Deep seabed mining draft environmental impact statement

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY METALS ENERGY METALS
METALS ENERGY METALS ENERGY
ENERGY METAL c -NERGY METALS
METALS ENERr 'TALS ENERGY
ENERGY MF rGY METALS
METALS E' ' SENERGY
ENERGV' 'METALS
METAI 'IERGY
ENERGY M 3Y METALS

Deep Seabed Mining
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Issuing an
E) ..icense to Ocean Mining Associates
TD
.1025 )EPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
D44 :)nI Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
`� 1984 1984
c.2

O,'[ Deep Seabed Mining

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

LAIES Of -

Prepared by:
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

May 1984

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA.
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-24 13

CD
0

Property of CSC Library

oN~~~ ~U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A[~~~~~~~~~ ~John V. Byrne, Administrator
[-
National Ocean Service
Paul M. Wolff, Assistant Administrator

iii

DESIGNATION: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

TITLE: Deep Seabed Mining Exploration License

ABSTRACT: This DEIS 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 issuing a deep seabed

mining exploration license to Ocean Mining Associates (OMA). Exploration

by OMA will be authorized by license from the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for ten years in the Pacific Ocean

equatorial high seas, roughly between Central America and Hawaii. OMA

proposes to use acoustic data, photography, satellite navigation, and to

sample by means of grab samplers, dredge baskets, box cores, and gravity

corers to delinate its exploration area. The worst case potential for

impact involves loss of 54 kg of benthic biomass, from the seafloor

three miles deep in the Pacific Ocean. OMA's exploration activities

will provide better understanding of environmental impacts of deep seabed

mining and ultimately to reduce dependence on and impacts of land based

mining, and will provide a reliable source for nationally strategic

metals.

No onshore activities or equipment tests are authorized by issuance

of the exploration license.

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

CONTACT: James P. Lawless, Chief
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Room 105
Washington, D.C. 20235
(202) 653-7695

COMMENTS: The draft of this environmental impact statement was filed
with EPA on May 18, 1984. Comments are due by July 13,
1984. A public hearing on the DEIS will be held in Room
BlO0, 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235,
on July 3, 1984 at 9:00 a.m.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I.A Purpose and Need for Action . . . . . . . . ....... 3

I.B Site-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . ....... 4

II. ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 11

iII. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF APPLICATION AREAS . . . . ....... 17

IV. LICENSE ACTIVITY IMPINGEMENT ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT . . . . .. 33

IV.A Activities Permissible Under the Act . . . . ...... 33

IV.B Proposed Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 34

IV.C Use Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 39

V.A Exploration Activities . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 39

V.B Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . 41

V.C Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 43

VI. MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

VI.A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit . 48

VI.B Monitoring Plan . . . . . . . . . .......... . . 48

VII. ONSHORE . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 53

VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

IX. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AGENCIES TO WHOM EIS SENT . 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Page

X. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 59

Appendix 1. Summary of PEIS Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix 2. Marine Research Efforts - Recent Findings . . . . 71

Appendix 3. Onshore Research Efforts - Recent Findings . . . . 81

Appendix 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix 5. Acronyms, Abbreviations, Glossary . . . . . . . . . 95

Appendix 6. Federal Agencies Review of License Applications . 105

Appendix 7. Figures and Tables from License Application
Submitted by Ocean Minerals Company (OMCO) . . . 107

Appendix 8. Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions . . . . . . . . 133

vii

Figures

Section and Number Title Page

I.A Introduction

1 Area of Main Commercial Interest
and EIS Affected Environment with
DOMES Test Site Locations . . . . . . 5

III. Affected Environment

2 Clarion - Clipperton Area in Relation
to Eastern Section of DOMES Area . . 18

3 General Surface Circulation in
Eastern North Pacific . . . . . . . . 20

X. Appendix 1

4 Diagram of a Mining System and
Identification of Its Major
Components ............. 64

X. Appendix 7

7-A Tropical Storm Source Region . . 108

7-B Normal Storm Tracks . . . . . . . . . 109

7-C Salinity, Temperature, Dissolved
Oxygen Profiles ...... .. . . . 110

Tables

X. Appendix 1

1 Deep Seabed Mining Consortia
Involving United States Firms . . . . 62

Appendix 2

2 Deep Seabed Mining Perturbations
and Environmental Impact Concerns . . 72

Tables (continued)

Section and Number Title Page

X. Appendix 7

7-A Annual Wind and Sea and Swell
Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . 111

7-B Frequency of Eastern North
Pacific Tropical Storms . . . . . .

7-C Frequency of Occurrence of
Tropical Cyclones at the
Three Study Locations . . . . . . . 112

7-D Organic Carbon and Nitrogen
Values of Material in Sediment
Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

7-E Trace Metal Concentrations
of Material in Sediment
Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

7-F Water Column Nutrient
Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . 114

7-G Water Column Dissolved Metal
Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . 115

7-H Water Column Particulate Trace
Metal Contents. . . . . . . . . . . 116

7-I Day and Night Abundance Estimates
of Invertebrate Zooplankton in
Eastern Tropical Pacific . . . . . . 118

7-J Larval Fishes Collected in Bongo
Net Hauls ............. 123

7-K Taxonomic Account of Fish Retained
in Free-Fall Grab Samplers . . . . . 127

7-L Invertebrate Species Collected
With Basket Samplers . . . . . .*. . 128

7-M Summary of Photographs Analyzed
for Epibenthic Organisms . . . . . . 132

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has

prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to Section

109(d) of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act ("the Act"), NOAA

regulations implementing the Act (15 CFR Part 970, Deep Seabed Mining

Regulations for Exploration Licenses) and Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Act authorizes the Adminis-

trator to issue licenses for exploration and permits for commercial recovery

of manganese nodules in the deep seabed, subject to appropriate terms,

conditions, and restrictions (TCRs).

Under Section 4(5) of the Act, exploration means:

(a) any at-sea observation and evaluation activity which has, as its
objective, the establishment 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;

NOAA proposes to issue an exploration license subject to TCRs (15

CFR 970.500) for a period of ten years to carry out exploration activities

as set forth in an application for a deep seabed mining license submitted

to NOAA by Ocean Mining Associates (OMA). This EIS assesses the potential

environmental impacts of issuing an exploration license to OMA and of

alternatives to issuance of the exploration license.

The license activities will take place in the area between the

Clarion - Clipperton fracture zones in the Northeast Equatorial Pacific

Ocean, between Central America and Hawaii. These activities would assist

OMA in delineating its exploration area for manganese nodules, which

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 for

high-temperature alloys used in aircraft. Cobalt, imported mainly from

Zaire, is used in the electrical industry for permanent magnets. 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.

OMA submitted two applications for exploration licenses pursuant to

NOAA regulations in early 1982, which are now consolidated into one applica-

tion. The areas applied for were in conflict with other deep seabed

applications filed with NOAA. By January 1984, OMA and three other

applicants filed amendments that resolved these conflicts; OMA set forth

approximately 156,000 km2 included in its amended submission.

This EIS summarizes the findings of NOAA's programmatic environmental

impact statement (PEIS) of September 1981, then assesses issues related

to issuing the OMA license. OMA's proposed activities as set forth in

its exploration plan are designed to delineate further the extent and

distribution of nodules, the topography of the seafloor, including obstacles,

and properties of seafloor sediments in order to establish an area for

commercial recovery from the larger exploration area. Specifically, OMA

proposes to use acoustic data, photography, satellite navigation, and

samples by means of grab samplers, dredge baskets, box cores, and gravity

corers to delinate its exploration area. The worst case potential for

impact involves sampling with dredge baskets and the resultant loss of

54 kg of benthic biomass, about one millionth of that in OMA's license

area. Sampling impacts could also be caused by the other two U.S.

applicants contemplating this type of sampling and by the French and

Japanese consortia should they sample in this manner. Japan has announced

its intention to test a hydraulic mining system around 1990. Although

these activities appear to have no potential for significant environmental

impact and would not normally require preparation of an EIS, Section

109(d) of the Act nonetheless requires that NOAA prepare this EIS to

assess the impacts of issuing any license.

NOAA's environmentally preferred alternative is to issue, rather

than delay or deny issuing, the exploration license to provide better

understanding of environmental impacts of deep seabed mining and to reduce

the reliance on and impacts of land based mining. This conclusion is

consistent with the purposes of the Act and reduced dependence on foreign

sources of strategic metals.

No endangered species are expected to be affected by OMA's proposed

activities. Based on consultation with other Federal agencies and the

opportunity for public review and comment, NOAA's proposed TCRs provide

for OMA:

Xii

1) to report any endangered species that it observes;

2) to report and protect cultural resources, such as shipwrecks,
that it discoveres in the license area; and

3) provide a monitoring plan and environmental baseline information
in accordance with NOAA Technical Guidance Document (TGD) at
least one year in advance of any proposed equipment test, so that
a supplement to this EIS can be prepared on the proposed activities.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a general

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for all

vessels operating under NOAA exploration licenses.

No onshore processing activities are proposed in OMA's application.

Based on the foregoing analysis and information, NOAA has tentatively

determined that the exploration proposed in OMA's application cannot reasonably

be expected to result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of

the environment (15 CFR 970.506). This determination is necessary before

NOAA may issue a license for deep seabed mining exploration activities.

This EIS also summarizes NOAA's environmental research since 1981

concerning unresolved issues in the PEIS.

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... 3

1. A. Purpose and Need for Action . .. .. . ... . ... .. 3

1. B. Site-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I. Introducti on

1l.A Purpose and Need for Action

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in

consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Department in which the

Coast Guard is operating, has prepared this draft site-specific environ-

mental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to Section 109(d) of the Deep

Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (the Act) and 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This site-specific EIS assesses the

potential environmental impacts of the site delineation and other exploration

activities proposed in the application of OCEAN MINING ASSOCIATES (DMA)

for issuance of an exploration license under the Act. The EIS does not

assess the impacts associated with at-sea mining equipment tests. Such

tests will be prohibited under the license until NOAA has prepared a

supplemental site-specific EIS incorporating additional environmental

and technological data submitted by the consortium to NOAA, and NOAA has

modified OMA's license to authorize tests in accordance with appropriate

terms, conditions and restrictions.

This site-specific EIS will:

1) describe the area in the eastern North Pacific Ocean where

OMA proposes to conduct exploration activities;

2) describe the type of activities that will be conducted

under the exploration license; and

3) assess the environmental impacts expected to be associated

with these exploration activities.

This EIS fulfills the requirement of Section 109(d) of the

Act to prepare an EIS prior to issuing an exploration license.

In September 1981 NOAA published a Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (PEIS) that described the results of the Deep Ocean Mining

Environmental Study (DOMES), a five-year project designed to examine potential

effects from nodule mining, and assessed the foreseeable environmental

impacts from the exploration for manganese nodules under a license and the

commercial recovery of the nodules under a permit. The area of main

commercial interest described in the PEIS is shown in Figure 1. Also

shown within this area is the smaller area that encompasses the area as

applied for in license applications and that is the subject of this EIS.

In accordance with the intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's

(CEQ) NEPA regulations, and the administrative procedures outlined in

the PEIS, this EIS focuses solely on the specific major action, i.e.,

the issuance of a site-specific exploration license. This site-specific

EIS "tiers" off the broader PEIS by summarizing the PEIS analysis and

incorporating the major discussions by reference, then covering issues

specific to the license application. However, to make it clear to the

reader that the exploration activities described in this EIS eventually

will lead to commercial recovery, a comprehensive summary of REIS issues

associated with commercial scale recovery is included as Appendix 1.

For a more detailed discussion of the technology and environmental

aspects, the reader is referred to the PEIS which is available to all

interested persons from the NOAA, Ocean Minerals and Energy Division

(N/ORMl), Room 105, 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235

[Telephone: (202) 653-8257].

L.B Site-Specific Considerations

NOAA is aware of the potential complications from publicly

disclosing the precise locations of the requested U.S. license areas,

600N I

6JDa @DOMES Study Site
Locations:
40� _ A- 8027'N, 150�47'W
B- 11o43'N, 138024'W
C - 15000'N, 126000'W

200 - c

o00- G a Area of Main Commercial -
Interest

20o� -

400 _ -

6 0�S I I I I I I I I I0
1000E 140� 1800 1400 1000 60�W

Figure 1. Area discussed in EIS in relalion to original area of main commercial inlerest (i.e., the DOMES area).

through the EIS process, prior to the public disclosure of areas to be

requested by other nations from the Law of the Sea Preparatory Commission.

The objectives of NOAA, in considering how to prepare this EIS,

are both to avoid the adverse foreign affairs and commercial consequences

NOAA believes would result from premature disclosure of the U.S. site

coordinates (or other information from which site location can be derived)

and to meet our NEPA obligations. With these objectives in mind, NOAA

has reviewed the site-specific confidential information provided by OMA,

and has determined that, except for site coordinates, use of confidential

information at this time is not necessary to meet either the requirements

of NEPA or NOAA's own related decision-making needs.

As to the coordinates themselves, NOAA believes it is necessary

to include them in the record on a confidential basis for internal decision-

making purposes. However, on the basis of OMA's request for their confidential

treatment and NOAA's preliminary conclusion that the coordinates are

likely to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information

Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), NOAA is

placing the coordinates and a map of the proposed site in a confidential

appendix which will not be distributed to the public.

NOAA has prepared a separate EIS for each of four license

applicants. In each of these EISs, NOAA's approach has been to use a single

area as the "affected environment". The area is large enough to include

all proposed U.S. sites, and presumably also includes large portions of

all Final Settlement Agreement sites (i.e., those sites agreed upon

among consortia which have filed applications in the Federal Republic of

Germany, France, Japan, United Kingdom and U.S. to resolve area conflicts)

but the area described is still considerably smaller than the DOMES area

characterized in the PEIS. The site-specific data in this EIS were

acquired from the public domain, including non-confidential data in all

U.S. applications for NOAA licenses for exploration. As a result, the

"affected environment" chapters in each applicant's EIS are identical.

However, the applicants' descriptions of their areas, while compatible

with the PEIS description, do differ slightly from each other owing to

the fact that the sites do not coincide.

Although NOAA has already stated in the PEIS and license

regulations that the proposed exploration activities have no potential

for significant environmental impact, NOAA has taken a "worst case"

approach by characterizing in some detail the proposed exploration

activity that would be likely to disturb the seafloor the most (such as

basket samplers). This activity, if carried out, would be carried out

in the applicant's proposed license area (around 156,000km2 in area)

which is located in the "affected environment."

NOAA intends to provide the additional site-specific data as

soon as possible. Thus, when the Preparatory Commission situation is

resolved, NOAA will reconsider the need for confidentiality and whether

to supplement each EIS. In any event, should any licensee propose at-sea

testing during the license phase, NOAA must supplement the EIS with test

details and site-specific baseline data, including those acquired specifically

for the test, prior to authorizing the test. NOAA expects that the test

location would be public information at that time, and NOAA will independently

evaluate the need for confidential treatment of any other information.

PAGE

-II. ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . 11

11. Alternati ves

The alternatives available to NOAA, involving the issuance of an

exploration license, include.

1) issue the license (the proposed action);

2) delay issuing the license; and

3) deny issuance of the license.

NOAA's PEIS determined that the initial license phase exploration

activities -- which are the subject of this site-specific EIS (Section

IV) -- have no potential for causing significant environmental impacts

(15 CFR 970.701(a)). The at-sea mining system tests -- which will be

addressed in a subsequent site-specific EIS with additional environmental

data gathered by industry during these initial exploration license activi-

ties -- were also judged to have no potential for causing significant

environmental impacts because of the short duration of the tests. Terms,

conditions and restrictions (TCRs) will be issued with the license to

ensure the protection of the environment and to assess the adequacy of

NOAA's previous prediction of no significant environmental impacts from

site delineation or testing activities. The proposed TCRs are in

Appendix B.

Issuance of the license could be delayed until a better understand-

ing of the environmental effects is developed -- through NOAA research or

monitoring of at-sea equipment tests - or until U.S. site coordinates

are made public after the identification of all international sites

with the Preparatory Commission. This, however, would be a disadvantage

to U.S. applicants who require site tenure in order to proceed with the

expense of detailed exploration needed to lead to the development of mines,

and would delay the acquisition of the additional environmental data

needed for predicting future mining impacts. Monitoring of the at-sea

mining system tests, which NOAA expects to take place at publicly-disclosed

locations in the Clarion - Clipperton area, will also provide this needed

i nformation.

Denying the issuance of the license would prevent the development

of the seabed mining industry, would not be environmentally advantageous

because it would prevent or delay indefinitely the development of a

better understanding of the environmental effects, and would necessitate

continued reliance on land based mining and an increased dependence on

foreign sources of strategic metals. This alternative also would be

inconsistent with two of the purposes of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral

Resources Act, i.e., "to establish ... an interim program to regulate

the exploration for and commercial recovery of hard mineral resources of

the deep seabed by United States citizens;" and, "to encourage the continued

development of technology necessary to recover the hard mineral resources

of the deep seabed."

NOAA's preferred alternative is to issue the license subject to

proposed TCRs (Appendix 8). NOAA has certified OMA's application as

eligible for license issuance pursuant to the requirements of NOAA's

regulations. Before the license is issued, the Act (105(a)) in summary

requires NOAA to determine that the exploration activities: 1) will not

unreasonably interfere with the freedom of the high seas; 2) will not

conflict with any international obligation of the U.S. established by

treaty or convention; 3) will not create a situation which may lead to a

breach of international peace and security involving armed conflict;

4) cannot reasonably be expected to result in a significant adverse effect

on the quality of the environment; and 5) will not pose an inordinate

threat to the saftey of life and property at sea. The analysis-*and

information in this EIS supports a determination by NOAA that the

exploration proposed in the application cannot reasonably be expected to

result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment

(15 CFR 970.506).

