achieved -- normally at least two months of operation would be required; acquisition of preliminary design data for key operations in the process; confirmation of projected materials consumption, product yields, and product purities; and process revisions and optimization studies as required. The pilot plant would be designed to validate all key steps by testing the smallest size equipment from which valid scale-up data could be obtained. This would require a plant with a processing capacity of the order of 1 MT (1.1 tons) per day and an inventory of as much as 100 MT (110 tons) of nodules. Not all processing steps would be carried out continuously nor would all commercial operating procedures be verified. For example, reduction gases (if required) would be obtained in purified form from commercial sources and not generated on site. The operation of the electrowinning facilities would not require that all the systems work needed in a commercial tank house, but would be more carefully set up. An entire run's worth of nodules might be ground and dried (if required) prior to initiating operations rather than continuously throughout the test. This equipment and associated test facilities could probably be located in a 3,670 m 3 (4,400 yd 3 ) multi-stage, heavy duty building. Any gaseous emissions from a pilot plant of this scale could be coped with in small, conventional equipment, and liquid wastes could probably be discharged to local systems after conventional treatment at the pilot plant. However, up to 100 MT (110 tons) of solid wastes could be generated, and its treatment and disposal could require careful attention. This quantity might be processed during one year of test work. The required inventory of 250 materials, supplies, and nodules would be significant. All environmental control measures deemed necessary in a commercial plant would be incorporated in the design of the demonstration plant. If possible, the demonstration plant would be located adjacent or close to the site selected for the commercial plant so that common services could be shared at a later date. Operation of the plant would require support from the community; in addition to power from local grids, water from local sources, roads and perhaps rail for transportation of materials and supplies, and an operating staff of at least 100 persons would be needed. In the course of one year test operations, the plant could generate as much as 100,000 MT (110,000 tons) of waste which would be representative of those expected from commercial operations. This quantity would be available up to five years prior to those from a commercial plant and should be ample to permit representative testing of the anticipated disposal method. Plant operations will be monitored to insure compliance with air and water quality standards routinely throughout the course of testing. The demonstration plant would probably have a prolonged start-up schedule, and might never meet target production rates. A favorable commercialization decision could still be made if design data showed that design or technology flaws could be eliminated at a reasonable cost, but a decision to proceed with detailed engineering on a commercial plant would probably not be made until the demonstration plant had been in operation for six months to a year. After that, the demonstration plant would be run to obtain data for process improvement and optimization. 251 Appendix 4. Public Involvement 1975 to Present 1. DOMES Technical Workshop Washington, D.C. April 29-30, 1975 Purpose: Technical review of DOMES I Work Plans. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environmental groups 2. DOMES Advisory Panel Meeting Seattle, Washington December 16, 1975 Purpose: To review DOMES activities and to provide advice to DOC in order to assure the relevancy of DOMES activities. Included presentations by principal investigators and discussions on how the research parts would ultimately fit together. Recommended funding for DOMES II. Comments: Announced in Federal Register and was open to public. Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environ- mental groups 3. DOMES Advisory Panel Meeting Washington, D.C. February 12-13, 1976 Purpose: Presentations and panel discussions of DOMES I research projects and the proposed DOMES II Technical Development Plan. Panel identified additional research tasks to be accomplished by DOMES II. Comments: Announced in Federal Register and open to public. Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environ- mental groups 4. DOMES Advisory Subpanel Meeting Seattle, Washington February 24, 1976 Purpose: Industry representatives presented a definition of the mining system parameters of importance to an environmental monitoring study of deep sea mining. Subpanel discussed DOMES II Technical Development Plan and made revisions to DOMES I TDP. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry and public. 252 Marine Minerals Workshop Silver Spring, MD March 23-25, 1976 Purpose: To provide an information base of past and present marine mineral- related activities sponsored by NOAA; encourage better communica- tions amongst investigators, develop information to further develop marine mineral resources in an environmentally safe manner. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environmental groups DOMES Advisory Panel Meeting Seattle, Washington June 2-3, 1976 Purpose: Presentation of present status of DOMES I project and schedule for publishing DOMES Preliminary Report. Members agreed to expand studies on distribution, abundance and heavy metal content of pelagic fish in DOMES area. Panel discussions dealt with mining system parameters, budget and DOMES program plan options, such as using satellite imagery to analyze plume trajectories. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environmental groups and the publ ic Briefings on Manganese Nodule Processing Study Washington, D.C. September 15-16, 1976 Purpose: Contractor briefing on nodule processing techniques that will be used for subsequent environmental and socio-economic impact studies using representative processing plant sites. Comments: Attended by Government, industry and public DOMES II Workshop Washington, D.C. November 17-18, 1976 Purpose: To review the DOMES I Progress Report. Presentations on execu- tive summary of DOMES Progress Report and a summary of critiques received on the report. Workshop sessions that recommended follow-on research for DOMES II. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environmental groups 253 9. Briefing and Progress Report on Nodule Processing Study Washington, D.C. February 1, 1977 Purpose: Contractor's findings thus far on manganese nodule processing plant parameters of importance for subsequent environmental and socio-economic impact studies. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, environmental groups 10. Final Briefing on Manganese Nodule Processing Impact Study Washington, D.C. April 5, 1977 Purpose: Contractors' briefing on second phase of contract with emphasis on at-sea processing and on transportation and waste disposal Comments: Attended by State and Federal Government, Industry, academia, environ- mental and public groups 11. DOMES II Scientific Workshop Seattle, Washington April 25-27, 1977 Purpose: Discuss, criticize and evaluate draft of DOMES II Project Development Plan Comments: Attended by scientists from NOAA, industry and universities 12. West Coast Manganese Nodule Processing Workshop Corvallis, Oregon June 15-16, 1977 Purpose: Oregon State University presentation on final draft of its report on identifying representative West Coast areas for nodule processing. Comments: Attended by Federal and State Government and industry 13. DOMES II Workshop Washington, D.C. January 10-11, 1978 Purpose: Discussions on the DOMES II Technical Development Plan that deals with the environmental monitoring