In addition to alternatives to issuance of the exploration license,

the PEIS also identified three issues associated with licensing where

several alternative approaches to each issue have environmental consequences:

environmental monitoring; the proximity of mine sites to each other; and,

stable reference areas (PEIS, pages 131-135). Because the majority of

activities conducted during exploration have no potential for significant

impact and no monitoring is required, environmental monitoring is a

license phase issue only in relation to mining system tests. Because of

the nature of the initial exploration activities, i.e., site delineation

only, the only monitoring required at this stage will be for fulfilling

the requirements of the NPDES general permit (see Section VI.A) and for

reporting the sighting of any endangered species and the discovery of

cultural materials such as shipwrecks. Mitigation is also not appropriate

at this stage since there is not expected to be any significant adverse

environmental effects during either site delineation or at-sea equipment

test mining activities (PEIS, pages 102-109). However, the proposed TCRs

would impose on the licensee a continuing responsibility to conduct

operations to assure protection of the environment and so as not to create

a significant adverse effect on the environment; and NOAA has authority to

amend the TCRs and to modify or suspend license activities to avoid significant

adverse environmental effects.

The proximity Of mine sites, although largely a permit phase concern,

will be examined during the license phase. As exploration activities

progress and mining system test sites and potential commercial mine sites

are delineated, the alignment of these sites will be evaluated in the

context of NOAA research to determine if proposed site spacing is a problem.

Research results from ongoing projects may provide insight into minimum

safe spacing. The areas subjected to mining system tests during exploration

will be small and the alignment of these test sites is not expected to produce

any significant adverse environmental effects.

The establishment of stable reference areas (SRA) will not occur

at least until the time of issuance of a commercial mining permit. However,

research required to develop criteria to be used in selecting sites for

SRA is currently being funded by NQAA based an recommendations of the

National Research Council (See Appendix 2). The development of a scientific

basis for designating SRA is environmentally preferred over allowing

their designation on a random basis.

PAGE

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF APPLICATION AREAS . . . . . . . . . . 17

III. A. Upper Water Column and Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . 17

III. B. Lower Water Column and Seafloor . . . . . . . . . . 25

III. Affected Environment of Application Areas

As was explained in the Introduction, the description of the

Affected Environment in each of the four EISs prepared by NOAA is identical.

The description includes a summary of the DOMES baseline data found in the

PEIS followed by the non-confidential data from the applications of each

consortium. Not all of the DOMES parameters were measured by the consortia

as part of their pioneer effort (some measured other parameters; some

monitored tests in other oceans). However, all parameters will be measured

in the future, prior to mining system tests, when it is important to

augment the DOMES findings. The majority of the consortia data are

taken directly from the license application submitted by Ocean Minerals

Company (OMCO)I/ and, unless otherwise identified, should be credited

to that applicant. Additional data were provided by the Kennecott Consortium

WKCON), the Ocean Management, Inc. consortium (OMI), and the Ocean Mining

Associates consortium (OMA). The license area applied for by each consortium

is situated between the Clarion and Clipperton fracture zones and lies

entirely within the larger 13 million km2 area studied during DOMES

(Figure 2). The area of the Clarion - Clipperton fracture zone outlined

in Figure 2 is 4.6 million km2. The total area applied for by all

U.S. applicants lies within this area and is 648,000 km2, approximately

14% of the total Clarion - Clipperton area and 5% of the DOMES area

characterized in the PEIS.

III.A Upper Water Column and Atmosphere

The Clarion - Clipperton area is under the influence of

the Northeast Tradewinds for most of the year. Eastern Pacific tropical

storms and cyclones are most frequent in late summer and early fall.

1/ Because of the volume of data presented as figures and tables in OMCO's
application, they have been referenced in this section as Table or
Figure 7-A, B, etc., and attached to the EIS as Appendix 7.

30�
Legend Guadalupe I. ,

DOMES Area

Clarion-Clipperton
~ Hawaii Area 200 NM
200

i,.4~ ~~~~~r~'Fatre 70ore Clarion i.
150� 10 0 ,

I> :I

100 - Clipperton I{
200 NM C A
---L.,.e ~200 NM
50 a
* Fanning I. OPPe
l Christmas I.
00
1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100

Figure 2. Clarion-Clipperton Area Discussed in EIS (which includes all license areas applied for in U.S.) in
relation to eastern section of DOMES area with Sites A, B, C.

j19

Oceanroutes, Inc. assembled detailed weather and sea-

state statistics for OMCO for three sites within the Clarion - Clipperton

zone which are representative of OMCO's application area. Each of these

three sites - designated I, II, and III - is at a location close to DOMES

Sites C, B, and A, respectively. Table 7-A shows a summary of the annual

statistics characterizing the wind and the sea and swell conditions for

the three sites. Prevailing winds have an easterly component during all

months. Predominant swell direction is from the east to northeast due to

the influence of the tradewinds. Tropical cyclones usually occur within

the Clarion - Clipperton zone from May through November with maximum

occurrence likely during July, August, and September (Table 7-B). OMCO

Site I - in the vicinity of DOMES Site C - has the highest frequency of

occurrence of storms among the three sites (Table 7-C). Knowledge of the

tropical storm source region (Figure 7-A) and the historical corridors

for cyclone tracks (Figure 7-B) allows an estimate of storm formation to

site impact time to be calculated.

Surface currents in the eastern tropical Pacific (Figure 3),

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 less) and vary markedly in speed with depth, location, and

season.

Surface current measurements in the vicinity of OMCO's

three study sites were taken during DOMES. Measurements during August,

September, and October, 1976 at DOMES Site A in the North Equatorial

Countercurrent showed the mean current direction to be eastward at an

30o

deHawaii Mexico
,.Hawaii
20� - a
North Equatorial Current .

100- _~ > North Equatorial Counter Current

00 0
South Equatorial Current

100 -

Samoa
, Tahiti
200 I I I I I I I I
20�
1700 180� 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000

Figure 3. General surface circulation scheme in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, with DOMES site stations A, B, C (Ozturgut et al., 1978).

average speed of 20 cm/s at 20 m depth. The speed of 10 cm/s recorded at

100 m remained nearly constant to the maximum 300 m depth of current meter

deployment where a speed of 12 cm/s was recorded.

Measurements at DOMES Site B during March and April

1976, showed the mean current direction to be eastward with the speed of

3 cm/s at 20 m increasing to almost 20 cm/s at 200 m and 300 m.

Measurements at DOMES Site C, located within the westward-

flowing North Equatorial Current, showed a previously undetected subsurface

current flowing in the opposite direction to the surface flow. The current

at 20 m was westward at 17 cm/s; however, the mean current at 200 m and

300 m was toward the east at about 6 cm/s.

Seasonal variations also occur in the velocity of the

currents. For example, during 1976 the North Equatorial Current fluctuated

from a velocity of 5 to 30 cm/s in the spring to 5 to 15 cm/s in the fall.

The thermal structure of this area of the tropical

Pacific Ocean is characterized by a well-defined surface mixed layer

overlaying a strong permanent thermocline. Temperature decreases with

depth, reaching about 4.5�C at 1000 m, and exhibits very small seasonal

changes. The mean mixed layer depth measured at all stations during DOMES

was 36 + 32 m during the summer and 55 + 18 during the winter.

The thermocline extended to a depth of 150 + 31 m in summer and to

130 + 18 m in winter.

The salinity in the surface mixed layer showed very

little seasonal variation, with a mean value of 34.3 '/oo for summer and

winter. The dissolved oxygen concentrations in the mixed layer are

near saturation. During DOMES, oxygen concentrations just below the

mixed layer were above saturation (400 - 500 ug-at/1) in certain

locations because the bulk of the phytoplankton were located at these

depths. An oxygen minimum zone, with concentrations as low as 1 ug-

at/i, was found between 300 m and 500 m depth.

Data collected by OMCO during exploration cruises show the

average mixed layer depth to be 35 +10 m during April and 45 + 15 m

in September. Surface water temperature was 250 - 27�C. Figure 7-C

shows the distributions of salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen

as measured by OMCO at a representative site in the vicinity of its

application area. A maximum salinity of 34.7 0/oo was found within

the thermocline and a minimum of less than 34.3 O/0o at the base of

the thermocline. A second salinity maximum (about 34.7 �/oo) occurred

between 200 and 400 m. Dissolved oxygen concentrations decreased through

the thermocline, reaching a minimum zone between 200 and 400 m where

concentrations of 1 umol/l were found. These data collected by OMCO

are within the ranges observed during DOMES at Sites B and C.

OMI's application reports surface water temperature values

of 26� - 27�C for its application area.

Suspended particulate matter (SPM) in the DOMES area was

most abundant in the surface waters with an average concentration of 30 -

18 ug/1 in the upper 300 m. Below the thermocline, concentrations were

uniformly very low (7-12 ug/1) with a slight increase near the bottom (10-

14 ug/1) being indicative of a weak nepheloid layer. DOMES did not

analyze for trace metals in suspended particulates.

OMCO used free-floating sediment traps to collect

particulate matter from the upper water column. Particles from these

traps were analyzed for organic carbon and nitrogen (Table 7-D) and for

Mn, Zn, Cu, Cd, Ni, Fe, and Al (Table 7-E).

Nutrient concentrations in the mixed layer are low

because of uptake by phytoplankton and because the thermocline inhibits

vertical nutrient transport. OMCO analyzed seawater samples for inorganic

nutrients (Table 7-F) and for dissolved trace metal concentrations and

particulate trace metal content (Tables 7-G and 7-H). The seawater

trace metal analyses indicated that although dissolved manganese concentra-

tions decreased slowly with depth, there seemed to be little relationship

with the dissolved oxygen concentrations of the water column. Data used

in the PEIS (PEIS, pg. 27, Landing and Bruland, 1980) for a sampling

site 700 nautical miles north of the DOMES area, however, show a total

dissolvable manganese concentration maxima at the surface and at the

lower boundary of the oxygen minimum zone (800 - 1500 m). OMCO data show

an increase in manganese concentrations in the suspended particles at

the top of the oxygen minimum zone.

The average surface chlorophyll a value of 0.12 mg/m3

measured at the DOMES sites is typical of the low values for phytoplankton

standing crop in subtropical ocean waters. The average daily primary

production for summer and winter was 133 + 62 mg C/m2/day.

Standing stocks of micronekton, zooplankton, and neuston

varied seasonally from 3 to 8 g/m2 with the higher values typical during

the winter. Macrozooplankton were found in highest concentrations in the

upper 150 m. The lowest concentrations were found in the oxygen minimum

zone and below 900 m.

DOMES investigations of larval fish distribution and

species composition suggest that: 1) the larvae of yellowfin and skipjack

tuna occur more abundantly in the neuston layer than in the 1 m to 200 m

depths; 2) larvae found between 1 m and 200 m are mainly of mesopelagic

species; and 3) very few larval fish occur between 200 m and 1000 m.

Studies by Ahlstrom (1971, 1972) showed that over 90 percent of the

larvae sampled on the EASTROPAC expedition (1967) belonged to families

that are mesopelagic as adults; only 1 percent of the total were epipelagic

species such as tunas. Commercially important species of fish such as

the bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas and the striped and blue marlin

occur throughout the Clarion - Clipperton area.

OMCO conducted a study of zooplankton and ichthyoplankton

distributions in their application area. A total of 166 depth-stratified

samples were collected at 23 stations using paired open bongo nets. A

floating neuston sampler was also used to collect 44 neuston samples. A

complete data set on magnetic tape was submitted to NOAA. An inter-

pretation of this data was also submitted to NOAA in the form of an

unpublished manuscript - "Vertical Distribution and Composition of

Ichthyoplankton and Invertebrate Zooplankton Assemblages in the Eastern

Tropical Pacific" by V. J. Loeb and J. A. Nichols. Of the 22 invertebrate

zooplankton taxa identified, copepods, chaetognaths, euphausids, siphonophores,

larvaceans, and amphipods were numerically dominant within the upper

lOOm. Copepods comprised 40 - 71% of the total abundance by day and

night within all five depth intervals (Table 7-I). A total of 59 taxa

were identified among more than 45,000 captured fish larvae (Table 7-J).

Few species of commercial importance were found. Coryphaena sp. (Mahi

mahi or dolphin) were found only in the upper 25m and comprised 0.01% of

the total abundance in that depth interval. Scombridae (tuna) were

found throughout the upper 100 m, but comprised only 0.09% of the total

i chthyoplankton.

In order to supplement the few existing reliable published

reports on the abundance of midwater fish, OMCO submitted fish caught in

their free fall grab samplers to the University of California, Santa

Barbara, for identification. Table 7-K shows a taxonomic account of all

the fish retained in the samplers. Based on thousands of grab samples,

each sampling about 0.1 m2 area, OMCO collected 7.2 fish/100 m2.

Fish caught by rod and reel from the survey vessel were

analyzed for heavy metal content. The specimens were frozen at-sea and

transported to a laboratory for analysis. Tissues from five organs from

fourteen Mahi-mahi, two wahoos, two tuna, and a white-tip shark were

analyzed for twelve different metal concentrations. These data will be

included in the final EIS.

1II.B Lower Water Column and Seafloor

Near-bottom current measurements were made at three

sites during DOMES. Single mooring current meters were deployed from

April to November 1976 at DOMES Sites A and B and from July to December

1977 at Site C. Mean currents over the record lengths (4 - 6 months)

were small and to the northwest at all sites. A mean speed of 2.1 cm/s

was recorded at Site A and 5.2 cm/s at Site B. A maximum speed of 24

cm/s was recorded 6 m from the seafloor at Site A. Currents at Site C

fluctuated both in average speed and direction. Currents from July to

early November were northwest with a maximum speed of 8.8 cm/s recorded

30 m from the bottom. From November to December the direction was almost

south with a maximum speed of 6.3 cm/s at 200 m from the bottom.

Estimates of bottom currents made by OMI from photographs

and observations during television profiling indicate a velocity of 5 cm/s

(no direction was given).

Physical properties of the bottom water were measured

during DOMES. Salinity within 300 m of the seafloor was nearly uniform

with an average value of 34.7 */~,. Bottom waters were well oxygenated

but showed a significant decrease in concentration from west to east

across the Clarion - Clipperton area. Mean dissolved oxygen values

decreased from 359 ug-at/l at Site A to 332 ug-at/l at Site C. Nutrient

concentrations were high while SPM showed a slight increase over its

concentration in the upper waters.

Water depth in the Clarion - Clipperton area increases

from about 4000 m in the eastern portion to about 5600 m in the deeper

northern and western portions and in the fracture zones. Abyssal hills

are the dominate features of the seafloor. Sediment distribution is

related to water depth, surface water productivity, calcium carbonate

solubility, and the presence of volcanic islands. Siliceous oozes and

clays are abundant between the Clarion and Clipperton fracture zones.

Calcareous sediments, because of their increased solubility with depth,

are found in the shallower southern areas and around seamounts.

Topographically, OMCO's application area consists of rolling

abyssal hills in water depths that range between 4000 and 5500 m. The

axes of the topographic highs trend approximately north - south. The

general relief is usually 100-300 m. The abyssal hills are occasionally

interrupted by steep fault scarps 5 - 100 m in height and by large

seaknolls. Although erosional features appear in some areas, studies of

subbottom structure indicate that sediments are accumulating on most of

the seafloor. Deepsea clays with minor siliceous biogenic components

are the dominant sediment type.

The topography of the Kennecott Consortium (KCON) appli-

cation area consists of rolling abyssal hills and valleys with a north-south

orientation and an average relief of 200 m. Abyssal hills with a 600 m

relief are occasionally found. Steep rock scarps with relief of tens of

meters are also found. The mean depth increases westward from 4000 m to

4600 m. The sediment consists of a stiff siliceous clay.

The dominant topographic features of OMA's application

area are a series of north-south trending ridges. These ridges, with

slopes that rarely exceed 10 degrees, have a distance of 1 - 8 km between

crests. Fault zones are also present, as evidenced by the many scarps

found on the seafloor. Areas of low local relief are few and scattered

throughout the site. They are characterized by random occurrences of

rocks and boulders. Rocks, boulders, and outcrops of basalt are commonly

associated along the flanks and crests of ridges. Pelagic red clay and

brown clay are the dominant sediment types; however, three subtypes

have also been identified: 1) a surface "ooze" 0.6 cm to 5 cm in thickness;

2) a soft sediment, with some bioturbation, underlies the "ooze" but has

a transitional contact with it; 3) a firm, stiff sediment is immediately

beneath the surface "ooze" and in sharp contrast with it. This clay,

seen while observing the seafloor with underwater television, is sometimes

exposed at the surface and is likely to be associated with obstructions

on the seafloor.

The application area of Ocean Management, Inc. (OMI) is

dominated by extensive areas of flat, smooth seafloor and areas of small-scale

abyssal hills. These areas are occasionally interrupted by seaknolls

rising 700 m above the seafloor. North-northwest to south-southeast

striking topographic features are observed in the western part of the

area. Rock outcrops are rare and the sediment cover appears to be regular

in this area. Water depths in the entire area range from 4500 m to

almost 5200 m.

During DOMES, benthic organisms were surveyed by

photography and sampled with box cores, free-fall baited traps, and bongo

net tows. The near-bottom macrozooplankton population, comprised mainly

of crustaceans, was very low, with fewer than five individuals caught per

sample in net tows. Bottom scavengers found in the baited traps included

two families of fish (rat-tails and liparids) and large numbers of

amphipods (about 50,000 individuals in the 73 samples obtained).

Photographic surveys showed that at least 90 percent of the larger,

observable epibenthic organisms were sea stars, brittle stars, sea

anemones, sea cucumbers, and sponges. Analysis of the box cores revealed

that 40 percent of the organisms collected were polychaete worms

(underestimated due to sampling problems), 19 percent were tanaids, and

11 percent were isopods. The majority of the remaining organisms were

sponges, bryozoans, gastropods, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, bivalves, sea

anemones, brittle stars, brachiopods, and miscellaneous non-polychaete

worms.