of prototype or pilot scale mining systems tests and discussions on the proposed Preliminary Environmental Guidelines Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environ- mental groups 254 14. Manganese Nodule Processing Plant Location Criteria (Gulf Coast) Houston, TX January 25-26, 1978 Purpose: To validate physical and regulatory criteria for locating manga- nese nodule processing plant on Gulf Coast; develop a list of geo- graphical areas for further evaluation, apprise state and environ- mental interests of key requirements of a processing plant. Comments: Attended by Federal and State Government, industry, academia, environmental groups 15. Technical Review Meeting on Transportation & Manganese Nodule Processing Alternatives in Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii April 6-7, 1976 Purpose: Discuss the potential environmental, social and economic effects of processing in Hawaii Comments: Attended by NOAA, Hawaii State Government, industry and environ- mental groups 16. DOMES WORKSHOP Silver Spring, MD April 25-26, 1979 Purpose: Identification of the concerns over deep seabed mining which can be laid to rest based on DOMES research; identification of re- maining environmental concerns resulting from DOMES project that will require subsequent research to resolve; to broadly describe the required subsequent research and its importance. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, academia, environmental groups, industry 17. Manganese Nodule Processing Workshop Hilo, Hawaii August 1-2, 1979 Purpose: Discuss the results of preliminary assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects of locating processing plant in Puna or Kohala Districts of Hawaii island. Comments: Attended by Federal and State Government, academia, environmental and public groups, industry 18. Planning Conference for Research on Manganese Nodule Processing Waste Management Bethesda, MD September 11-12, 1979 Purpose: Identification of major environmental concerns associated with the disposal of processing wastes from future deep-sea mining 255 operations; assess the need for a Federal research program to address these concerns ; and critique a draft preliminary research program plan developed for the conference. Comments: Attended by Federal and State Government, academia, environmental and public interest groups, industry 19. Briefing on Land Mining Aspect of NOAA's Environmental Assessment of Deep Seabed Mining Washington, D.C. February 8, 1980 Purpose: Contractor's presentation and discussion on the environmental and socio-economic implications of a long delay in initiation of deep seabed mining. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environ- mental groups 20. Briefing on the energy implications of deep seabed mining Washington, D.C. February 12, 1980 Purpose: Contractor's present a comparison of the energy requirements and costs needed to produce equivalent amounts of metals from land vs deep seabed manganese nodules. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environ- mental groups 21. Briefing on applicable law concerning seabed mineral processing in California, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Silver Spring, MD. March 6, 1980 Purpose: To present contractor's findings and to solicit comments to be used in the preparation of the final report. Comments: Attended by Federal and State Government, industry, academia, environmental groups and public 22. Final briefing on land mining aspect of NOAA's environmental assessment of deep seabed mining Washington, D.C. July 30, 1980 Purpose: Contractor's final briefing on the environmental, social and economic implications of a long delay in initiation of deep seabed mining. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, acaademia, environ- mental groups, public 256 23. Final briefing on the energy implications of deep seabed mining Washington, D.C. August 27, 1980 Purpose: Contractor's final briefing on a comparison of the energy requirements and costs needed to produce equivalent amounts of metals from land vs deep seabed manganese nodules. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environ- mental and public groups. 24. Public Scoping Meeting Washington, D.C. September 4, 1980 Purpose: To determine the scope of the environmental and regulatory issues to be addressed and to identify the significant issues related to deep seabed mining. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, academia, environmental and public groups. 25. Marine Minerals Workshop on Five-Year Research Plan Bethesda, Md. September 16-17, 1980 Purpose: To identify research needed to be conducted in the next five years to be able to assess and predict the environmental effects from deep seabed mining and at-sea disposal of processing wastes. Comments: Attended by Federal and State Government, industry, academia, and environmental and public interest groups. 26. Public Hearing on Interim Regulations for Pre-Enactment Explorers Washington, D.C. December 17, 1980 Purpose: To solicit public comments on the interim regulations dealing with the registration of pre-enactment explorers and with the issuance by NOAA of emergency orders needed to prevent a significant adverse effect on the environment. Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, environmental groups. 27. Public Meeting on Regulations Discussion Paper Washington, D.C. December 17, 1980 Purpose: To solicit public comments on major deep seabed regulatory issues in order to be able to develop better proposed rules for promulgation in March 1981. 257 Comments: Attended by Federal Government, industry, and environmental groups. 28. Briefing for Environmental and Oceanic Organizations Washington, D.C. February 17, 1981 Purpose: To brief environmental and oceanic organizations on NOAA's Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy and its role in administering the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and the Ocean Thermal Energy Act. To invite these organizations to be active participants in NOAA's program Comments: Attended by Federal Government, environmental and oceanic representatives. 259 Appendix 5. Effects of Prohibition or Long Delay in Initiation of Deep Seabed Mining A NOAA-sponsored study by Dames and Moore (1980) has assessed the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of continued reliance on land mining to produce metals available from manganese nodules if seabed mining does not commence until the year 2010. The main reason for the study was to provide data on the environmental effects of land mining with which the effects of deep seabed mining can be compared. A secondary reason was to help elucidate a possible justification for deep seabed mining beyond its strictly economic advantages. Demand for the four major nodule metals was forecast based on recycling and substitution trends. Dames and Moore then assessed onshore sources, recognizing the variety of factors that result in long lead times involved in mine development. The types of ore bodies to be mined were then categorized and likely methods of mining predicted. Mining forecasts were projected (Tables 31-34 and Figures 30-33). Finally, the probable environmental and socio-economic effects of mining through the year 2010 were quantified (Tables 35 and 36; Figure 34). In this time frame, manganese availability could become a problem, par- ticularly for the U.S. There are relatively few producers in the world and there have been no major discoveries in the past 20 years. The U.S. has no known deposits that can be mined, even at substantially higher prices. World demand is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 2.93 per cent. In order to meet this demand and avoid shortages in the late 1980's and beyond, South Africa and other producers must keep expanding their mines or new sources like the seabed must be developed. There is no shortage of nickel in the world; worldwide reserves should be adequate to meet a forecast annual increase in demand of 2.78 percent. There is no shortage in sight for copper either; world reserves can easily meet the forecast increase in annual demand of 3.76 percent. Most cobalt production is related to nickel and copper since the minerals frequently occur together. Nevertheless, in order to meet the 3.38 percent increase in annual world cobalt demand that is forecast, substantial planning and capital investment are required to avoid problems. It is a distinct possibility that cobalt could be in short supply due to capacity limitations by the year 2010. The U.S. may be able to develop some domestic production, but will continue to rely on foreign mines through at least 2010. As with manganese, the continued flow of imports will depend on the maintenance of a reliable supply from South Africa. A portion of the aggregated impacts would occur if deep seabed mining did not take place prior to 2010. Several assumptions must be made, some of which are discussed in Section I.C: (1) the supply of metals produced from manganese nodules would reduce the production of these metals from land mining operations by the same tonnage; (2) five operations will come on stream during the period 1988-1995, three of which will be "three-metal" 3 million MT (3.3 million tons) per year mines and two of which will be "four-metal" 1 million MT (1.1 million tons) per year 260 TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WORLDWIDE SUPPLY OF NICKEL BY BY MAJOR DEPOSIT TYPE, 198 0-2 010 (1000 Short Tons) Year Copper -Nickel UDG Sulfide Nickel- -Cobalt Laterite S I960 *268 402 1985 269 499 1990 264 616 1995 293 717 2000 324 834 2 005 365 963 2010 412 1113 Cumulative 9281 22,075 Percent of Total Demand 30 70 surface mine. UDG ■ underground mine. 20r- 1960 1990 2000 -NICKEL SULFIDES TES 2010 YEAR Figure 30. — Projected annual nickel production from land resources, 1980 - 2010. 261 TABLE 32 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WORLDWIDE SUPPLY OF MANGANESE, 198 0-2 010 (1000 Short Tons) Year 1980 198S 1990 1995 2000 2 005 2010 Cumulative Percent of Total Demand Manganese S UDG 48 05 72 07 5551 8327 6414 962 7410 11,114 856 12,840 9890 14,836 11,427 17,140 237,819 356,728 40 60 S = surface mining* UDG = underground mining. 30r- 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR Figure 31. — Projected annual manganese production from land sources, 1980 - 2010. 262 TABLE 33 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WORLDWIDE SUPPLY OF COPPER BY MAJOR DEPOSIT TYPE, 198 0-2 010 (1000 Short Tons) Porphyry Copper-Cobalt Stratabound Copper-Nicke] Sulfide L Massive Sulfide Year S UDG S UDG UDG UDG 1980 3653 913 1623 800 932 1398 1985 4330 1443 1857 915 1043 1619 199 542 1806 2139 1054 1178 1885 1995 5832 3140 2478 1221 1339 22 05 2000 7197 3875 2886 1421 1533 2589 2 005 7479 6120 3375 1663 1766 3 052 2010 9150 7487 3965 1953 2 047 3608 Cumulative 185,017 110,902 80,269 39,536 43,115 71,603 By Deposit Type 295 ,919 119 ,805 43,115 71,603 Percent Total of Demand 55 .8 22 .6 8.1 13.5 S ■ surface nine. UDG • underground mine. 4 X z o o => § c a. - © w t> n l "Z • £ • O- N O Q. >» — h- *- CO O O OOO o O o o o o o © O ©O «"> ^ NN"»«- o z to co Ui 8 8E Q s ■ to _i < z < U-l hJ UI CQ h- < Pi H UI s s •*- in c u ss - fr* © — c +- o. n .o es O |T\ 00 CM K\ *» CMlO — CO ^J- UI c **. O i/i t- *— *b^ E UI S o©o©o o o ©o © O o o © o © © CM CM — JC CM CM S 2 c -o © — C L. — O O (0 vrf L. o <♦- -» 00 00 © o r* r» om • • • • • mmoo — r» r~ o o o o K"» k\ r* r- eo r» • ••••• oo oo — — «■ m O o — — ©CM • • • • • — — OO o f>lOO>CA©0 NNinmom • ••••• o o oo o o \r\ cm cm o f © "j"^ © ^ • • • • • — — oo — o m o © CM 0> *»• © • ■ • • — O OO MOIftO CM cm r- »t © • • • • o o oo 00 \Q o oo CM • • CM — ~"8 8 = =3 I 8 8 1 tn to o © to o (/I "O 1 1 © — 1 1 ■o *- •o in c *- 3 © 6 — to •*• 3 i_ -O CO © >. © > jC 4- MM WW L. a. © z m © u l_ i in °1 4- 3 © a. o O 0. to O S CM — — O OO O ift CM P» • • OO cm m — o CM oo o O oo o o m ui \o k>oo cm r« oo — \o OoO oo © o OoO — CM CM © jo .a © m CM S to o I If) m © © 4- ^o — — u *- o — 4- 3 © tO —I — O z o I I ©0>CAO • • • • o — — oo © jo jo m OlfMTl O • • • • OCM CM O © J3 JO 10 ©J3 JO © © JO JO (0 go go oo Oo r* r» oo 00 GO oo • • oo oo oo • • oo o to o , 8 ' to © in in © ©114- •o — — T> U «*- c © 3 © to JO _l © — 4- O «♦- z © o — • U 1 © 3 4- — J3 O O OtO Z OO oo • • oo — ro OO • • OO oo CTN o oo 8 to 3 I I O © m © c ?L ol c © s in*o © o «-TJ O 3 © o in x © c c © m o>- c US © «•» c c, OIC J5I in o • • «n i_ — u. ©cm Sci o © © 0«- c O CL i_ — — c o tt s e — jo -o t. c © l_ c o ^33 ■*- <4- in | i_ l_ t. >«r: o o © .COL 4- 4- es.— © Q © j= ■© c s >» c © © 3 — a. o. UEW J J cm© — c J= J= ., mm 4- 4- W >» E X t in— © >.© o ■o -o — u © o © a~ •*- ^O TJ c*- l_ 3 3 ro— 3 — — o « O O o © c c j: ex ii — MM h- in © J3 U CO 265 to -J OQ o CM d 00 Q O M as u ac n 2 M C CO •H 0) i-l -H *-> (0 3 O CO -n »- Q H •p <-» c CO 0) h E (0 8*6 iH «- & w c 1 ,••,, r-t CO CO (0 c c •H ■P (N-H 4J C O CO <1) to CO o ■P •H © 04 12 w ^» • CO p-t u (d CD O •p «JfM a o r- *■■* 3 0> 03 h cum w o co vo CD «~ f*> 00 vO *- <* m o o • • • • Ifl N O r (T> CT> in o r^ C* in o V£> cr> % * % *~ CTi »•» f CM o> 10 P» o ^- • • • CM l£> «- rsl • • • • Cft m o o «-». oo e* in m r*« CO oo t- o m <» •0 0) ^ (D o ^ o c fc « « » * % (T3 o in CN CN (*) <* J < \D «■• r» cr> o 04 >i >i >i a, rH iH r-l 3 04 04 a co 04 04 04 •o 3 3 0) c CO CO CO CO <0 CD E »«< rH .p C &OJ5 c T3 -h CO in m i (0 •p o in o> CM C* •" \0 <* «- co m CN CM CO 00 N O co p* o t- • • • • CM O O O in co ** o o> in r- CT* CN P* 00 o vo *- 00 m o o CO o o o ^ CN • • • • r* in o o in *- ** 10 in cm on in 00 r»* r* ro 00 *- *• p* CN H H O4 O4 04 O4 u . cu en m -i a t a 00 cO d •H CO a CU •H CO P 13 c >. cd CO ►J cu 1 •p 1 M • 3 o o S rH !Z 3 T3 •3 4-1 • F 5 cfl 3 33 43 CU rl • rl -H 4-1 •H 3 B 9 •S (X r-i co 4-1 43 CU 3 CU • CU 3 rl o CO cu el fa >> 3 4J CJ CO Off cfl I r3 3 o - ■s u s rl -H § rH •H •H CO cu a 4J rH rH CO <+-( CO T) CU o H & CU O CD rl 3 3 4-1 Pn -3 rl 4-1 co s 4J TO > rl O CO 4-1 44 «tf T3 3 CO co o M-i 43 4-1 CO CO PC M-4 4-1 CO CO i-H M-l O 4-1 8 4^ 3 4J -3 •H 3 3 3 O CD 3 CJ CO HO d o >> rl 3 rH O 3 cu M-l CU O • m 3 3 3 3 A! <-> CJ m rl U •H 4-1 •H CO rl CD fO rl 43 4-1 fa rl o Eo CO 00 • rl O 4-1 rH 3 O CO CJ 43 rl 3 4-1 CO 3 rH 3 O •H 60 O iH O CJ fa o fa "tH co a 3 91 4-1 3 Cfl <4-l u 3 iH 4-1 3 o 3 O 4J CU 4-1 o a CO 43 rl CU 00 •^ -C > 4J 4-1 00 3 O 4-1 0C CO X! CO i-H •H @ •H CU 43 CO t CJ 00 3 3 -H • O 3 3 4-1 CO ■H ffl-O 4-1 3 CJ rl 3 4-1 CU 3 44 3 rl 3 -H & a •H CO •H ^H o 3 iH 43 3 rH H-O 3 3 CO tH 4-1 CU rH o 4-1 CO 3 4J 4-1 •H S P CO H 43 >4-4 CO 00 00 a) -3 CU 43 CO 4-1 D CO 3 m CO r-{ CU CD CU CD «4-l •H O •H 3 iH •H rH 4-1 en 3 3 CO 3 00 CU •rl o > CJ rl •H 3 T3 CO iH 3 CO 3 3 S3 O S 3 3 CJ O MH « »H 4J cfl CU rl o cfl CU 3. U a 43 i-H 3 CO 4-1 «H •H 13 CO CO CO P-i CU rH 3 • c_> U2 43 3 o CO • 3 U rH fa rH •iH 3 rH •H CU T3 Cfl TJ rl I cu 4-1 CO & rl • O CJ U 3 CO CO Cfl iH CO T3 T3 43 •H a CH O 3 O •H 3 f>> 4-1 43 CU O & 3 3 4-1 & 43 4-1 • . O 3 CU O 4-1 •H 3. -3 rH CD 4-1 CO mo-o rH 4J U ■6 111 44 C CO rH 4-1 43 4J rH •H 3 X O § 43 CO u * e PS in iH CO •H O rH rl rl -H cfl 3 U 3 X 00 3 rl •H O O 00 > 43 4J la U 3 O & cu 43 3 CU 3 43 CU iH s 4J CO CJ 53 43 CU 00 tH O CO o 4-1 3 CO O 'H (X •H o SS rl > CO CJ 43 3 4-1 *3 rH rH 4-1 > cfl cu C 00 rl » rH fn 14-1 3 O O 3 e 4«! 