OMCO collected data on benthic epifauna in their application

areas during exploration cruises. Basket samplers and 35 mm photographs

were used to determine the benthic population. Preliminary results

indicate that sea cucumbers provide the majority of the biomass while

the numerically dominant megafauna are sea urchins, sea anemones, and

brittle stars.

More than 50 species of large invertebrates were collected

with the basket samplers (Table 7-L). Echinoderms comprised 38 of these

species, with the remainder being mostly mollusks, crustaceans, and

cnidarians. The echinoderms showed approximately 12 new species and one

new genus. Most of the echinoderms have been reported from other parts

of the eastern Pacific Ocean, or from other oceans.

The 35 mm still photographs, taken within 5 m of the

seafloor, were analyzed for large epibenthic organisms (Table 7-M). The

species identifications of the organisms identified in the photographs

were confirmed by comparison with organisms from the basket samplers.

Numerically dominant organisms are the sea urchin Pleisodiadema globulosum

(an echinoderm), the anemone Actinange (a cnidarian), and the brittle

stars of the genus Ophiomusium (echinoderms). The results of Friedman's

2-way analysis by ranks indicate that urchins are significantly more

numerous than other benthic organisms. These results compare favorably

to the DOMES data obtained at Sites B and C.

PAGE

IV. LICENSE ACTIVITY IMPINGEMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . 33

IV. A. Activities Permissible Under the Act . . . . . . . . . 33

IV. B. Proposed Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

IV. C. Use Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

IV. License Activity Impingement on Marine Environment

IV.A Activities Permissible Under The Act

The normal sequence of activities followed by the

mining industry in bringing a mine to commercial production consists of

prospecting, exploration and development. Prospecting, which is the

initial reconnaissance of an area of interest, includes mapping, and

taking geophysical, geochemical and oceanographic measurements, as well

as random samples of the seafloor. Prospecting is excluded from regulation

under the Act (Section 101(a)(2)) as long as it does not significantly

alter the surface or subsurface of the seafloor or significantly affect

the environment. With the exception of pre-enactment explorers who have

applied for a license, exploration - which includes development (Section

4(5)) - is prohibited except under a NOAA license (Section 101(a)). The

Act defines exploration to mean:

"(A) any at-sea observation and evaluation activity

which has, as its objective, the establishment

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 resources 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"

The initial activities to be conducted by OMA

in the area under its license consist mainly of surveying and sampling

activities and are of the type included under (A) in the definition of

exploration. Other activities to be conducted by OMA involve analysis

of the data acquired offshore, including marketing evaluations, do not

require a NOAA license and are not the subject of this EIS.

IV.B Proposed Activities

The objective of exploration, in general, is to

delineate the important features of a target area discovered during

prospecting in sufficient detail to permit the evaluation of the area as

a mine. The subject is discussed in the Deep Seabed H-ard Mineral Resources

Act, NOAA's Deep Seabed Mining Final PEIS (Appendix 3, pages 255-258),

NOAA's Deep Seabed Mining Final Technical Guidance Document (Section 2.2),

and NOAA's Deep Seabed Mining Final Exploration Regulations (15 CFR 970.701).

OMA's proposed activities are designed for further

evaluation and development of the resource and the development of market

strategies and financial planning. Much of the work planned for the 10 year

license period will build on earlier findings during about 20 years of

pre-enactment exploration and engineering development. These activities

have been judged by NOAA to have no potential for significant environmental

impact CCFR 970.701 (a)] and would normally not require an EIS; however,

the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act requires an EIS on each license

NOAA considers issuing.

OMA recognizes that new information, as developed,

will dictate the course of future plans and so urges NOAA not to consider

as inflexible the plan now proposed.

The proposed activities are categorized by OMA as

those relating to the development of the resource and those dealing with

other complementary activities such as market assessment and financial

planning. The main category of activities pertinent to this EIS are

those dealing with the resource and its environment. The location,

concentration, and quality of nodules will be examined as will physical

conditions that may affect the recovery of those areas of nodules selected

for potential mining. Environmental data also will be acquired in

accordance with license TCR so that adequate environmental baseline data are

available at least one year prior to mining system testing.

Technology development, including at-sea testing

of mining equipment and onshore processing tests, will, unless NOAA is

advised otherwise, be delayed until commercial recovery permits are

applied for or are issued.

Cruises to obtain a better definition of the

nodule resource and the physical environment will occur throughout the 10

year license term.

Nodule sampling will be carried out with boomerang

grab samplers, wire lowered coring devices, dredge baskets, or snatch

samplers rigged to wire lowered instrument packages. Box coring also

will be conducted, mainly for sediment samples.

Wire lowered TV and photographic equipment will

be used to determine nodule population variability as well as nodule

size. Wire lowered acoustic equipment also will be used for the same purpose.

Macrotopographic (large scale topography) mapping

of the entire license area will be accomplished to characterize its

general relief and topographic fabric. A Raytheon Finite Amplitude Depth

Sounder (FADS) or its equivalent will be used. Potential obstacles to

mining, in regions otherwise appearing to be mineable, will be delineated

by wire lowered side-looking sonar.

Other standard oceanographic measurements will be obtained.

For example, geological characteristics of the upper few meters of seafloor

will be identified by use of a wire lowered sub-bottom profiler. Seafloor

engineering properties (shear, adhesion, plasticity) will be measured by

in-situ testing. Current sensors may be deployed.

IV.C Use Conflicts

OMA requires each vessel operating under its control to

enter data in the ship's log relating to any ship sightings and activity

in their exploration area. OMA's application, which contains a summary

of all sightings recorded in over 10 years of exploration (Appendix G of

OMA application), indicates a total of 50 sightings, only 1 of which was

a fishing vessel. No known instance of actual or potential use conflict

has been encountered during their exploration activities. Neither the

Department of Defense nor the U.S. Coast Guard expressed any concern over

potential use conflicts during their review of OMA's application.

PAGE

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . .. .. . .... .. . .. . .. 39

V. A. Exploration Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

V. B. Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

V. C. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

V. Environmental Consequences

V.A Exploration Activities

The mine site delineation activities (Section IV.A) to be

conducted by OMA during its exploration license are of the type judged

by NOAA to have no potential for significant environmental impact (15

CFR Section 970.701(a)). These activities, which do not include at-sea

equipment tests, will consist of sampling and remote sensing to collect

environmental baseline data, to collect information on the topography,

sediments, and nodule location and abundance, and to collect small

quantities of nodules.

The "worst case" potential for environmental impact during

exploration activities would, excluding testing, occur from seafloor

sampling with basket samplers. Basket samplers, also called chain bag

dredges, vary from a fraction of a m3 to several m3 in volume and are

generally designed to be dragged along the seafloor while the vessel is

underway (Society of Mining Engineers, Mining Engineering Handbook, Vol.

2, pg. 20-86, 1973). The small quantities of nodules collected in this

manner could be used for onshore testing of collector system components

in OMA's seafloor simulation facility. Some quantities could also be

used in further onshore processing development tests. However, because

OMA presently has a supply of nodules in storage, from the 1978 mining

system test, which could be used for these purposes, the need for a

large amount of additional nodules is unlikely at this time. The collection

of large quantities of nodules (e.g., 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes) needed

for the operation of a large scale pilot plant would only be obtained in

conjunction with further at at-sea testing of a scaled down version

of a commercial recovery system. This is not discussed here since such

tests would be addressed in a supplement to this site-specific EIS.

Impacts caused by this basket sampling occur through contact of

the sampler with benthic organisms and by the small plume generated by

disturbance of the sediment. The worst case impact situation would require

about 100 dredge samples to be taken to obtain a total of 90 tonnes of

nodules. The meter wide sampler towed for an hour at 0.5 m/s for each

of 100 separate samples would affect a total area of about 0.2 km2.

1 m x 1 hr. x 60s/min. x 60 min./hr. x 0.5 m/s x 100 = 180,000 m2 '0.2 km2

The average benthic biomass in the Clarion - Clipperton zone based on

DOMES is 0.3 g/m2 (PEIS, pg. 46). Each dredge sample would therefore

result in the mortality of about 0.5 kg of benthic organisms while 100

samples would cause about 54 kg of mortality.

1800 m2 x 0.3 g/m2 = 540 g = 0.54 kg

100 x 0.54 = 54 kg of biomass

The sediment pushed aside during sampling could also smother

the organisms in an area roughly the width of the sampler. No significant

"rain of fines" should occur because of the short duration of each

operation and the small area disturbed by the sampler mouth. The fact

that the action of the basket sampler disturbs less sediment than the

mining collector indicates that sampling also has no potential for

significant adverse impact. NOAA has already determined that the action

of the mining collector during test mining has no potential for significant

adverse impact (PEIS, Pages 100-108); therefore, NOAA considers the

effect of basket sampling in this area to be insignificant.

It should be noted that it is not uncommon for deep sea benthic

sampling for research purposes to commonly tow a dredge for distances of

one kilometer, thus affecting 1000 m2 (assuming a I meter dredge mouth

opening).

In considering the worst case environmental impact, one must

recognize that the impact discussed above might also be cauded by the

other two U.S. applicants contemplating sampling of that type (the third

U.S. applicant does not intend to sample). In addition, the two French

and Japanese consortia might sample in similar fashion. Japan has

announced its intention to test a hydraulic mining system around 1990 at

the completion of its National Project in deep seabed mining. NOAA does

not know the location of the proposed French and Japanese sites but they

are likely to be in the larger DOMES area (Figure 1) or, possibly, in or

near the smaller area shown (Figure 2). Therefore, 1.0 km2 (5 x 0.2 kin2)

may be affected within the 4.6 million kmn2, if the Japanese and French

sites fall within the area defined in Figure 2. Otherwise, the

relative amount of area affected will be much smaller, if the two sites

fall within the larger DOMES area.

Should OMA decide to conduct at-sea mining system tests

under this license, NOAA will prepare a supplement to this site-specific

EIS. The additional baseline data and the mining system character-

istics that OMA is required to submit to NOAA at least one year prior

to any scheduled tests will enable NOAA to be better able to address the

environmental consequences of the tests in the supplemental EIS.

V.B Endangered Species

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 95-632) requires

Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried

out by them does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species

or destroy or modify the critical habitat of any endangered or threatened

species. Section 7 also requires all Federal agencies to consult with

the Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) and the

Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service) when any of

their actions may affect endangered species. A biological opinion is

then issued by each agency indicating whether the action is likely to

jeopardize a species or adversely modify its critical habitat.

NOAA, in preparing the proposed regulations for the issuance

of deep seabed exploration licenses, recognized that license activities

might affect threatened or endangered species or their designated critical

habitat. Since a total of 17 endangered or threatened species of marine

mammals and turtles could inhabit the DOMES area or transportation

corridors leading to possible onshore process plant locations (Appendix 8,

PEIS), NOAA requested a Section 7 consultation and biological opinion

from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS). The biological opinions prepared by each office stated

that the implementation of the regulations is not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy

or adversely modify any of their critical habitats. The basis for their

respective opinions is the fact that the regulations contain sufficient

provisions to allow NOAA to protect these species and to meet its responsi-

bilities under the Endangered Species Act.

One of these protective provisions is the requirement for NOAA

to continue, prior to the issuance of a license, their consultations with

other Federal agencies. Copies of the license applications were distributed

to pertinent Federal agencies, including the FWS and NMFS for review of

the proposed site-specific activities. No additional Section 7 consultation

was required at this stage because no "amay affect" situation exists for

the listed species or their critical habitats. Following their reviews,

both agencies indicated that the exploration licenses should be issued

to the applicants.

NOAA's TCRs also contain a provision for the licensee to report

any endangered species that it observes (see Appendix 8).

V.C Cultural Resources

The U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service

(NPS) has reviewed the license applications from the perspective of its

responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.

470 et seq.) to protect cultural resources on the Outer Continental

Shelf and the deep seabed. In its review letter to NOAA, NPS mentioned

that compliance with NEPA requires consideration of cultural resources

in the DOMES area. This area of the Pacific Ocean has experienced a

large volume of ship traffic and ship loss throughout history. Since

the deep sea is an excellent environment for the preservation of shipwrecks

and their contents, the NPS suggested that NOAA's regulations require

the miner to notify NOAA if the miner encounters any cultural resources

during exploration or commercial operations. NOAA in turn will apprise

NPS of any such discoveries. Accordingly, NOAA's license phase TCRs

contain a provision for notification if any shipwrecks or other cultural

artifacts are encountered.

PAGE

VI. MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

VI. A. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

VI. B. Monitoring Plan . . . . . . . . . .* . . . . 48

VI. Monitoring

The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act requires each licensee

"1to monitor the environmental effects of the exploration and commercial

recovery activities in accordance with guidelines issued by the Adminis-

trator...". Because the majority of activities that are conducted during

exploration have been deemed by NOAA to have no potential for significant

environmental impact, no monitoring of exploration activities (other

than the NPDES monitoring requirements of EPA) will be required unless a

consortium desires to test mine under a license. If so, the proposed

TCRs require that a monitoring plan be submitted by the consortium no

later than one year prior to the initiation of tests and be concurred in

by NOAA. This plan will be evaluated by NOAA in relation to the baseline

information collected by the consortium that is submitted with the monitoring

plan, as well as the DOMES data and newly developed research results.

Col~lection of baseline information will be generally in accordance with

the Technical Guidance Document (NOAA, 1981b) and concurred in by NOAA.

The license TCRs will be modified prior to mine tests to incorporate the

monitoring plan and any special conditions required as a result of baseline

data submission. Because no test mining is anticipated during the next

few years, plans for monitoring - currently unneeded by NOAA - have not

yet been developed in detail, although all consortia have recognized in

their applications their responsibility to monitor environmental effects.

* ~~NOAA expects discussions to begin with any consortium wishing to test

mine, several years prior to initiation of these tests. The TCRs indicate

the essential elements of the plan; details will depend upon test plans

as well as environmental baseline findings.

VI.A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit

Because the Act specifically states that discharges from a vessel

engaged in commercial recovery or exploration shall be subject to the Clean

Water Act (P.L. 92-500, as amended), each licensee must obtain an NPDES

permit. The Environmental Protection Agency, which issues these permits

beyond state waters, is developing a general permit for vessels or other

floating craft subject to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and

has indicated its intent to process such a permit coincidentally with NOAA's

processing of license applications. Such a permit will cover all vessels

under a mining license, apply to routine vessel discharges (e.g., deck

drainages, sanitary wastes, domestic wastes) and be valid for five years.

Discharges under this general permit are to be monitored monthly. If a

consortium wishes to test mine, the NPDES general permit will be modified

for that consortium to address impacts from the surface and benthic

plumes.

VI.B OMA's Monitoring Plan

OMA's application contained no firm plans for at-sea equipment

tests under the exploration license. Two at-sea tests have already been

conducted. In 1970, tests were conducted on the Blake Plateau and, in

1978, further tests were conducted near DOMES Site C. The former test

was monitored by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory (Roels et

al., 1973). The latter test was monitored by NOAA (Ozturgut et al.,

1980) and provided the basis for NOAA's assessments of potential environ-

mental impacts from mining. Further assessments of benthic impact and

recovery at Site C will be available in the near future following the

analysis of the box cores and other data obtained during the NOAA-OMA

site revisit in June 1983. OMA states clearly (pg. F-13 of application)

that they will submit further details on at-sea tests and monitoring

plans prior to testing within time frames and formats established by

NOAA. A suite of measurements, such as salinity, temperature, nutrients,

and currents in the upper water column will be made consistent with

those used during DOMES, although improvement in methodologies may result

in modifications to DOMES techniques. Similarly, measurements will be

made in the near-bottom water column, including suspended particulate

concentrations, benthic impact, sedimentary characteristics, currents,

and topography. Post-test environmental data will be collected, as

necessary.

PAGE

VII. ONSHORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..... . 53

VII. Onshore

Ocean Mining Associates has not selected a location for its

processing facilities. Process plant siting will be delayed until a

commercial permit is applied for or issued, unless NOAA is otherwise

notified. The process development plan submitted with the application

however, does not foresee building a pilot-plant in the United States.

Most of the process research has been accomplished in overseas facilities

and it is expected that the additional research will be conducted under

contract at the existing facilities. If a prototype plant were to be

built in the United States, OMA would submit the required environmental

and test data to NOAA for the preparation of a supplemental EIS. No

alternatives or mitigation strategy will be considered at this time.

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act

(P.L. 92-583, as amended) requires that all Federal licenses and permits

for activities that affect the land or water uses in the coastal zone be

consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs. However,

because OMA will not conduct any onshore processing activities in the

United States, there should be no effect on any coastal area and no

consistency certification is needed from the applicant at this time.

VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS

The following people contributed to the preparation of this EIS.
Special thanks are due to Shirley Pippin and Nancy Edwards who orchestrated
the word processing effort and its many drafts. Although not listed
below, many other individuals critically reviewed early drafts and their
suggestions for improving the document are greatly appreciated.

NAME TITLE, ROLE IN EIS
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY, PREPARATION
YEARS OF RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE

Aurbach, Laurence J. Chief, Seabed Mining Licenses Appendix 8
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division
NOAA

J.D.
20 years

Carter, Nancy Licensing Analyst Appendix 8
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division
NOAA
M.S., Environmental Systems Mgm't.

9 years

Flanagan, Joseph P. Environmental Protection Specialist Managed EIS effort.
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division Sections I, II, III,
NOAA IV, V, VII, VII, IX,
XI, Appendices 1-8

M.S., Environmental Systems Mgm't.
16 years

Ozturgut, Erdogan Oceanographer Section III
Ozturgut Oceanographics (Seattle, WA) Appendix 2, 8
(Ex-DOMES II Chief Scientist)

Ph.D. Oceanography
22 years

Padan, John W. Deep Seabed Mining Program Mgr. Section I.B
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division Section IV
NOAA Appendix 8

B.S., M.S., Mining Engineering
29 years

Snider, Jean E. Environmental Research Chief Section VI
(Deep Seabed Mining) Appendix 2, 3,
Ocean Minerals and Energy Division & 8
NOAA

Ph.D. Oceanography
9 years

IX. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AGENCIES TO WHOM EIS SENT

The Draft Site-Specific EIS was sent to the following International,

Federal, State and local agencies, industry, interest groups, and

individuals.