4J •H 3 d 00 O g 44 O 60 iH O •H rH C3, 3 3 3 V O •« ) a rl 3 >» n 4-1 CU CO g O rl •H a O 43 3 CJ cu U CO 3 42 rj CU tH • rH •H 3 43 4-1 3 n-i cu 3 3 CJ 4-1 T3 43 T3 -H 4J rH cfl CU O 43 4J CO rl rl 4-1 o Url il 3 o M-l 3 CO 3 rH ^ CO cj a rl 00 CO CU CO -3 00 rl s: rl rH 3 3 rl rH 3 3 3 CU ^ i CO M-l M-4 coo •H •H «H rl CU 3 rj o >; •H 3 iH CJ •H 3 rl O O cu O | c_> <; w o o •H 4J W U 43 O Cfl a cfl S 3 o CJ o > O C_> O fa CJ fa CO -a T3 T3 •3 T3 •3 T3 T3 -3 T3 cu CU cu 3 CU 3 3 a) 3 CU CO 3 4-1 d 4J CO M rl rl rl U rl 3 ^ 3 )-i cu CU CU 3 3 3 3 ai CU CU 00 00 00 00 00 00 4-1 00 4-1 oc 3 3 § 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CO CO 3 3 3 3 3 CU 3 T3 X) T3 T) X) -3 U -3 u -3 a 3 3 3 3 3 e 3 & 3 W fa W W W W fa fa 3 /~> /-N ^s CO CO CO 3 •H 3 3 4-1 3 rH r-i rH 3 3 CU 00 3 3 CJ 3 rH O 3 o |T> CD cu •H rH 4J 3 CO CO 3 {*, rH rl 4-1 /^s rl -H cu 3 o 43 z-^ r"> 4-1 43 U 3 3 H CO a -3 ex. ♦ CD U a 3 4-1 4-1 O CO a) CJ cu a. co > CO Cv 3 3 3 •H 4-1 4-1 O o cfl 4J 3 Cu rH T) 4-1 CO CU 3 CU c rl cd U CO 4-1 >. 3 M CU CO rH CU o 3 U a 3 3 3 CO J*i CO CO 4-1 4-1 3 3 3 CO O t-{ ^ u a cu rl Cu 3 3 4-1 3 CO 43 44 3 > cu CU o ■a cu O rH CU •H O T3 3 CJ 43 4-1 ■a 3 4-1 3 3 3 3 3 3 rH Q 3 4J 3 O 4»S p- cu 43 cu "cfl 3 43 rH 3 O rH a 3 4J "S 8 o CO 43 co & CO $ 3 CO rH •H 4-1 43 CU 3 U CO 00 > rH ^ 43 rH 43 CU 43 CU rl Vi 43 cu cfl a 43 > 3 4J 3 3 6 CO rl 3 3 43 3 as CU PQ H 5 PQ 43 W 3 44 fa ooo 4J P 1 v-/ 3 rH s-x CU a \_^ 5^ 00 2 >-• 3 rl s^ | S^ 00 o v— ' 3 >-» 3 Ed PQ w FBI o EC H-l hJ CO a> u o o i-H < i-H CO CJ •H 43 53 a r* CO O CU CN o u < o 4-1 o 00 iH 00 co fa "i o o CU o S v -' 4-1 s 278 to •H •H 01 CtJ 00 ^ * 3 >, JZ rH 4-1 0) u s 3 •H l-i CO 3 < O Q (0 cfl 3 CU t-i M < < ui O Q CO O a (0 0) g to CD u < Cfl CO Tj iH s cfl 3 H CO CO H T1 0) M 60 CO 3 15 14-1 CD 0) CI) Prf J > CD r-4 60 * U CO CO -O rH o M 3 P* tH CO • 01 O -H 60 aj CO -H H > a *j •H cj J3 cfl CJ U 4J to 3 cfl •H CO •H CO Cfl CD CO XI •H rH CD S 4-> CD -a c 3 0) > o .a CO CD CD CO u CD XI C 3 CD > O ■8 CD CD CO u u 3 cd 13 T3 § § 01 CD > > o o ■s ■§ CD CD CO CD 01 CO M CD x> o ■8 0) CD CO 60 3 >> O ,£> •H i-H rH CO Cfl Cfl XI CD 60 O X) C -H ■ X3 CO Vj CJ CO CD CD CO Cfl . >-l CO cfl CO 43 73 (D CD T) >> cfl 4J Cfl rlH 9WH C CO O O CO O H CO 3 i-l o u ■H o 3 CD 4-1 CO 01 * CO* co « C •H «H •H C CO CD s* W to XI »H -H O M O XI rH 3 fe CO rH M-l CO O •H CO 3 01 O XI ■H CO CO Cfl CD J= r-l 4-1 tfl o 60 •* c c •H O 4J CO XI CO -2 Cfl CO 3 u a) X) c 3 o H CJ 01 01 CO CO CO tfl CD 01 CD U U in < < < s s s u M 1-1 01 CD CD XI X) TI c 3 § § OJ 0) 0) > > > o o o -9 rQ -a CO CO CO 0) CD CD 0) 0) CD C/J CO CO 60 XI x) 3 x) § 3 -h CO XI s 0) 3 s o o> O cfl CJ U En CD •h m CJ M o 0> 2 • CO CJ cfl H -H • M-i a CD U-l CO O -H 4-1 -H u Pd co a CO 4J 5 cfl 0) CO cfl Pn 3 tfl 4-1 a) O CO 4J CD 4.) CJ O cfl JS •H u U 4J 4J 0) 0) CO o P. c M 01 4-1 S -H 01 S CD 42 X 4J CD 15 60 -U 1-1 3 3 • X) -H CO O O 4J 3 J3 X) rH CO en Cfl C_> •H CO co !-l Cfl o rH O O •H CJ Cfl 4-1 rH X) 3 CJ fe 3 U 3 •h ,3 3 O CO 3. 4J rJ O M-l CJ O 3 CO <4-l -H •H K o CD rH X 4J CO 3 CO CO CD M CJ a 3 cfl CJ CJ •rl -r-l •H O 4-4 61) 3 4-1 4J O 3 rH M 3 CO cfl O tO MH rH ,£) M-l H XI rH CO O -H 4-1 0) 3 rH iH < S-i O co 60 Cfl 0> 01 g O CD 60 CD •H 3 XI 3 J3 3 o e 4J Cfl 4J O u o X) rH •H M 3 3 3 o O M-4 •H W -H CJ XI X) X) 0) OJ >-i rJ r-l 01 0) CD OJJ bO 60 c ctl § 3 3 X) TJ •n 3 3 3 W W w XI CD )-i CO 0) r-l X) XI CD CJ h 3 CD CD 61) 4J 3 cfl 3 CD XI l-l 3 W & tO CJ •H 3 U 4J 3 0) C5 "4-1 o 4-1 • " CO CO 0) l-i CO CD r-l CO O O S CO 3 g >^; Q O 3 s 6U 3 - - - O rH l-i !-J u CO 3 CD 01 XI X) XI CO 3 3 3 Cfl 3 3 3 0) u 0) ;? 01 3 > o > rH o 60 r" CD ,0 3 3 rO CO •H 4-1 CD CD 3 CO CD 3 3 3 CO CO CO 2S X) XI X3 XI CD 3 3 CD r-t l-l r-l r-l 3 3 CD CD 60 60 60 60 3 3 3 3 CO 3 crl CO X) X) X) XI 3 3 3 3 W W W w XI CD XI c 0) a 3 JS s CD rH ^d 3 o £ co & .Q cfl a) a- co 3 f a •H 0) rH 4-J M 3 cfl 0) CO 3 CO B 33 3 3 l-< o 4J r-l 3 4J 01 01 rH 73 tfl CD 3 -C CO -C s 5 3 CD CD 3 3 CD •H rH u In m O 4-J ?~~y u CO 3 4-> 4-1 4J CU CO u CD 3 CO O X) 3 3 4-1 * rH CD •H r-l rH ^— r o 3 CD a C/l 3 i CD CO 3 I 4-J ■a 4-1 4-1 3 0) CO AS CJ 3 r-l 01 X. 4J 3 0) rJ CO CO X) u < 3 3 rH , CO 01 M CJ •H 3 3 ■H a •H CO l-i M 3 tfl CD K O CO CD M-l O 4J 3 lo 4-> M 4-1 C>0 4J CO 3 cfl 3 XI 01 CJ O 01 U •H CJ 4J l-l •H XI 01 4J CO 3 §1 0) 3 279 CO o •H 4-1 CO •H U O 01 0) X co X) co a •h 3 fi - O 4J U-) (J •H O rH >4H ct) 3 CJ CO ^— ' QJ pq o •H a) co X o 4J mh o o cO co pl, a) _ 15 QJ -rl +J X co cj co ^0 -H ^ e n o cu M-j XI 3 3 3 cu co u o CO X X ■ a 4J o CO x i-i » cu Cfl 4-1 11 b CO -H Cfl rH •H 3 3 rl -H O >4-l CO n cu cfl c_> a o ri IH & 3 M & »4H CO XI CO 3 rl CO CU rH S CO S M 3 co 3 cfl •« vH CJ 4-1 •H 3 m-i cu •H i-H O < cfl PL, XI 3 X cfl 4J U Cfl ►9 •* Jz co cfl 3 r-j . ri <3 co cu cu 4J m-i -a co o 3 Cfl 4-1 3 HH -H iH 4J 3 3 cfl M O rH CU U CU -! 