Federal Officials and Agencies

Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Committee on Environment and Public Works

Foreign Relations

House

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

Committee on Foreign Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Interior

Department of Defense

Department of State

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

Department of Transportation (U.S. Coast Guard)

Department of Justice

Department of the Treasury

National Science Foundation

Federal Trade Commission

General Accounting Office

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)

Special Interest Groups

American Mining Congress

Center for Law and Social Policy

National Ocean Industries Association

Sierra Club

Conservation Foundation

Natural Resource Defense Council

Oceanic Society

National Wildlife Federation

States (Office of the Governor)

Hawaii

California

Florida

Oregon

Washi ngton

Embassies

United Kingdom

Federal Republic of Germany

France

Japan

Italy

Netherlands

Belgium

Deep Seabed Mining Consortia

Conrad Welling - (Ocean Minerals Co.)

Charles L. Morgan - (Ocean Minerals Co.)

Frank Simpson - (Ocean Minerals Co.)

Richard Greenwald - (Ocean Mining Assoc.)

William Siapno - (Deepsea Ventures, Inc.)

Lawrence E. Mercando - (Kennecott)

Lewis Messulam - (Ocean Management, Inc.)

Rainer Fellerer - (AMR)

Individuals

Benjamin Andrews

Lance Antrim - (Office of Technology Assessment)

Jack Botzum - (Nautilus Press)

Francis Brown

Robert Burns (NOAA - Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory)

Michael Cruickshank - (Minerals Management Service)

Clifton Curtis - (Oceanic Society)

Jack Flipse - (Texas A & M University)

Michael Herz - (Oceanic Society)

Brian Hoyle - (Department of State)

Jean Louis Hyacinthe - (Embassy of France)

Balu Jasani - (Federal Emergency Management Agency)

Kent Keith - (Hawaii Department of Planning & Economic Development)

Lee Kimball - (Citizens for Ocean Law)

William Lavelle - (NOAA - Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory)

Allen Magnuson - (Texas A & M University)

Erdogan Ozturgut - (Ozturgut Oceanographics)

Anita Yurchyshyn - (Sierra Club)

PAGE

X. APPENDICES

1. Summary of PEIS Issues . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 61

2. Marine Research Efforts - Recent Findings . . ..... 71

3. Onshore Research Efforts - Recent Findings ........ 81

4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 91

5. Acronyms, Abbreviations, Glossary . . . . . . ....... 95

6. Federal Agencies Review of License Applications ...... 105

7. Figures and Tables from License Application
Submitted by Ocean Minerals Company (OMCO) . . . . . . . 107

8. Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Appendix 1

Summary of PEIS Issues

1. Background

NOAA's Final PEIS, required by the Act, was prepared to assess

the potential marine and onshore environmental impacts of mining,

transportation, and processing of manganese nodules and alternative

strategies for managing those impacts. Four U.S.-based, multi-national

consortia (Table t) have expressed their main commercial interest in

mining manganese nodules (and subsequently applied for exploration

licenses) within a 13 million km2 east-west belt in the east central

Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). In addition, three foreign companies have

also applied for exploration licenses in their own countries under

their respective domestic legislation: Association Francoise pour L'Etude

et la Recherche des Nodules (AFERNOD) - France; Deep Ocean Mining Company,

Ltd. (DOMCO) - Japan; and, Arbeitsgemeinshaft Meerestechnisch Gewinnbare

Rohstoffe (AMR) - a West German partnership of Preussag A.G., Salzgitter

A.G., and Metallgesellschaft A.G.. This area was the focus of a NOAA

research effort (Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study or DOMES) that

included the collection of environmental baseline data and the monitoring

of pilot-scale mining tests. The DOMES project and related research

efforts formed the basis for the environmental impact analyses in the

PEIS. The scope of the PEIS was limited to the impacts expected from

first generation mining technology, that is, methods expected to be used

by industry on a commercial scale during the late 1980's through the

1990's. It was intended to be comprehensive in order to reduce the

amount of information required in the site-specific EISs. Should new

technology be developed, operations outside the DOMES area be undertaken,

Table 1. Deep seabed mining consortia involving United States firms and parent
companies, including dates of consortia formation, as set forth in
applications filed with NOAA In February 1982.

Kennecott Ocean
Consortium Ocean Mining Management Ocean Minerals
Nation (KCON) Associates (OMA) Inc. (OMI) Company (ONCO)
(1/74) (10/74) (5/75) (11/77)

United Essex Minerals Co. Sedco, Inc. AMOCO Ocean Minerals
States (U.S. Steel) 25% 25% Co., (Standard Oil
Co. (Indiana)) 30.669%
Sun Ocean Ventures of OMCO
Inc. (Sun Co.) 25% Lockheed Systems,
Co., Inc. (Lockheed
Corp.) 6.329% of OMCO

Lockheed Missiles
& Space Co., Inc.,
(Lockheed Corp.) 38.64%
of OMInc.

Belgium Union Seas, Inc.
a U.S. corporation
(Union Miniere)
25%

Canada Noranda Explor- INCO, Ltd. 25%
ation, Inc., a
U.S. corpora-
tion 12%
(Noranda Mines
Ltd.)

Italy Samim Ocean Inc.,
U.S. corporation
(ENI/Italy) 25%

Japan Mitsubishi Deep Ocean Mining
Corp. 12% Co., Ltd. (DOMCO-
19 Japanese Com-
panies) 25%
Ocean Minerals, Inc.
Netherlands (OMInc., a U.S. corp.)
63.002% of OnCO
-Billiton B.Y. 48.68% of
OMInc. (Royal Dutch/Shell
Group)

-BKW Ocean Minerals 12.68%
of OMInc., (Royal Boskalis
Westminister N.Y.)

Kennecott
Corp., a U.S.
United corporation
Kingdom (Sohio/BP) 40%
R.T.Z. Oeep Sea
Mining Enter-
prises, Ltd.
(Rio Tinto-
Zinc) 12%
Consolidated
Gold Fields,
PLC 12%
BP Petroleum
Dev., Ltd. 12%
(The British
Petroleum Co.,
p.l.c.)
AMR 25S
West Germany (Preussag A.G.,
Salzgitter A.G.,
Metallgesellschaft
A.G.) J

or at-sea processing of nodules be initiated, a supplement to the PEIS

or a new PEIS may be required.

2. Marine Impacts

The principal potential impacts on the marine environment

are those associated with mining activities, offshore processing,

transportation to port, and the offshore disposal of wastes from onshore

processing plants.

First generation mining technology as described in the

PEIS will recover nodules from the deep seabed by means of a collector

which is pulled or driven along the seafloor (See Figure 4). The nodules

are then pumped via a pipe to the mine ship and transferred to the ore

carrier for transport to the onshore processing plant. Collector action

will result in adverse environmental impacts through direct disturbance

of benthic biota in its path and through the creation of a benthic plume

of fine-grained suspended sediment which will affect biota beyond direct

contact. In addition, a surface plume will be generated by the discharge

of bottom water, sediment, and nodule fragments over the side of the

mine ship.

As a result of DOMES research and monitoring and subsequent

research, many of the environmental concerns raised initially about

marine mining have been determined to have low probability for causing

significant environmental impacts; other concerns appear certain, while

others are not yet resolved (Table 2, Appendix 2, shows the updated

status of these concerns). Impacts will occur at the sea surface and on

the seafloor. The benthic impacts with the potential for significant

adverse effects are twofold: organisms in the path of the collector will

Separation Discharge Point
System

Rigid Pipe

Compresssed Air----
ILine* - Hydraulic Pumps

Air Injection

Rigid Pipe

Flexible Pipe
Collector
Nodules

Figure 4. Diagram of the mining system and identification of its major components.

be destroyed; the sediment plume stirred up by the collector may smother

smaller benthic animals and dilute their food supply at distances away

from the mine site. The only potentially significant environmental

impact identified in the PEIS associated with the surface plume is its

possible impact on the eggs and larvae of commercially important fish

such as tuna and billfish. In addition, at the time the PEIS was issued,

it was not known if mining particulates discharged at the surface would

accumulate on the pycnocline and cause a reduction in light levels with

an accompaning reduction in primary productivity.

Determinations of environmental significance in the

PEIS were based on brief periods of pilot-scale mining and on the results

of laboratory research and modelling. NOAA will verify or update the

conclusions by requiring environmental monitoring of demonstration-scale

mining tests if conducted by industry during the license phase.

Offshore processing would be the refining of nodules and

the disposal of wastes at sea rather than on land. Because of the

technological limitations imposed by ship motion, processing at sea is not

expected to occur during first generation mining. If it should be proposed,

a supplement to the PEIS will be prepared.

Waste disposal most likely will occur on shore. However,

industry may consider ocean dumping or discharge through an ocean outfall.

The environmental impacts and the likelihood of receiving the necessary

permits for offshore disposal will remain unknown until the exact chemical

and physical characteristics of the nodule processing wastes are known.

Based on four years of research conducted by NOAA, EPA, the Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Mines (BOM), these wastes are

not expected to be toxic.

Nodules will be transferred from the mining ship to

ore carriers and transported to port. Any nodules spilled during transfer

are not expected to have a significant impact because the nodules appear

to be inert in their natural form.

3. Onshore Impacts

Since commercial scale nodule processing has yet to be

demonstrated, neither the specific sites where the facilities might be

located nor the specific processing technologies can be identified. The

exact environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impacts will vary

depending on the location of the facilities and the choice of processing

technology. The onshore environmental assessment was handled from a

generic perspective based upon NOAA-sponsored studies of the various

approaches to the metallurgical processing of manganese nodules and

geographic areas of the United States where industry may locate. Four

major onshore activities have the potential for significant impact., 1)

use of port facilities; 2) transportation of nodules from port to processing

plant; 3) nodule processing; and 4) waste disposal.

The consequences of the development and operation of the

marine terminal include dredging and filling, ship exhaust emissions,

water use, and dust. Port-to-plant transportation will likely be done by

pipeline, although enclosed conveyors or truck and rail are possible

alternatives. Operationally, the nodule processing plant will be similar

to a plant designed to process ores mined on land. On-site nodule storage

probably will require slurry ponds or specially designed enclosures.

Waste disposal presents the greatest environmental concern because of

the incompletely known chemical and physical nature of the wastes

and the high volume of material. NOAA, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service,

and the Bureau of Mines presently are conducting research to determine

more precise estimates of the characteristics of the wastes, especially

if there are any toxic or hazardous components. Disposal will be on

land in landfills or tailings ponds.

4. Alternatives

Alternatives for managing nodule recovery and for managing

onshore activities were considered in the PEIS and are summarized below:

a. Two types of alternative approaches for managing

nodule recovery were considered: approaches other than those established

by the Act and approaches for implementing the Act.

Alternatives to the Act include unregulated mining,

prohibition of mining, and delay of mining until an LOS treaty enters into

force for the United States or the environmental implications are better

understood. None of these alternatives to the Act was considered to be

NOAA's preferred or the environmentally preferred alternative.

Under the Act, before NOAA can issue a license or permit,

it must determine that the proposed activities will not result in a

significant adverse effect on the environment. NOAA must issue terms,

conditions, and restrictions (TCRs) to assure conservation of the resources,

protection of the environment, and the safety of life and property at-

sea. Within this framework, nine issues with potential environmental

consequences, each with several alternatives, were considered. At the

license phase, the issues are: to what extent NOAA should dictate monitoring

requirements to industry; the proximity of mine sites to each other;

and, what criteria, if any, should apply to the selection of stable

reference areas (See Appendix 2, for discussion). NOAA's Technical

Guidance Document (available at the same address as the PEIS) specifies

the parameters of concern and encourages industry to develop its own

monitoring strategies which will be subject to NOAA review and will form

the basis for the monitoring TCRs.

A non-linear alignment of mine sites during commercial

mining was recommended. Applications will be reviewed at the license

and permit stage for site alignment and benthic research will be conducted

to better determine the safe spacing for sites. NOAA has initiated

consultations with reciprocating states regarding the establishment of

stable reference areas, as required by the Act.

At the permit phase, there are two issues with environmental

implications: the proximity of mine sites and technological capability to

mine. NOAA must determine if commercial operations can be conducted in

harmony with the environment and in accordance with TC-Rs. Rather than

assume the technological capabilities of the applicant, NOAA will conduct

its own assessment based on data required on design, component, and

operating information submitted with the application and a description

of the miner's ability to monitor environmental effects.

Resource conservation issues at the permit phase include:

a requirement for a mining pattern on the seafloor; allowing selective

mining of the richest zones of the site first; and, requiring retention

of manganese tailings from three-metal operations (recovery of Cu, Co,

Ni). NOAA will defer a decision on the mining pattern until license

phase test mining has been observed. No pattern will be required during

the test mining. Selective mining of the richest zones of a site will

be allowed if it is part of a logical long-range plan which will not

preclude future exploitation of the remaining resource. Alternatives

for manganese utilization include letting the world market determine its

fate, requiring a four-metal operation, or establishing a means for

manganese tailings to be saved. No environmentally preferred alternative

is obvious at the programmatic level; however, NOAA's preferred alternative

is to establish a means for the manganese not to be rendered unavailable

for possible future use.

An issue with international implications involves the

development of criteria to use in designating reciprocating states.

NOAA prefers establishing specific criteria, including continued consultations

on environmental issues and research.

b. Three alternatives exist for NOAA involvement in

managing onshore activities: 1) NOAA would only review onshore processing

technology and potential impacts with no role in the siting or permitting

process; 2) NOAA would act as lead agency for review of environmental

impacts, prepare EISs, and work informally with other Federal agencies,

and state and local governments to facilitate obtaining the necessary

permits; and, 3) the designation of NOAA as responsible for permitting

decisions. NOAA prefers the second alternative because it assures an

effective NOAA role in encouraging deep seabed mining and it does not

require legislative change.

.71

Appendix 2

Marine Research Efforts - Recent Findings

Although the exploration activities covered in this site-specific

EIS have no potential for causing a significant adverse impact, NOAA has

conducted research since the publication of the PEIS which was directed

at the unresolved concerns in that document. A brief description of

this research is included in this Appendix.

As a result of the DOMES mining tests, NOAA's PEIS was able to

determine that most of the initial mining concerns had a very low

probability of causing a significant or adverse environmental impact

(Table 2). Some concerns related to mining activity appeared either to

be certain to cause a negative impact or were unresolved; however, some

of these uncertainties have been better resolved since the publication

of the PEIS. The destruction of the benthos in and near the collector

track will be adverse; however, the exact significance to the benthic

ecosystem is uncertain at this time. The blanketing of the benthos and

the dilution of their food supply away from the mine site have the potential

for adverse impact but the exact significance is unresolved at this

point. The potential for accumulation of fine particulates at the pycnocline,

which was unresolved at the time of PEIS publication, appears now to

have a very low probability of occurrence as a result of recent laboratory

experiments. The potential for the surface plume to have a significant

adverse effect on fish larvae also appears to have a low probability of

occurrence.

Table 2. Deep seabed mining perturbations and environmental impact concerns

MINING PERTURBATIONS

BENTHIC IMPACT SURFACE DISCHARGE

STATUS OF CONCERNS * COLLECTOR CONTACT BENTHIC PLUME PARTICULATES DISSOLVED SUBSTANCES

Low Probability of Light from Nutrient or trace Bacteria growth Trace metals effects
Impacts collector metal increase deplete oxygen on phytoplankton
Oxygen demand Alter phytoplankton Nutrient increase
species composition cause phytoplankton
blooms
Affect fish
LZooplankton mortality Airlift caused
and species composi- embolisms
tion and abundance
~-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~changes in plume
Ln
I-)=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <Trace metals entry
o E into food web
- Pycnocline
~~~~~~~~~~< i,,~~~~~ ~ ~accumulation
~F~~~~~~~~~~~~ = ~~~Affect fish larvae

o Potentially Additional food Not applicable Bacteria increase Not applicable
Beneficial supply for bottom food supply for
Effects scavengers zooplankton
Filterfeeding zoo-
plankton fecal
pellets clean up
plume

z Certain Impact Not applicable Not applicable Increased turbidity Not applicable
U Without Significant reduce productivity
Adverse Effects
-J
Certain Impacts Destroy benthos Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
)o in and near track

� < Blanket benthos;
In Unresolved Impacts Not applicable dilute food supply Not applicable Not applicable
away from mine-site
CD LZe~~ n sub-areas'

Q * NOTE: Status of concerns is to be verified during demonstration-scale mining system tests and during
z ~ commercial mining
0

4 -t 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because the at-sea tests monitored during DOMES were only pilot-scale

(equipment was one-fifth commercial scale and production averaged one-four-

teenth commercial scale) and of short duration (actual test mining totaled

only five days, with the longest period of continuous mining being two

days), NOAA has emphasized that it is essential for the PEIS findings to

be validated through additional research and during monitoring of demonstra-

tion-scale mining system endurance tests. This need is also discussed

in NOAA's Five-Year Environmental Research Plan and Deep Seabed Mining

Technical Guidance Document. Although monitoring of tests will not

occur until 1986-1988, at the earliest, NOAA is sponsoring research

independent of these tests that is focused on issues to improve predictions

of plume dispersion and benthic impact.

NOAA's first Five-Year Marine Environmental Research Plan addresses

the scientific needs for fiscal years 1981-85 relating to the potential

environmental effects from mining and at-sea disposal of processing

wastes. Recently concluded and future research directed at the PEIS

concerns include the following:
0 The unresolved concern of fine mining particulates in the surface

plume accumulating on the pycnocline has been investigated in a NOAA

funded study (Ozturgut & Lavelle, in press). Laboratory experiments

were conducted to determine settling velocities of the particles. Particles

were introduced into a stratified settling column and observed with time-

lapse photography using a laser beam light source. The average settling

velocities of the particles differed (0.116 cm/s in the denser bottom

layer of the settling column versus 0.16 cm/s in the less dense upper

layer), with this difference almost all due to the difference in viscosity

between the two layers. No accumulation at the interface was discernible.

These experiments indicated that this contrast in settling velocities

between the two layers determined the concentration of the particles in

the layers. In the Pacific Ocean, although there likely would be a 30

percent decrease in settling velocity between the upper layers and the

region of the pycnocline, due primarily to increased viscosity, this

contrast is not expected to be sufficient to result in an accumulation

of mining particles. Research indicates that the fraction of mining

waste particles having densities equal to or less than the typical pycnocline

densities is less than 0.1-0.2% of the total material discharged. In

fact, based on test mining samples collected in 1978, less than 4% by

volume of the mining discharge has a wet density less than 1.5 g/cm3,

validating field observations and modelling results that particles

settle much more rapidly (i.e., 10-2cm/s) than originally expected for

disaggregated clay size particles. Although it was originally thought

that such rapid settling was probably due to flocculation of the clay

particles, laboratory studies suggest that re-flocculation was not a

a dominant process, but rather that the collected particles are so strongly

bonded as aggregates that not even the transit up the mining lift pipe

breaks them apart.
0The extent of ingestion and assimilation by zooplankton of the

trace metals in nodule fragments and the potential for food chain transfer

to higher trophic levels were examined by NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory of

the National Marine Fisheries Service (Hanson et al., in preparation).

Two possible pathways of trace metal entry were examined using existing

scientific literature and based upon ongoing research: direct uptake of

dissolved forms of metals by plankton or other low level forms; and, uptake

through ingestion of particles, living or non-living, containing trace

metals. The potential for biomagnification was also evaluated. Entry of

trace metals through direct uptake of the dissolved form does not appear

to be a problem since present evidence suggests that concentration of

free hydrated ions resulting from the surface plume, which is related to

the toxicity of the metals, will not exceed ambient concentrations.

Analysis of the second pathway, uptake through ingestion of

particulates, strongly suggests that zooplankton (mainly copepods) will

ingest significant quantities of the fine particulates in the surface

plume. However, it is unlikely that any adverse effects from the ingested

trace metals will result. This conclusion, though not based on experiments

with zooplankton and inorganic suspended sediments, is extrapolated from

data showing that assimilation by zooplankton and juvenile fish of organic

particulates containing metals does not appear to be an efficient process.

In addition, organisms have been found to be able to regulate the essential

elements and to be able to detoxify non-essential elements such as cadmium,

mercury, and silver. Since the plume is rapidly diluted, the exposure

time of plankton is brief, and trace metal concentrations low, the likelihood

of any adverse effects is expected to be minimal. Also, since no evidence

exists (except for methyl mercury, which is not found in the nodules)

for the biomagnification of inorganic metals, the potential for food web

contamination likewise appears to be low.
0 The effect of the surface plume on the eggs and larvae of

commercially important fishes (tuna and billfish) is presently being

investigated at the National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory in

HonolIulIu. Through an examination of the scientific literature, a report

has been prepared on the distribution of these species, their larval

feeding behavior and reproductive patterns, potential effects on larvae

from the surface plume, the probability of adverse effects resulting from

aggregation around mineships and consequent accelerated spawning activities,

and the probability that these effects will significantly affect year-

class strength. The report concludes that the rapid dissipation of the

plume should preclude any significant adverse effects from increased

suspended particulates or from sudden changes in the physico-chemical

characteristics of the water due to the mixing of bottom water. Likewise,

there is not expected to be a detectable effect from increased spawning

activity in the vicinity of the mineships. Sample calculations showed

that any adverse effects on year class strength would be indistinguishable

from natural fluctuations. In addition, spawning of skipjack and yellowfin

tuna also occurs to the north of the DOMES area. This area would thus

provide a source for recruitment of juveniles into the Hawaiian fishery

should any adverse effects occur in the DOMES area from mining.
0 A research effort directed at obtaining a better understanding

of the variability of the bottom currents and suspended particulate

matter (SPM) concentrations in the DOMES area was begun in 1982. NOAA,

in cooperation with Oregon State University (i.e., the National Science

Foundation's Manganese Nodule Project-MANOP), moored several benthic current

meters and nephelometers at MANOP Site S (near DOMES Site B) for the

purpose of obtaining long-term (one-year) measurements of bottom currents

and SPM concentrations. Long-term measurements of these parameters have

never been collected in the DOMES area. Data on the velocity and variability

of the currents will enable better predictions to be made of the dispersion

of the benthic plume and hence on the potential for impact on the benthos

away from the mine site. Data on the natural variability of the SPM

will indicate the natural range of suspended material concentrations to

which the benthic organisms are exposed.

0 A research effort directed at examining benthic recolonization

at a previously mined site was begun in 1983. NOAA, in cooperation

with Deepsea Ventures Inc. (the service contractor for Ocean Mining

Associates (OMA)) and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, revisited the area

at DOMES Site C that was test mined by OMA in 1978. The collector track

was located and surveyed with the Scripps' deep tow instrument package.

Acoustically navigated box cores were taken in the area adjacent to the

minetracks that would be expected to be affected by the mining. These

box cores are presently being analyzed for both macrofauna and meiofauna

and may provide a better insight into the question of benthic impact

following commercial-scale mining.

a The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act requires the

United States to negotiate with other mining nations for the purpose of

establishing "stable reference areas" (SRA). These areas are intended

to serve as reference or control areas against which mining impacts can

be assessed and as areas "to insure a representative and stable biota of

the deep seabed." In order to address this issue, NOAA requested the

Ocean Policy Committee of the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the

issue in terms of its scientific validity and to design a cost-effective

approach to implement this concept. The NRC concluded that the concept

is scientifically valid if two types of SRAs are defined: Preservation

Reference Areas (PRAs) to be used as areas to insure a representative

and stable biota of the deep seabed and Impact Reference Areas (IRAs) to

be used for impact assessment. PRAs would be designated through international

negotiations by the time of permit issuance and would be of sufficient

size and appropriate location not to be affected by mining activities,

nor to include substantial portions of the seafloor. The number, size

and location would be based upon available information on the environmental

variability of the DOMES region, additional research on plume dispersion,

benthic current data, and locations of mining claims. Depending on avail-

ability of funding, studies will be conducted at these sites on long term

variability in the benthic environment.

IRAs would be designated at locations affected by mining

activities. Studies would then be conducted before and after mining to

assess the impact resulting from commercial mining. The studies at the

impact and preservation areas will provide a better understanding of the

deep sea, thus assisting NOAA in differentiating mining impacts from

natural variability, determining the significance of the impact and

identifying measures that might facilitate more rapid recovery.
0NOAA is funding the development of two biological models to

provide a theoretical basis for the design of baseline and monitoring

programs. One model is examining existing sampling theory and how results

are biased in an environment such as the deep sea where there is a high

species 'diversity and low abundance. The model will be used to examine

the importance of different parameters in reflecting the characteristics

of the deep sea benthic environment.

The second model is evaluating existing data, mostly from shallow-

water environments, on the recovery patterns of the benthic biota following

a disturbance. By identifying similarities between shallow water species

and deep water fauna, it is hoped that better predictions can be made of

the types of recovery patterns that would follow deep seabed mining, and

thus the measurements to be made to monitor this recovery.
o NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information

Service is examining the feasibility of using satellites to collect

environmental data for baseline and monitoring. Data from both the Coastal

Zone Color Scanner and the Advanced Very High Resolution Radar have been

examined. A major difficulty has been the frequent coverage of the

DOMES area by clouds: less than 10% of the scenes examined are sufficiently

cloud-free to allow further examination. Those scenes evaluated have

provided some some interesting results. One scene showed the unexpected

intrusion of a large eddy approximately 160 km in diameter extending

into the eastern DOMES region from the north that exhibited chlorophyll

concentrations nearly an order of magnitude higher than the surrounding

waters! Results of this kind suggest that although the number of scenes

that are cloud free is relatively small, the information provided from

those scenes that can be analyzed can be extremely useful because so

little is known about the natural changes in the area of future mining.

Evidence on the natural variability of the DOMES environment is extremely

important for the future interpretation of monitoring data in order to

differentiate between such changes from mining-related effects.
o Ocean disposal of processing wastes is one of the disposal options

being considered by industry. A one-year study of the environmental

considerations associated with ocean disposal was recently completed for

NOAA and EPA by Tetra-Tech, Inc. (Tetra-Tech Inc., 1982). The study examined

the present regulatory regime; current disposal techniques and ocean

disposal activity; present knowledge regarding the characterization of

the wastes; environmental characteristics of representative disposal areas;

environmental issues associated with the different disposal techniques in

selected geographic areas; and the additional research requirements for

assessing impacts. The report concluded that there appears to be no

reason why ocean disposal should not be considered as an acceptable

option. However, it was emphasized that additional analysis must be

conducted when the exact site location, the detailed characteristics of

the waste, and the regulatory regime governing ocean disposal at the time

of application are known. The report nevertheless does provide guidance

for industry and Federal and state agencies on the important questions

that need to be answered when more specific information is available.

Three methods of offshore disposal were considered: surface

dumping, surface dispersion, and subsurface dispersal. Nearshore methods

included disposal through an outfall pipe or by nearshore dumping. The

most appropriate method will have to be selected according to the particular

environmental concerns of the disposal area. The report determined that

the alteration of the substrate and the potential for bioaccumulation of

trace metals could be the two most significant effects associated with

ocean disposal. However, more information is required about the nature

of the benthic communities and the depth of burial before accurate benthic

impact predictions can be made. Also, predicting the likelihood of

bioaccumulation requires more information on the metal species present,

their physical/chemical form, their concentration in seawater, and the

specific environmental variables that affect metal uptake.

Appendix 3

Onshore Research Efforts - Recent Findings

This Appendix summarizes NOAA's research efforts since the publication

of the PEIS which were directed at onshore environmental concerns.

Since neither specific processing site locations nor processing

technologies are presently known, the onshore environmental assessment

in the PEIS was limited to a generic perspective. Some general effects

of onshore activities are universal or inevitable and were described in

general terms without reference to a specific site. NOAA has sponsored

generic studies of the various processing technologies and the geographic

areas of the United States where industry might locate onshore facilities.

The HItS onshore assessment was based on four types of studies: a)

identification of the most likely nodule processing techniques (Dames

and Moore and E.I.C. Corporation, 1977); b) identification of potential

areas of the United States where processing plants could be located and

the attitudinal characteristics of these areas (e.g., Bragg, 1979); c)

identification of the applicable state and Federal laws that may affect

the siting of a processing plant (e.g., McGarry and Brown, 1981); and d)

analysis of the environmental, social and economic aspects of onshore

mining (Dames & Moore, 1980) for comparison to deep seabed mining.

Of all the activities associated with manganese nodule

processing, disposal of the processing waste likely will be the greatest