60 • s n •H « M CU CO PQ 3 rH CU O, X 4-1 CO CO 3 CU •rl CO CO 3 rl CO CU iH 4-1 U CO CU & X •H O CO •H 4-1 4-1 CJ CO U Cfl CO W X 3 T3 CO 3 (0 -3 3 « cfl 4-1 r4 CJ O •H HH 4J 3 CJ CO r< CU cfl pq 3 cfl CJ (X CJ O X 4-1 JO & M 3 O 4J o 3 -rl « XI 4-1 co cfl U U -H •H CU O Cfl 4-1 O a. 4-1 to cfl eg 3 cj cfl •iH co 3 « r^-H >> CU rH XI Q» 60 4J 4J 3 CO •HSU CO 60 3 CO 3 O •h m .« o 60 4-1 3 •H 3. I-i 3 a CO Mh CO 4J •rl ■3 •9 cu cu X! XI 4-1 4J CO 8* fl MO 3 3 M 3 -H 60 O M rl 3 3 3 X> iH cfl CU r* rl 0) § cu > o ■8 3 cu co Cfl cu u < s rl CU XI 3 3 cu CU CO cfl cu u < o Q rl cu T3 § cu cu CO cfl 3 3 CU CU CO cfl CU rl < u cu •3 3 3 cu cu co cfl CJ M •H 3 rl cfl Ql CU Xi <£ X iH rH rl CO Cfl rl U 4-J 3 CU CU X! CJ 4J X> -3 3 § CO CO CO X> •H & rl O MH pM m o co u cu 4-1 § . H CO cfl 3 ■W O CO O cfl 60 O CO CJ rH § o CO CO o CJ CO CU SB rl cu T> 3 3 CU > o ■8 0) cu co cfl cu rl o o rl CU •3 3 3 o X CO cu 0) co o CJ •H X 01 s 14-1 o 3 CU 4-J CO 0) ps *J 60 •5 4-1 to 0) 3 H o •1-1 3 s O a O •H •H X X cu cu 2 s IH I4H O O M-I Uh rH rH 3 3 O O fi 3 0) cu 4-1 ■u CO CO QJ (1) 5 s X X 4-1 4-1 3 3 O O CO 03 3 3 •H •H CO CD QJ QJ 4J 4-J •H •H CO CO 60 00 c c •H •H 4-1 4J CO CO QJ QJ c 3 rl M O O 3 3 CO 3 4-1 cfl 4J CO T3 CU rl CU 60 3 3 TJ 3 W •3 CU U §0 -a 3 w ft •3 4) rl CU 60 3 3 ■3 r3 XI CU rl cu 60 j •3 ■3 cu u cu 60 3 3 •a 3 w T3 QJ rl QJ 60 9 a w xj cu u cu 60 XI 3 W XI cu rl CU 60 3 3 XI 3 U XI QJ 3 QJ 4J cfl 3 XI QJ 3 x) cu 4-1 X) co fl) I-i cfl •rl c rl cu s rl 0) QJ on 4-1 X rl QJ rH Cfl i crt 4-1 Pn 0) QJ T) 3 I-I CO ri 4-> >H £ rH w CO O QJ XI 0) rl QJ 60 8 XI 3 W XI XJ QJ QJ rl rl OJ QJ 60 60 3 3 cfl m ■3 X) 3 3 W W XI 8 •5 4-1 3 O CJ X) 3 cu 3. CO 3 •H CJ cu a CO cfl QJ rl < 3 O •H X 3 2 o QJ O CO CO 3 •H 4-1 rH CO 3 3 3 X rl O u CO X co 3 3 3 CO rl •H 3 4-J X 4-) X X a, 3 cj •H rH -H 60 3 3 3 rl rH 3 •s ■* • 3 3 & CJ W X rH CO £ 3 >>M rl P3 3 V O •H "^ rl 3 O CO cfl ^i co 3 CO 3 4-1 cu a •H 4-1 CO QJ rH 1" 3 X 3 5 3 QJ X) cfl 3 rH cu 3 X CO S -w > O M 3 /"> XI co •H 3 rl 4J 3 rH 3 3 l*i § rH CU 4J rH 3 U U 4-1 rH O co 3 rl 3 3 4-1 3 , 3 rH iJ QJ X 330 rH 3 O fe CO X) •H CO >, cu - QJ QJ ftHrl B x) ^ QJ -H rH U 4J 3 rl 4-J 3 ■u 01 OJ cfl CO QJ CO M i-H Cfl <-A X •H I-i X QJ CO X ^ ■u > cfl 3 OJ IB -1 281 Figure 35. — Photos of Surface Plume During Test Mining 283 VII. Index of Major Subjects not Identified in Detailed Tables of Contents that Precede Each Section (Pages 1, 11, 143, 189, 211) Paae Birds 29 CLB mining system 216 DOMES Project 15 First generation mining 259, 268, 271-273 Hydraulic mining systems 216 Mine site size 137-138 Mine site sub-area 213 Mining test site 97-98 Rain of fines 62, 95-99, 128 Recolonization 93, 123, 128-130 Site-specific EIS 103-108 5VU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-339-679:8172 CONVERSION FACTORS English to Metric - Rate Metric to Engl ish 1 nrni/hr = 1 knot = 1.852 km/hr 1 smi/hr = 1.61 km/hr - Distance 1 in = 2.54 cm 1 ft = 0.3 m 1 nmi = 1.85 km 1 smi = 1.61 km 1 km/hr =0.54 nmi/nr 1 km/hr = 0.62 smi/hr 1 u = 0.0000396 in = 10~ 6 m 1 mm = 0.0396 in 1 cm = 0.396 in 1 m = 3.3 ft 1 km = 0.54 nmi 1 km = 0.62 smi .000001 m - Weight 1 lb = 0.45 kg 1 ton = 2,000 lbs = 0.91 MT - Area 1 ft 2 = 0.092 m2 1 a = 0.4 ha 1 nmi 2 = 3.43 km 2 1 kg = 2.2 lb 1 MT = 1 tonne = 2,200 lbs = 1000 kg = 1.1 tons 1 m 2 = 10.89 ft 2 1 ha = 2.5 a 1 km 2 = 0.29 nmi 2 - Volume 1 ft 3 = 0.0278 m 3 1 U.S. gal = 3.78 1 1 m3 = 35.937 ft 3 1 1 = 0.264 U.S. gal NOAA--S/T 81-42 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IPENN STATE U ilium AD0DD7DTMD0t,D «o