concern. The reasons for this concern are twofold: the sheer volume of

wastes to be disposed of, and the chemical and physical nature of the

wastes. Research addressing this waste disposal problem has been completed

since the publication of the PEIS. Separate studies were initiated to:

1) characterize the wastes associated with manganese nodule processing;

2) assess the regional problems associated with onshore disposal; and,

3) study the impacts associated with nodule processing in two locations

in Hawaii.

1. Characterization of Manganese Nodule Processing Rejects

A four-year interagency effort (NOAA, FWS, EPA, Bureau

of Mines) entitled "Analysis and Characterization of Manganese Nodule

Processing Rejects" began in 1980. Previous studies on possible

processing methods and waste disposal options (Dames and Moore and EIC

Corp., 1977; Dames and Moore et al., 1977) were described in the PEIS and

formed the basis for these subsequent studies. The individual objectives

of this recent effort are to: a) mineralogically and chemically describe

the nodules from the Pacific Ocean; b) update the Dames and Moore processing

report; c) predict the physical and chemical characteristics of nodule

waste materials; and d) analyze the wastes generated under laboratory

conditions. The overall objective of the entire cooperative research

effort is to provide information needed by Federal and state agencies in

preparation for receipt of industry's commercial waste management plans.

a. In order to be able to understand better the nature

of the processing wastes and predict their potential environmental impact

upon disposal, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the

nodules themselves. The first report (Haynes et al., 1982a) describes

the morphology, mineralogy, and elemental composition of the Pacific

Ocean nodules. The description of the external characteristics and the

internal structure of the nodules is important because both of these

aspects of nodule morphology contribute to the total nodule properties.

The mineralogical composition was presented with some emphasis placed on

major mineral differences with respect to the benthic environment (depth,

sediment type). The elemental analysis section presented data on the 74

elements occurring in the nodules. The elements were broken into eight

groups: major and minor elements of potential economic interest; other

major and minor elements; elements of environmental interest; rare earth

elements; precious metal elements; radioactive elements; other trace

elements; and, anion-forming elements.

b. In 1977, NOAA published a report prepared by Dames

and Moore entitled a "Description of Manganese Nodule Processing Activities

for Environmental Studies" (Dames and Moore et al., 1977). That report

identified the five most economically and technically feasible processing

techniques and flowsheets for first generation processing plants. This

second report (Haynes et al., 1983a) has taken the previous flowsheets

and used the input from industry and other concerned parties to update

the previous report and present, where necessary, changes and modifications

in the flowsheets. These updated flowsheets were used to design, construct,

and operate bench scale systems to generate reject materials. These

materials were then analyzed to determine the exact physical and chemical

characteristics for the wastes from each of the five processes.

c. A third report (Haynes and Law, 1,982b), based on the

information in the other two reports, predicts the physical and chemical

characteristics of nodule reject waste material for each of the five

processes. The physical characteristics are predicted based on land-based

laterite processing or on process chemistry. Physical and chemical

analyses as well as the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test of

industrially supplied pilot plant reject material are also presented.

In describing the chemical characteristics, 18 elements of potential

economic and/or environmental concern were discussed. Thirteen of these

elements (Ag, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, T1, Zn) were chosen

because they are listed as priority pollutants under the Toxic Substances

Control Act. Four elements (Co, Fe, Mn, Mo) are included because they

are major nodule constituents and/or are of economic importance. One

element (Ba) was included because it is on the EPA list of leachable

metals in the EP toxicity test.

Although the predictions and values given in the

report are based on limited data and are estimates only - they may not

necessarily represent the composition of the rejects from a full-scale

commercial plant - it appears that the waste material may have only minor

environmental concerns. Leachates from the EP toxicity of the two

ammoniacal leach wastes, the sulfuric acid leach waste, and the smelting

leach waste should be well below maximum limits for classification as

hazardous waste. However, the presence of soluble chloride salts in the

waste from the hydrochloric acid leach process may not enable this reject

material to stay below the EP toxicity limits.

d. An additional report (Haynes et al., 1983b) was prepared

because of the need for accurate and precise analytical methods to be able

to assess any potential environmental impact of nodule wastes disposal.

This report outlined methods which the Bureau of Mines believes are applicable

to the characterization of nodule feed materials and the reject waste

materials from all five potential processes. Analytical procedures

are described for the quantitative determination of 16 elements and 7

ionic species, the identification of major and minor mineral components,

and measurement of physical properties associated with the nodules and

processing wastes.

2. Onshore Disposal Options

A NOAA/Bureau of Mines sponsored report on onshore

disposal options was recently completed (Rogers, Golden and Halpern, 1982).

The objectives of this study were: 1) to identify all reasonable and

emerging state-of-the art disposal techniques; 2) to provide a first-

order assessment of applicable regulatory requirements and environmental

considerations for the various disposal options and for those regions

where processing may occur; and, 3) to guide research on the characteristics

of the rejects and on refining disposal techniques by identifying those

physical and chemical characteristics of the rejects that are most

significant in predicting environmental effects.

In order to assess the environmental considerations and

develop a scenario that is representative of first-generation processing

operations, the study identified three classes of rejects from the five

feasible processes, four classes of waste disposal techniques, and one

site from each of five geographic regions. The reject and processes

include: 1) leached tails from three-metal hydrometallurgical processes

and lime boil solids if produced; 2) slags from smelting and from silica-

or ferromanganese produced when manganese is recovered from tailings; 3)

leached tails from four-metal hydrometallurgical processes and residues

from electrolytic manganese reduction steps. Four classes of waste

disposal techniques -- based on the similarity of potential effects --

include: above surface retention structures; specially excavated pits,

backfill of mines, deep disposal; dewatered tailings disposal, including

slag; and liquid waste disposal through evaporation or deep well injection.

The five geographic regions are: the Pacific Northwest, Southern California,

the Gulf Coast, and two sites in Hawaii (one wet and one a dry climate).

Each site/process/disposal technique combination was

compared against potential effects. Regulatory requirements were also

considered at each site.

The report concluded that current disposal techniques

used for terrestrial ores are generally applicable to nodule waste disposal.

However, there is still an uncertainty as to the hazardous waste

classification of the rejects under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act and the classification of hydrometallurgical process tailings as

toxic by EPA. Also, some states have hazardous waste disposal laws that

are stricter than Federal regulations. The slags from the smelting

process are expected to be inert and should pose little or no environmental

problem in disposal. They may in fact have a beneficial use as land

fill and construction aggregate. Three types of environmental concerns

were identified: concerns common to all sites (e.g., aquifer contamination);

concerns common to specific areas or regions (e.g., balance between

precipitation and evaporation); and, site-specific concerns (e.g., wild-

life attraction to tailings impoundments). Determining the toxicity of

the hydrometallurgical process tailings was identified as the primary

need for further study. The toxicity characteristics determine whether

hazardous waste disposal regulations will apply.

3. Hawaii

A joint study, conducted by NOAA and the State of Hawaii

(Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, 1981), examined

the feasibility and potential impact of locating a nodule processing

plant at two different sites on the island of Hawaii. Part I of this

report described the nature, location, and importance of the nodule

resources; discussed the status of private industry and government

programs; and, provided a general overview of the mining and processing

operations. Part II provided an assessment of the feasibility and

potential impacts of nodule processing. In order to assess these impacts

it was necessary to identify illustrative sites and to postulate various

mining and processing systems. Two illustrative sites were chosen on the

island of Hawaii; one site (Puna District) has a wet climate while the other

site (Kohala District) has a dry climate. The sites were assigned

different fuels, bulk handling, and waste disposal systems in order to

compare these variables. The report concluded with a review of applicable

environmental laws and a discussion of attitudes expressed by the public

during workshops and meetings.

The Puna District, near the major port of Hilo, has

considerable unused land, a good highway, a geothermal well for an

alternate energy source, and one of the state's best sources of fresh

water. In the Puna scenario, nodules are transported to Hilo from the

mine site and transferred by slurry pipeline nine miles to an oil-powered

processing plant. Ocean disposal, through an outfall pipe or by ocean

dumping, would be the preferred method of waste disposal because the high

precipitation would make evaporative-type onshore containment structures

only marginally efficient.

The Kohala District, which includes the commercial port

of Kawaihae, is lightly populated and near one of the world's best potential

wind energy resources. In the Kohala scenario however, coal is assumed to be

the primary energy source. The port of Kawaihae is large enough to

allow nodules to be transported in relatively large modified nodule

transport ships. Nodules and coal would be transported to the plant by

conveyor and other bulk handling methods. The topography and dry climate

make land disposal of wastes feasible.

Potential environmental problems common to both sites

include the possibility of groundwater contamination, marine environmental

degradation, and possible construction problems due to seismic activity.

The threat to a processing facility from natural hazards such as volcanism

and tsunamis varies from place to place on the island. Due to the

proximity of Mauna Loa and Kilauea, the Puna District includes areas of

moderate to high risk. The risk of volcanic activity in the Kohala District

is judged to be very low. Tsunami damage in the Hawaiian Islands has

tended to be more intense on the eastern sides of the islands; thus, the

port facilities at Hilo would be at a higher risk.

The tailings stream from a processing plant contains

certain products that may have commercial uses. Gypsum sludges may be

used as land plaster, nodule residues as land fill, fly ash as a polozonic

material, and slag as aggregate or land fill. When vegetated or forested,

fill areas may contribute to agriculture or forestry on otherwise near-

barren land.

The report concluded that extensive environmental laws,

the requirement for both state and federal environmental impact statements,

and the number of permits that would have to be obtained, should preclude

any negative environmental impact.

The most significant impacts at the two sites will likely

be the social impacts. The main negative socio-economic effect would be

the changes in the life-style of the people living near the processing

plant and pipeline road system, particularly during the construction

phase. The extent of in-migration could also affect the local population

mix, possibly changing the local power structure in favor of the new

arrivals. The potential beneficial effect is primarily the stimulation

of the local economy though the creation of new jobs and sources of

government revenues. For this reason, the Governor and his Department of

Planning and Economic Development have encouraged the development of seabed

mining in Hawaii.

Hawaii is the only specific location which industry has

publicly stated is an attractive site for processing. Although no formal

surveys or polls have been conducted to determine public attitudes, public

input has been received during workshops, meetings, and in the local press.

As is to be expected, some members of the public see nodule processing as

a major economic opportunity; others see it as environmentally damaging;

while others feel that socio-economic impacts will be most strongly

felt. This last concern was addressed in comments received from a Puna

community organization on NOAA's draft PUIS (National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 1981c, pp. 35-44).

Appendix 4

References

AhIstrom, 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.

Ahlstrom, 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.

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.

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.

Dames and Moore, 1980. Environmental, Social, and Economic Effects of
Continued Reliance on Land Mining to Produce Metals Available from
Manganese Nodules.

Hanson, P. J., A. J. Chester, F. A. Cross, 1983. Potential Assimilation
by and Effects on Oceanic Zooplankton of Trace Metals from Manganese
Nodule Fragments Discharged from Planned Ocean Mining Operations.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center,
Beaufort, North Carolina, 1983, 79 pp.

Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, November 1981.
The Feasibility and Potential Impact of Manganese Nodule Processing
in the Puna and Kohala Areas of Hawaii, report prepared for the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Marine Minerals, Rockville, Maryland.

Haynes, B. W., S. L. Law, and D. C. Barron, 1982a. Mineralogical and
Elemental Description of Pacific Manganese Nodules. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8906. 60 pp.

Haynes, B. W., S. L. Law and R. Maeda 1983a. Updated Process Flowsheets
for Manganese Nodule Processing. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8924. 100 pp.

Appendix 4 (cont'd) 92

Haynes, B. W., D. C. Barron, G. W. Kramer, and S. L. Law, 1983b. Methods
for Characterizing Manganese Nodules and Processing Wastes. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8953.
10 pp.

Haynes, B. W., and S. L. Law, 1982b. Predicted Characteristics of Waste
Materials from the Processing of Manganese Nodules. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8904. 10 pp.

Landing, W. M., and K. W. Bruland, 1980. Manganese in the North Pacific.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 49(1980) 45-56.

Marine Mining, vol. 3, No. 1/2, 1981. Theme Issue: Deep Ocean Mining
Environmental Study, 229 pp.

Matsumoto, W. M., 1983. Draft Report. Potential Impact of Deep Seabed
Mining on the Larvae of Tunas and Billfishes. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu Laboratory, Honolulu,
Hawaii. March 1983.

McGarry, J. F., and M. J. Brown, 1981. Analysis of State and Federal Laws
Applicable to Manganese Nodule Processing on the U.S. Gulf Coast, report
prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Marine Minerals Division, Rockville, Maryland.

National Academy of Sciences, 1982. Interim Report on Stable Reference
Areas - Report of a Meeting March 28-29, 1982.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981a. Deep Seabed Mining
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. I, September 1981.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981b. Deep Seabed Mining
Technical Guidance Document, September 1981.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981c. Deep Seabed Mining
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II - Response to
Comments, September 1981.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1982. Marine Environmental
Research Plan 1981-1985.

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.

Ozturgut, E., J. W. Lavelle, 1983. Potential Pycnocline Accumulation of Deep
Ocean Mining Particles.

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.

Appendix 4 (cont'd) 93

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 Technical Report ERL 290-00 11,
185 pp.

Rogers, Golden, and Halpern, 1982. State-of-the-Art Environmental Assessment
of Onshore Disposal of Manganese Nodule Rejects. U.S. Bureau of Mines.

Society of Mining Engineers Mining Engineering Handbook, Vol. 2, 1973.

Tetra-Tech, Inc., 1982. Evaluation of Ocean Disposal of Manganese Nodule
Processing Waste and Environmental Considerations, 423 pp.

Appendix 5

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary

Acronyms

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service

BOM - Bureau of Mines

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

MANOP - Manganese Nodule Program

OMCO - Ocean Minerals Company

OMA - Ocean Mining Associates

OMI - Ocean Management, Inc.

KCON - Kennecott Corporation

DOMES - Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

TCRs - Terms, conditions, and restrictions

SRA - Stable Reference Areas

IRA - Impact Reference Areas

PRA - Preservation Reference Areas

LOS - Law of the Sea

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service

PEIS - Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

SPM - Suspended particulate matter

NAS - National Academy of Sciences

NPS - National Park Service

96
Appendix 5 (Cont'd)

Chemicals and Trace Metals

A1 - aluminum Cr - chromium Mo - molybdenum

Sb - antimony Co - cobalt Ni - nickel

As - arsenic Cu - copper N - nitrogen

Ba - barium Fe - iron Se - selenium

Be - beryllium Pb - lead Ag - silver

Cd - cadmium Mn - manganese T1 - thallium

C - carbon Hg - mercury Zn - zinc

Measurements

Distance Ratios

mm - millimeters ug-at/1 - microgram atoms per liter

cm - centimeters cm/s - centimeters per second

m - meters ug/l - micrograms per liter

km - kilometers ug/g - micrograms per gram

�/oo - parts per thousand

ppm - parts per million

g/m2 - grams per square meter

umol/l - micromole per liter
Weight
g/cm3 - grams per cubic centimeter
mg - milligrams
m/s - meters per second
mt - metric tonnes
C/m3/day - carbon per cubic meter per day
kg - kilograms
ng/l - nannograms per liter

mg/m3 - milligrams per cubic meter

mgC/m2/day - milligrams carbon per square
meter per day

Appendix 5 (Cont'd)

Others

�F - degrees Fahrenheit

�C - degrees Centigrade or Celsius

m2 - square meters

m3 - cubic meters

kHz - kilohertz

s - seconds

Glossary (continued) 99

Brittle Star - A class of phylum Echinodermata of spiny-skinned, starfish-
like, bottom-dwelling, mobile organisms with five or more elongated,
brittle arms.

Bryozoan - A phylum of minute, colonial animals with body walls often
hardened by calcium carbonate that usually grow attached to plants,
rocks, or other firm surfaces.

Chaetognaths - One of a phylum of small, elongate, transparent, wormlike
animals pelagic in all seas from the surface to great depths. Also
called arrow worms.

Chain bag dredge - A sampling device consisting of a large metal frame
attached to a heavy chain mesh bag which is dragged along the seafloor.
Also called basket samplers and dredge baskets.

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
photosynthesis. The concentration of these pigments is used as an
index of the standing crop of phytoplankton.

Clay - As a size term, refers to sediment particles ranging in size from
0.0039 to 0.00024 mm. Mineralogically, clay is a hydrous aluminum
silicate material with plastic properties and a crystal structure.

Cnidarians (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
concentrations ("insects of the sea") in the surface waters and are
an important link in many marine food chains.

Crustaceans - A class of animals with a segmented external skeleton and
jointed appendages. Includes barnacles, crabs, shrimp, lobster, copepods,
and amphipods.

Deep-tow instrumentation - A towed, near bottom electronic system on which
simultaneously operating sensors are mounted that telemeter data to
the survey ship.

Echinoderms - One of a phylum of principally benthic marine animals having
calcareous plates with projecting spines forming a rigid or articulated
skeleton or plates and spicules embedded in the skin; includes
starfish, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers.

Eddy - A circular movement of water usually formed where currents pass
obstructions, between two adjacent currents flowing counter to each
other, or along the edge of a permanent current.

Epifauna - Animals which live at the water-substrate interface, either
attached to the bottom or moving freely over it, e.g., starfish.

Glossary (continued) 100

Epipelagic - That portion of the oceanic province extending from the
surface to a depth of about 200 m.

Euphausids - One of an order of shrimplike, planktonic crustaceans, widely
distributed in oceanic and coastal waters.

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.

Fracture zone - An extensive linear zone of irregular topography of the
seafloor; characterized by seamounts, steep-sided ridges, and
escarpments.

Free-fall corer - An untethered sampling device that sinks to the seafloor,
penetrates the bottom, and returns automatically to the surface.

Free-fall grab sampler - An untethered, bottom sampling device that sinks
to the seafloor, recovers nodules, and returns automatically to the
surface. May also have a sediment sampler and a camera attached.

Gastropods - A large class of mostly bottom-dwelling molluscs. Most forms
have a spiral shell.

Gravity corer - Any type of corer that achieves bottom penetration solely
as a result of gravitational force acting upon its mass.

Ichthyoplankton - Larval fish.

Infauna - Animals living in soft bottom sediments.

Isopods - An order of crustaceans with generally flattened bodies. Most
are deposit feeders.

Larvacean - One of a class of small, transparent, planktonic tunicates in
which the body is covered by a large tunic and is composed of a trunk
and a long tail. Also called appendicularia.

Macrofauna - Marine animals retained on a sieve of 0.3 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.

Megafauna - Animals large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

Meiofauna - Usually refers to animals that will pass through a 0.3, 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 down to a depth of about 1000 m.

Glossary (continued) 101

Micronekton - Early planktonic stages of fish and other actively swimming
organisms, such as squids.

Mollusk - A phylum of soft, unsegmented animals, most of which are
protected by a calcareous shell. Includes clams, oysters, squids,
and octopi.

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.

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.

Oxygen minimum zone - A subsurface water layer in which the dissolved
oxygen is very low.

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 - Marine worms with segmented bodies.

Preparatory Commission - A commission of Law of the Sea Treaty signatories
which will draft provisional mining regulations that will interpret,
clarify, and apply the convention text with greater precision.

Primary productivity - The amount of organic matter synthesized by
organisms from inorganic substances in unit time in a unit volume
of water.

Pycnocline - 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 - See benthic plume.

Reciprocating state - A foreign nation designated by NOAA that agrees to
recognize licenses and permits issued to U.S. citizens under the Deep
Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and to regulate the conduct of its
citizens in their exploration and commercial recovery of hard mineral
resources in a manner comparable with this Act.

Glossary (continued) 102

Red clay - A fine-grained, reddish-brown or chocolate colored sediment
formed by slow accumulation of material a long distance from the
continents in depths greater than 3500 m. It contains large proportions
of windblown particles, meteoric and volcanic dust, pumice, sharks teeth,
whale earbones, manganese nodules and debris rafted by ice. The calcium
carbonate content ranges from 0-30%.

Salinity - A measure of the quantity of dissolved salts in sea water.

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 or suspension
feeding.

Seaknoll - A mound-like relief form of the seafloor, less than 1000 m in
height.

Seamount - A submarine mountain, volcanic in origin, generally rising
1,000 m (3,300 ft) or more from the seafloor.

Sea star - True starfish with a flat, usually five-armed body.

Sea urchins - Bottom-dwelling marine animals with a skeleton composed of
immovable hard plates; many species possess long sharp spines.

Side-scan sonar - Echo-sounding device that provides a picture of the
variations of bottom roughness and small-scale topography to about
500 m to each side of the survey track.

Siliceous ooze - A fine-grained pelagic sediment containing more than 30%
siliceous skeletal remains of pelagic plants and animals.

Siphonophore - One of an order of coelenterates. Many are luminescent
and some possess an air-filled float.

Surface mixed layer - Layer of surface waters that overlay the thermocline.
It is characterized by fairly uniform temperature, salinity, and
density values. The waters are well-mixed through wind and wave action
and are high in oxygen content. Nutrient content is low because of
uptake by phytoplankton.

Surface plume - The suspended particles in the surface water composed of
the sediment, nodule fragments, and bottom water discharged over the
side of the mining vessel.

Suspended particulate matter - Concentrations of organic and inorganic
particles found suspended in the water column.

Tailings - Waste materials from metal refining.

Glossary (continued) 103

Tanaids - An order of very small crustaceans that live burrowed in the mud
or in self-constructed tubes. Superfically, they resemble tiny (1 mm)
lobsters.

Thermocline - Layer of water, at the base of the surface mixed layer, in
which there is a sharp decrease in temperature with depth.

Tenor - The percent or average metallic content of an ore.

Tiering - Refers to the coverage of general matters in a broad PEIS with
subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses in a site-
specific EIS.

Tonne - A metric ton (1000 kilograms).

Transponder - An automated receiver/transmitter for transmitting signals
when triggered by an interrogating signal.

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. In some ecosystems (e.g., detritus-based
ones) exact trophic levels are very difficult to assign.

Tsunami - A long-period sea wave produced by a submarine earthquake or
volcanic eruption.

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.

105

Appendix 6

Federal Agency Review of License Applications

Section 103(e) of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and

Section 970.211 of the regulations implementing the Act require NOAA to

consult with other Federal agencies which have programs or activities

within their statutory responsibilities which would be affected by the

activities proposed in the applications. NOAA has provided copies of

the applications to and received comments and recommendations from the

agencies listed below.

Agency

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Interior - Office of the Secretary and National Park Service

Department of Defense

Department of State

Federal Trade Commission

Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service and Office of

Coastal Zone Management

Department of Labor - Mine Safety and Health Administration

Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard

National Science Foundation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Justice

Small Business Administration

107

APPENDIX 7

Figures and Tables

from the Application of

Ocean Minerals Company

300

~~ Tropical Storm/
250 - f iSource Region

Rapid Developers

North Pacific" <<>/

50 Water Temperature +26010 (800F) _
IN

0 0

1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 g o I

Figure 7-A. Tropical storm source region (Appendix E, OMCO license application, 1982).

350iii

3Q01

250~
. H wia Islands
car% ~ Prime Nodule
200 - Belt

1511~~~~ - -
North
Pacifictrm acks I
100~ -

50 -

0 0IIIIIIIIII
16001 1500 1400 13001 1200 1100 1 000C

Figure 7-B3. Normal storm tracks (Appendix E, OMCO license application, 1982).

110

12- -

14 -

34.3 34.5 34.7
Salinity 0/00 A

10 15 20 25

JAmolI 0 2 liter- U

Figure 7-C. Vertical Profiles of salinity, temperature and dissolved oxygen in OMCO license area.
(Appendix F, OMCO license application, 1982)

II11

TABLE 7-A PREDOMINANT ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
AT THREE SITES ACROSS THE EXPLORATION AREA

(Appendix E, OMCO license application, 1982)

SITE I SITE II SITE III

WIND DIRECTION NNE-E 81% E-NE 88% E-NE 87%
SPEED 0-1Om/s 97% O-lOm/s 96% 0-lOm/s 98%

SEA DIRECTION NNE-E 84% E-NE 89% E-NE 88%
HEIGHT 0.5-1.5m 94% 0.5-1.5m 92% 0.5-1.5m 90%

SWELL STATE Calm 54% Calm 53% Calm 66%
DIRECTION NW 24% NW 20% NW-NNW 20%
HEIGHT 0.5-1.5m 43% 0.5-1.5m 45% 0.5-1.5m 32%
PERIOD 13-15s 21% 13-15s 19% 13-15s 15%

TABLE 7-B

FREQUENCY OF EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC TROPICAL STORMS/HURRICANES COMBINED
BY MONTH AND YEAR SINCE 1966 (Appendix E, OMCO License application, 1982)

MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV TOTAL

1966 0/0 1/1 0/0 4/4 6/2 2/0 0/0 13/7
1967 0/0 3/1 4/0 4/2 3/1 3/2 0/0 17/6
1968 0/0 1/0 4/0 8/3 3/2 3/1 0/0 19/6
1969 0/0 0/0 3/1 2/1 4/1 1/1 0/0 10/4
1970 1/1 3/0 6/1 4/1 1/0 2/1 1/0 18/4
1971 1/1 1/1 7/5 4/2 2/2 2/1 1/0 18/12
1972 1/1 0/0 1/0 6/6 2/1 1/0 1/0 12/8
1973 0/0 3/1 4/3 1/0 3/2 1/1 0/0 12/7
1974 1/0 3/2 3/2 6/4 2/2 2/1 0/0 17/11
1975 0/0 2/1 4/2 5/3 3/1 1/1 1/0 16/8
1976 0/0 2/2 4/1 4/2 3/3 1/0 0/0 14/8
1977 1/0 1/0 1/1 1/1 3/1 1/1 0/0 8/4
1978 1/1 3/2 4/3 6/4 2/1 2/1 0/0 18/12
1979 1/1 1/1 2/1 2/2 1/1 2/1 1/0 10/7

TOTAL 7/5 24/12 47/20 57/35 39/20 24/12 5/0 202/104

ANNUAL 0.5/ 1.7/ 3.4/ 4.0/ 2.8/ 1.7/ 0.4/ 14.4/
AVG. 0.4 0.9 1.4 2.5 1.4 0.9 0 7.4

The number to the left of the slant mark represents the total number of
cyclones while the number to the right represents those storms reaching
hurricane force. For example, in September 1966, there were six storms
including two hurricanes.

112
TABLE 7-C

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TROPICAL CYCLONES AT THE THREE
STUDY LOCATIONS, 1966-1979 (Appendix E, OMCO license application, 1982)

Month Days Site I Site II Site III
% % %

JUNE 36 <5 <5
JULY 1-10 37 15 <5
JULY 11-20 22 15 <5
JULY 21-31 15 15 (5
AUG 1-10 22 15 <5
AUG 11-20 15 15 <5
AUG 21-31 15 15 <5
SEPT 1-10 15 15 10
SEPT 11-20 30 15 <5
SEPT 21-30 10 <5 <5
OCT 1-15 10 <5 <5
OCT 16-31 30 10 <5

TABLE 7-D

Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Values of Material in Sediment Traps
(Appendix F, OMCO license application, 1982)

Depth
Sample (m) mg N % N mg C % C C/m3/day

A-i 0.99 6.1 5.89 30.9 58.76
A-2 125 1.22 5.8 6.78 30.9 67.64
A-3 1.08 5.4 6.03 27.9 60.16

B-1 0.26 3.3 1.75 21.9 17.46
B-1 275 0.29 4.1 1.96 27.6 19.56

C-1 0.25 3.7 1.72 25.9 17.16
C-1 525 0.25 4.4 1.54 27.3 15.36
C-2 0.22 4.5 1.46 27.2 14.57

D-1 0.16 2.0 .66 15.1 6.58
D-2 900 0.13 3.4 1.06 24.4 10.58
D-3 0.23 2.2 1.73 17.1 9.57

Table 7-E - Trace Metal Concentrations of Material In Sediment Traps (Appendix F. OHCO License Application 1982)

Mn (ppm) Zn (ppm) Cu (ppm)
Depth Depth Depth
Sample (m) Leach Bomb Total Sample (m) Leach Bomb Total Sample (m) Leach Bomb Total

A-I 125 6.81 5.81 12.74 A-i 125 241 126 361 A-I 125 3.11 8.11 11.22
A-3 5.93 6.55 12.48 A-3 219 169 448 A-3 1.71 7.68 9.39

B-1 275 44.64 19.64 64.28 B-1 275 224 213 437 8-1 275 8.22 22.03 30.25
B-2 44.34 20.33 64.67 B-2 286 410 756 B-2 3.13 29.20 32.33

C-2 525 97.62 21.30 118.92 C-2 525 1010 1445 2455 C-2 525 6.90 25.95 32.85
C-3 116.94 20.90 131.84 C-3 1349 407 1156 C-3 10.50 45.63 56.13

0-2 900 113.04 17.18 130.22 0-2 900 1114 587 1701 D-2 900 9.21 48.64 57.85
D-3 55.18 8.90 64.08 0-3 601 371 972 D-3 5.36 21.16 27.12

UL-I 37.68 18.17 56.45 DL-i 185 311 496 OL-1 4.95 30.98 35.91
OL-2 88.07 13.22 101.29 DL-2 442 386 828 DL-2 5.68 41.66 41.34
DL-3 41.47 15.18 56.65 DL-3 230 1507 1737 DL-3 8.05 34.06 42.11

Cd (ppm) Ni (ppm) Fe (ppm)

A-I 125 3.13 0.18 3.32 A-i 125 30.28 11.50 41.78 A-I 125 55 555 610
A-3 2.84 0.18 3.02 A-3 15.57 11.55 27.12 A-2 32 762 194

0B- 275 0.52 0.22 0.74 U-l 275 27.48 41.16 68.64 B-1 275 71 1544 1615
U-2 0.70 0.13 0.83 0-2 100.29 40.41 140.70 0-2 170 1949 2120

C-2 525 0.47 0.44 0.91 C-2 525 121.68 54.67 176.35 C-2 525 368 2980 3348
C-3 0.71 0.23 0.94 C-3 215.10 67.29 282.39 C-3 297 2698 2995

D-2 900 0.57 0.33 0.90 0-2 900 183.14 66.60 249.74 0-2 900 399 2996 3394
0-3 0.42 0.07 0.49 0-3 150.09 36.77 186.86 0-3 456 2155 2612

0L-1 8.69 1.37 10.06 DL-I 410.41 11.61 482.02 DL-1 721 3305 4026
DL-2 1.81 0.31 2.12 DL-2 112.92 72.39 185.31 DL-2 179 2091 2210
DL-3 1.22 0.77 1.99 DL-3 243.21 58.46 301.67 0L-3 824 2448 3272

Al (ppm)

A-i 125 1.3 693 00O D-3 31.2 1665 1102
A-3 10.8 1061 1012
UL-I 59.3 2959 3018
B-1 275 32.5 2209 2242 DL-2 45.9 2119 2165
8-2 37.8 1721 1159 DL-3 62.7 2312 2435

C-2 525 55.4 3342 3397
C-3 65.2 3606 3611

D-2 900 65.4 3932 3997

Table 7-F 114

Water Column Nutrient Concentrations in the Vicinity
of the Application Area (Appendix F, OMCO License application 1982)

poq3 SiO2 N0O N0O N03 + NO0

Depth (m) -------------------------umol/liter-----------------------------

25 .28 1.52 .422 .09 .512

50 .283 1.62 .598 .085 .683

100 .65 5.75 4.54 .24 4.78

150 1.650 13.9 18.68 .10 18.78

200 2.67 28.3 29.11 .09 29.20

225 2.80 31.4 32.18 .09 32.27

250-1 2.684 30.2 31.43 .10 31.53

250-2 2.997 32.9 31.54 .11 31.65

275 2.803 33.7 33.95 .09 34.04

300 2.84 32.4 32.57 .10 32.67

325 3.025 35.8 33.38 .28 33.66

350 2.89 43.5 35.35 .08 35.43

375 3.01 38.2 33.65 .34 33.99

400 2.917 40.6 40.08 .07 40.15

450 3.15 44.9 37.61 .10 37.71

500-1 3.309 50.1 38.20 .23 38.43

500-2 3.285 49.2 38.33 .10 38.43

600 2.83 54.8 35.86 .07 35.93

700 3.63 72.8 41.61 .11 41.72

800 3.575 75.5 .42.44 .09 42.53

900 3.555 80.0 43.48 .08 43.56

1000 3.496 84.1 42.88 .17 43.05

1250 3.432 101 43.29 .10 43.39

1500 3.22 103 41.85 .05 41.90

Table 7-G 115

Water Column Dissolved Metal Concentrations (ng/1) (Chelex)

(Appendix F, OMCO license Application 1982)

Depth Zn Mn Cd Ni Cu Pb

25 169 46 1.9 145 26 21

50 166 45 1.5 147 29 9

100 168 90 4.1 158 26 19

150 50 44 34 191 23 17

200 98 51 81 282 27 11

225 111 47 88 306 25 8

250-1 95 41 99 316 24 13

2 117 69 89 277 25 8

275 49 38 97 332 22 5

300 226 44 95 330 29 39

325 87 33 100 369 22 8

350 76 36 87 303 23 21

375 87 47 100 351 28 7

400 136 30 107 351 23 6

450 211 41 97 356 27 3

500-1 132 40 114 383 28 2

2 111 38 110 383 26 1

600 204 35 109 397 31 8

700 276 56 133 495 31 5

800 290 32 127 462 31 4

900 389 146 130 524 26 6

1000 393 25 140 509 33 2

1250 433 22 131 548 36 3

1500 500 17 124 555 45 6

Table 7-H 116

Water Column Particulate Trace Metal Contents (ng/l)
(Appendix F, OMCO License Application 1982)

Mn Zn Cu

Depth (m) Leach Bomb Total Leach Bomb Total Leach Bomb Total

25 0.48 0.27 0.75 3.8 2.1 5.9 2.7 2.2 4.9

50 0.76 0.29 1.1 2.3 0.98 3.3 0.94 2.7 3.6

100 1.3 0.39 1.6 15.7 139.4 155.1 31.0 14.7 45.6

150 6.2 0.61 6.8 18.7 2.3 21.0 7.6 6.6 14.2

200 ll.9 0.67 12.6 1.3 1.2 2.6 0.84 2.2 3.1

225 21.4 1.6 23.0 1.7 1.2 2.9 0.65 0.99 1.6

250 #1 10.6 0.92 11.5 1.8 2.0 3.7 0.50 1.5 2.0

250 #2 21.4 0.77 22.2 6.5 1.8 8.3 12.5 3.6 16.1

275 9.0 0.43 9.4 3.6 1.8 5.3 0.62 2.8 3.4

300 10.9 1.1 12.0 3.3 1.8 5.1 1.2 2.2 3.4

325 7.6 1.1 8.8 6.5 1.3 7.8 1.9 2.9 4.8

350 3.1 0.31 3.4 1.7 0.87 2.6 1.2 1.6 2.8

375 3.9 0.24 4.1 3.0 0.38 3.4 2.4 1.5 3.9

400 6.6 0.73 7.3 1.6 1.4 3.0 1.5 2.6 4.1

450 4.5 0.51 5.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 0.35 1.7 2.0

500 #1 5.9 0.39 6.3 4.7 1.2 5.9 3.1 2.6 5.7

500 #2 7.4 0.38 7.8 1.4 1.1 2.5 0.8 1.5 2.3

600 5.9 0.55 6.5 2.3 3.1 5.4 2.0 3.8 5.7

700 9.5 0.38 9.9 1.7 0.91 2.6 0.76 2.0 2.8

800 10.5 0.27 10.8 2.7 0.79 3.5 1.4 2.1 3.5

900 5.9 0.55 6.4 2.7 0.62 3.4 0.83 1.6 2.4

1000 3.9 0.35 4.3 4.6 0.66 5.3 0.48 2.0 2.5

1250 5.4 1.4 6.9 2.6 1.4 4.0 0.53 1.4 1.9

1500 5.0 0.54 5.5 5.8 3.0 8.8 2.3 1.8 4.1

Table 7-H (cont'd) 117

Cd Ni Fe Al
Leach| Bomb Total Leach Bomb Total Leach Bomb Total Leach Bomb Total

0.31 0.03 0.34 1.7 0.48 2.2 0.87 40.2 41.1 0.82 35.2 36.0

0.49 1 0,03 1 0.52 1 11.9 1 0.81 I 2.7 1 11.3 1 51.1 1 52.4 11.6 1 20.0 1 21.6 i

0.47 I 0.05 0.52 0.28 0.92 1.2 0.74 22.2 I 22.9 1.7 45.2 46.9

0.49 0.01 0.50 2.6 1.2 3.8 2.3 53.8 56.1 3.0 25.0 28.0

0.19 0.02 0.21 2.2 0.59 2.7 3.3 19.5 22.8 4.0 43.0 47.0

0.24 0.03 0.27 0.39 0.73 1.1 2.3 33.9 36.2 1.5 26.9 28.4

0.24 0.02 0.26 0.34 1.4 1.7 1.0 33.6 34.6 1.5 22.1 23.5

0.30 0.02 0.32 1.1 0.86 2.0 8.9 37.2 46.1 4.2 30.6 34.8

0.21 0.02 0.23 0.57 1.8 2.3 2.5 08.4 110.9 3.3 32.5 35.8

0.20 0.02 0.22 1.0 1.2 2.2 2.1 38.3 40.4 3.8 33.9 37.7

0.27 0.05 0.32 1.5 0.86 2.3 3.3 41.6 44.8 3.3 22.8 26.1

0.13 0.01 0.14 1.1 0.67 1.8 3.0 67.6 70.6 3.7 28.8 32.5

0.13 0.02 0.15 0.61 0.58 1.2 6.9 21.1 28.0 4.6 46.8 51.4

0.14 0.03 0.17 0.68 0.74 1.4 1.4 22.7 24.1 3.4 93.2 96.6

0.12 0.01 0.13 0.81 1.0 1.9 2.1 76.7 78.9 3.8 27.9 31.7

0.10 0.02 0.12 0.78 0.78 1.6 2.6 30.0 32.5 3.0 28.6 31.6

0.11 0.01 0.12 0.58 0.54 1.1 4.9 33.4 38.2 3.1 21.4 24.4

0.11 0.02 0.13 1.7 0.87 2.5 1.9 32.1 34.0 4.6 34.7 39.4

0.10 0.01 0.11 1.1 0.78 1.9 6.9 37.1 43.9 2.8 33.6 36.3

0.07 0.01 0.08 4.8 0.63 5.4 14.6 23.0 37.6 6.2 25.0 31.2

0.37 0.01 0.38 1.6 0.48 2.1 6.6 34.5 41.1 5.4 22.9 28.3

0.08 0.04 0.12 1.9 0.65 2.5 5.8 28.9 34.7 4.9 17.8 22.8

0.12 0.01 0.13 1.0 0.62 1.7 4.8 40.8 45.6 3.5 33.0 36.5

0.16 0.02 0.18 1.3 0.67 1.9 4.8 38.0 42.8 9.3 36.3 45.6

Table 7-I
Day and night abundance estimates of invertebrate zooplankton
taxa and radiolarians/forams within five depth intervals or as
means and standard deviations in the Eastern Tropical Pacific.
Abundance of numbers per 10 m2 sea surface in (N). (Appendix G,
OMCO license application, 1982).

75-100 m
Night/
Overall (n=21) Day (n=13) Night Day Significance
Rank Taxon Rank R S Rank R S Ratio Z Level

1 Copepods 1 33099.0 16609.8 1 27745.5 16394.5 0.84 0.92
2 Chaetognaths 2 9733.8 5599.5 2 6019.2 3599.8 0.62 2.35 P<O.O1l
3 Siphonophores 3 4144.5 3271.0 4 3699.2 3476.5 0.89 0.37
4 Euphausids 7 1796.8 1667.8 3 4543.2 4034.0 2.5 2.33 P<O.O1
5 Amphipods 5 2241.8 4663.5 8 1824.8 2192.2 0.81 0.35
6 Larvaceans 4 2664.8 2347.5 6 2312.2 1318.2 0.87 0.56
7 Ostracods 6 2136.8 2761.2 7 2033.0 2938.2 0.95 0.10
8 Thaliaceans 8 1508.8 1372.8 9 1158.5 980.2 0.77 0.87
9 Medusae 12 256.8 287.5 5 2844.2 9802.0 11.1 0.95
10 Pteropods 9 1205.2 1554.5 10 1102.0 1727.5 0.91 0.18
11 Decapods 10 693.5 718.2 14 166.0 214.0 0.24 3.14 P<O.0l
12 Crustacean larvae 15 125.2 439.2 12 523.0 843.5 4.1 1.57
13 Cephalopods 14 162.5 319.8 11 538.5 1413.8 3.3 0.94
14 Heteropods 11 296.5 1010.0 13 179.0 607.5 0.60 0.42
15 Polychaetes 13 219.2 279.0 15 69.5 120.5 0.32 2.16 P<0.05
16 Echinoderms 16 28.8 96.2 16 27.0 68.8 0.94 0.06
17 Cladocerans 17 9.2 42.0 18 - - - 1.00
18 Salps 18 - - 17 2.2 8.2 - 0.96

Radiolarians/forams 8561.2 7572.2 6838.5 8297.8 0.80 0.61

Table 7-I (cont'd)

0-0.25 m (neuston)
Night/
Overall (n=14) Day (n=9) Night Day Significance
Rank Taxon Rank x S Rank X S Ratio Z Level

1 Copepods 1 1169.4 1041.2 1 3040.1 1333.9 2.6 3.57 P<0.001
2 Mysids 16 0.4 1.4 2 792.2 772.7 1980.0 3.07 P<O.O1
3 Larvaceans 2 160.8 146.6 4 333.4 141.0 2.1 2.82 P<O.O1
4 Chaetognaths 4 51.2 34.1 3 412.7 310.2 8.1 3.48 P<O.OO1
5 Amphipods 12 2.6 4.0 5 297.9 309.5 115.0 2.86 P<O.O1
6 Siphonophores 3 78.5 106.4 6 124.2 106.9 1.6 1.00
7 Pteropods 5 71.2 66.0 9 55.1 49.3 0.77 0.66
8 Medusae 9 9.3 15.9 7 90.6 63.9 9.7 3.74 P<O.001
9 Echinoderms 8 18.8 43.0 8 71.4 120.7 3.8 1.26
10 Thaliaceans 7 31.2 109.3 11 42.7 28.4 1.4 0.37
11 Decapods 10 4.2 7.1 10 53.9 40.0 12.8 3.69 P<0.001
12 Ostracods 6 36.7 137.4 18 1.0 2.9 0.03 0.97
13 Euphausids 19.5 - - 12 41.2 81.3 - 1.52
14 Polychaetes 17 0.2 0.9 13 22.9 26.7 114.0 2.55 P<0.05
15 Crustacean larvae 11 3.2 4.9 14 7.2 13.2 2.2 0.86
16 Turbelloria 14 0.9 2.7 15 3.7 11.2 4.1 0.74
17 Cephalopods 19.5 - - 16 3.3 6.7 - 1.47
18 Nudibranchs 15 0.6 1.4 17 2.2 6.5 3.7 0.70
19 Cladocera 13 1.6 2.9 19.5 - - - 2.06 P<O.05
20 Heteropods 18 0.1 0.5 19.5 - - - 0.75

Radiolarians/forams 243.4 135.3 426.9 300.4 1.72

Table 7-I (cont'd)

0-25 m
Night/
Overall (n=29) Day (n=15) Night Day Significance
Rank Taxon Rank R S Rank R S Ratio Z Level

1 Copepods 1 34101.8 32115.0 1 38884.2 25646.5 1.1 0.54
2 Chaetognaths 2 11325.5 8730.5 3 19564.2 22415.8 1.7 1.37
3 Euphausids 7 1697.5 3805.0 2 19567.0 18141.2 11.5 3.78 P<0.001
4 Larvaceans 4 3223.5 4180.8 5 3698.8 2406.5 1.1 0.48
5 Amphipods 3 3238.2 7544.8 8 1311.2 1471.5 0.40 1.30
6 Siphonophores 5 1882.8 2220.5 6 3163.0 3039.8 1.7 1.44
7 Decapods 9 787.2 1796.2 4 3847.0 10388.2 4.9 1.13
8 Pteropods 8 1146.0 2240.2 7 2682.5 3220.0 2.3 1.65
9 Thaliaceans 6 1834.0 3119.0 10 904.2 1695.0 0.49 1.28
10 Crustacean larvae 11 308.2 1188.0 9 1045.0 1782.2 3.4 1.44
11 Heteropods 10 309.2 474.0 11 726.5 1345.2 2.3 1.16
12 Cephalopods 13 168.2 561.2 12 328.8 638.2 1.9 0.82
13 Polychaetes 12 222.2 570.5 15 186.8 376.5 0.84 0.24
14 Medusae 14 141.5 23.5 14 195.2 514.8 1.4 0.38
15 Ostracods 16 25.8 104.5 13 224.2 546.2 8.6 1.39
16 Echinoderms 15 33.2 179.8 17.5 - - - 0.99
17 Cladocera 18 - - 16 11.5 44.5 - 1.00
18 Ctenophores 17 2.4 9.0 17.5 - - - 0.10

Radiolarians/forams 16686.2 22699.2 10716.8 11928.5 0.64 1.14

Table 7-I (cont'd)

25-50 m
Night/
Overall (n=29) Day (n=13) Night Day Significance
Rank Taxon Rank X S Rank R S Ratio Z Level

1 Copepods 1 51758.2 21626.5 1 27643.2 13847.5 0.53 4.34 P<O.001
2 Chaetognaths 2 18074.0 11549.5 2 6937.8 2492.2 0.38 4.94 P<0.001
3 Siphonophores 4 4595.8 5145.8 4 3546.2 2218.5 0.77 0.92
4 Amphipods 3 6333.2 8977.0 9 761.2 1031.5 0.12 3.29 P=0.001
5 Euphausids 6 2141.5 5085.5 3 5403.8 2434.8 2.5 2.81 P<0.01
6 Larvaceans 5 2739.5 2089.0 5 1728.8 1873.0 0.63 1.56
7 Pteropods 7 1357.2 2605.5 8 868.5 692.0 0.64 0.94
8 Ostracods 9 939.0 1761.0 6 1534.5 3345.5 1.6 0.60
9 Thaliaceans 8 1256.5 1255.0 7 887.0 691.0 0.71 1.22
10 Crustacean larvae 10 782.5 2135.8 10 300.5 543.5 0.38 1.14
11 Decapods 11 747.2 979.5 11 204.2 202.0 0.27 2.85 P<0.O1
12 Cephalopods 13 396.8 868.5 12 157.0 440.5 0.40 1.18
13 Heteropods 12 421.2 1607.5 14 11.2 41.0 0.03 1.37
14 Medusae 14 275.0 726.2 13 117.2 157.8 0.42 1.11
15 Polychaetes 15 175.5 290.0 17.5 - - - 3.26 P<O.01
16 Echinoderms 16 63.0 190.8 15 11.0 39.5 0.17 1.40
17 Gastropods 17 40.0 217.2 17.5 - - - 0.99
18 Mysids 18 10.0 53.5 17.5 - - - 1.00
19 Cladocera 19 2.4 13.0 17.5 - - - 0.99

Radiolarians/forams 17428.0 12864.0 6733.0 5184.8 0.39 3.84 P<O.01

Table 7-I (cont'd)

25-75 m
Night/
Overall (n=26) Day (n=14) Night Day Significance
Rank Taxon Rank R S Rank R S Ratio Z Level

1 Copepods 1 36490.5 20438.0 1 28932.5 18880.8 0.79 1.17
2 Chaetognaths 2 11694.5 7724.8 3 4719.0 3390.5 0.40 3.95 P<O.001
3 Siphonophores 3 4928.0 5815.8 4 4635.8 3619.5 0.94 0.19
4 Larvaceans 4 4583.8 6487.0 5 2931.8 2162.8 0.64 1.18
5 Euphausids 5 1946.0 1516.8 2 7280.5 4884.5 3.7 3.98 P<0.001
6 Amphipods 6 1817.8 1949.5 6 1140.2 2207.5 0.62 0.97
7 Thaliaceans 8 1198.2 1253.8 7 1065.2 955.0 0.89 0.38
8 Pteropods 7 1209.2 1371.2 9 870.5 1072.8 0.72 0.86
9 Ostracods 9 1054.5 1976.5 10 798.5 547.5 0.76 0.62
10 Crustacean larvae 11 540.0 1319.0 11 436.0 1023.8 0.81 0.27
11 Decapods 10 557.2 1488.8 13 278.0 236.0 0.50 0.93
12 Cephalopods 15 176.8 278.2 8 1034.5 2555.0 5.8 1.25
13 Heteropods 12 340.8 1242.0 12 428.2 1509.0 1.2 0.18
14 Polychaetes 14 185.8 422.8 14 148.2 236.2 0.80 0.36
15 Medusae 13 212.0 300.8 15 95.2 135.5 0.45 1.68

Radiolarians/forams 12234.8 9865.0 6674.0 7012.2 0.55 2.06 P<0.05

Table 7-J
Larval fishes collected in bongo net hauls within four depth
intervals in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, Abundance for each
taxon expressed as mean numbers per 100 mJ (mean is day and
night estimates) and as percent of total (0-100 m) summed abundance
within each 15 m depth interval. The percent contribution by
each taxon to the total Ichthyoplankton is also provided.
(Appendix G, OMCO License Application, 1982).

Total Depth Interval (m)
Abundance Percent 0-25 25-50 50-15 75-100
No./lOOmJ of Total No./lO00ij % No./100lm % No./100lm No./lOOmJ %

BATHYLAGIDAE
Bathylagus nigrigenys 20.8 0.90 --- --- 0.2 1.0 1.0 4.8 19.6 94.2

GONOSTOMATIDAE
Cyclothone spp. 19.7 0.85 11.5 58.4 4.0 20.3 2.3 11.7 1.9 9.6
Diplophos taenia 8.5 0.37 5.6 65.9 1.4 16.5 0.9 10.6 0.6 7.0
Vinciguerria sp. 1780.8 77.10 120.4 6.8 520.6 29.2 733.0 41.2 406.8 22.8

STERNOPTYCHIDAE
Argyropetecus sp. 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.2 100.0

STOMIATOID FISHES
Unid. Stomiatoids 1.5 0.06 0.1 6.7 0.7 46.7 0.3 20.0 0.4 26.7

ASTRONESTIUAE
Unid. Astronestid 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.2 100.0

IDIACANTHIDAE
Idiacanthus sp. 16.0 0.69 0.3 1.9 --- --- 1.7 10.6 14.0 87.5

MELANOSTOMIATIDAE
Bathophilus fillfer 4.0 0.17 --- --- 2.6 64.4 0.2 100.0 --- ---
Eustomias sp. 0.05 --- --- --- 0.05 100.0 --- ---
Unid. Melanostomiatoid 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

PARALEPIDIDAE
Type A (poss.) 2.8 0.12 --- --- 1.4 50.0 0.6 21.4 0.8 28.6
Type B (poss.) 5.6 0.24 0.3 5.4 0.9 16.1 3.2 57.1 1.2 21.4
Stemnosudis macrura 12.5 0.54 0.2 1.6 4.6 36.8 5.7 45.6 2.0 16.0
Unid. Paralepidids 1.9 0.08 0.3 15.8 0.4 21.0 1.0 52.6 0.2 10.5

Table 7-J (cont'd)

Total Depth Interval (m)
Abundance Percent 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100
No./loomj of Total No./110m3 % No./lOO 3 % No.10om3 ,% No.110Gm3 %

BREGMACEROTIDAE
Bregmaceros spp. 7.9 0.34 --- --- 0.3 3.8 3.2 40.5 4.4 55.7

EXOCOETIDAE
Cypselurus sp. 0.1 --- 0.1 100.0 --- ---
Unid. exocoetid 0.1 --- 0.1 100.0 --- ---

BERYCIFORM FISHES
Unid. beryciform fish 1.2 0.05 --- --- 0.8 66.7 0.2 16.7 0.2 16.

MELAMPHAEIDAE
Melamphaes sp. 2.0 0.09 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.0 100.0
Scopelogadus mizolepis
bispinosus 1.6 0.07 --- --- 0.1 6.2 0.3 18.8 1.2 75.0

TRACHIPTERIDAE
Zu cristatus 0.6 0.03 0.3 54.5 0.1 18.2 0.1 18.2 0.05 9.1
'Uniid. trachipterid 0.3 0.01 0.04 12.1 0.05 15.2 0.04 12.1 0.2 60.6

CORYPHAENIDAE
Coryphaena sp. 0.3 0.01 0.3 100.0 --- --- ---

CHIASMODONTIDAE
Unid. chiasmodontids 1.2 0.05 0.2 16.7 0.1 8.3 0.1 8.3 0.8 66.7

GEMPYLIDAE
Gempylus serpens 3.3 0.14 2.6 78.8 0.3 9.1 0.4 12.1

TRICHIURIDAE
Diplospinus multistriatus 1.4 0.06 --- --- --- --- 0.8 57.1 0.6 42.9
Neolotus tripes 0.06 --- --- --- 0.06 100.0

Table 7-J (cont'd)

Total Depth Interval (m)
Abundance Percent 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100
Taxon No./1 00m of Total No./100m3 % No./100m-3 5 No./100iJ % No.1100w3 %

EVERMANNELLIDAE
inid. Evermannellid 0.05 --- --- 0.05 100.0 ---

SCOPELARCHIDAE
Scopelarchoides nlcholsi 27.3 1.18 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 8.2 30.0 18.8 68.9

NOTOSUDIDAE
Unid. Notusudid 0.1 --- --- --- 0.1 100.0 ---

MYCTOPHIDAE
S.F. MYCTOPHINAE
Bolinichthys sP. 3.1 0.13 1.9 61.3 1.0 32.2 0.2 6.4
Ceratoscope us sp. 1.9 0.08 0.2 10.5 0.9 47.4 --- --- 0.8 42.1
Diaphus (prob. pacificus) 58.4 2.53 0.8 1.4 20.8 35.6 27.2 46.6 9.6 16.4
Lampanyctus idostigma 3.7 0.16 --- --- 0.1 2.7 1.6 43.2 2.0 54.0
L. ornostigma 2.4 0.10 --- --- 1.4 58.3 0.6 25.0 0.4 16.7
L. parvicauda 7.2 0.31 1.0 13.9 2.8 38.9 2.2 30.6 1.2 16.7
Caimpanyctus spp. 2.4 0.16 --- --- 0.2 8.3 0.6 25.0 1.6 66.7
Benthosema sp. 0.2 --- --- --- --- 0.2 100.0
Diogenichthys laternatus 184.3 7.98 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 50.4 27.3 132.2 71.7
Gonichthys tenuiculus 3.8 0.16 --- --- --- --- 1.8 47.4 2.0 52.6
Hygophum atratum 6.5 0.28 0.05 0.8 0.02 6.3 2.0 30.9 4.4 68.0
H. proxiiu 23.0 1.00 --- --- 3.1 13.5 12.8 55.6 7.1 30.9
Myctophum aurolaternatum 7.2 0.31 0.3 4.2 1.8 25.0 3.3 45.8 1.8 25.0
M. nitidului 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.05 20.0 0.2 80.0
Myctophum spp. 0.3 0.01 --- --- --- 0.1 33.3 0.2 66.7
Symbolophorus evermanni 78.8 3.41 0.2 0.2 2.0 2.5 30.4 38.6 46.2 58.6

CERATIOID FISHES
Unid. Ceratioid 0.1 --- 0.1 83.3 --- --- --- --- 0.02 16.7

ONEIRODIDAE
Unid. Oneirodid 0.4 0.02 --- --- 0.05 14.3 0.2 57.1 0.1 28.6

Table 7-J (cont'd)

Total Depth Interval (m)
Abundanc Percent 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100
Taxon No./l00wM of Total No.1100w3 % No.1100w3 % No.1100W3 % No.1100m3 %

SCOMBRIDAE
Acanthocybium sp. 0.4 0.02 --- --- --- --- 0.3 78.9 0.08 21.1
Auxis spp. 0.6 0.03 0.2 33.3 0.4 66.7 --
Katsuwonus pelamis 0.1 --- 0.1 100.0 ---
Thunnus spp. 0.8 0.03 0.6 75.0 0.2 25.0 --- ---
Unid. Scombrids 0.3 0.01 0.1 25.0 0.2 50.0 0.1 25.0

CARANGIDAE*
Unid. Carangid 0.2 --- 0.2 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- --

ICOSTEIDAE*
Unid. Icosteid 0.1 --- --- --- --- --- 0.1 100.0

ECHENEIDAE*
Unid. Echeneid 0.1 --- 0.1 100.0 --- ---

CHLOROPHTHALMIDAE*
Unid. Chlorophthalmid 0.06 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.06 100.0

NOMEIDAE
Cubiceps pauciradiatus 0.5 0.02 0.3 60.0 0.2 40.0 --- ---

127

Table 7-K Midwater Fish The following list is a taxonomic account of all
the fish retained in free fall grab samplers. (Appendix K, OMCO
license application, 1982)

Order Anguilliformes
Suborder Anguil loidei
Family - Nemichthyidae
Avocettina sp.
Avocettina bowersi
Family - Serrivomeridae
Serrivomer sector

Order Salmoniformes
Suborder Stomaitoidei
Family - Gonostomatidae
Cyclothone accl inidens
Family - Sternoptychidae
Argyropelecus lychnus
Sternoptyx obscura
Family - Chauliodontida
Chauliodus sloani
Family - Stomiatidae
Stomias colubrinus
Family - Idiacanthidae
Idiacanthus fasciola
Order Myctophi formes
Family - Ipnopidae
Ipnops meadi
Family - Myctophidae'
Lampanyctus idostigm-a
Lampanyctus; omostigma
Lampanyctus macropterus
Symbolophorus evermanni
Diogenichthys Taternatus
Family - Neoscopelidae
Scopelengys tristis
Family - Scopel arch Td-e-
Scopelarchoides, nicholsi
Order Gadi formes
Suborder Macrouridae
Macrouri dae
Coryphaenoids sp.
Order Beryci formes
Suborder Stephanoberycidae
Family - Melamphaidae
Poromitra crassiceps
Scopeloberyx robustus
Melampniaes laeviceps
Scopelogadus ~m.bi-spinosus
Order Perci formes
Suborder Percoidei
Family - Chielodipteridae (Apogonidae)
Chielodipterid
Family - Bramidae
Eumegistus illustris
Suborder Blennioidei
Family - Chiasmodontidae
Kali normani

128

Table 7-L Invertebrate Species Collected From Applications Areas
(Appendix H, OMCO license application, 1982)

Protozoa

Xenophyophoria - at least two species, including Stanophyllum, which occurs
on soft and hard substrates in Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans in 700 -
7,000 metres (Tendel, 1972).

Porifera

Siliceous sponges - at least four species. These may live on hard
substrates, or may be stalked forms, with the stalk embedded in soft
substrates.

Cnidaria

Actinauge sp. - anemone. Lives on hard substrates. A widespread deep-sea
genus.

"Anemone" - at least two species of white anemones living on hard substrates.

Umbellula sp. - a stalked coelenterate with the stalk buried in soft
substrates.

Bathypathes sp. - a stalked coelenterate with stalk attached to hard
substrates.

Pennatula sp. - a stalked coelenterate with stalk embedded in soft
substrates.

Arthropoda

Scalpellum sp. - barnacles; attached to hard substrates.

Munidopsis sp. - galatheids, usually on hard substrates.

Acanthephyra cucullata Faxon - caridean shrimp; lives in midwater.

Acanthephyra curtirostris Wood-Mason - see above.

Shrimp ("red shrimp") - large red shrimp, common near seafloor.

Mollusca

Cirrate octopods - several specimens representing at least two species.

White gastropod

Limopsis sp. - a widespread deep-sea clam, to depths of at least 4000 metres.

Mastigoteuthis sp. - common deep-sea (midwater) squids.

Heliococranchia beebei Robson - common oceanic shallow to midwater squid.

129

Table 7-L (cont'd)

Spinula sp. - widepspread deep-sea clam to depths of at least 4500 metres.

Fissurellid limpet - most common in shallow water, but few species occur
in deep sea. Single specimen damaged, and cannot be identified further.

Echinodermata

Class Crinoidea

Hyocrinus (?) bethellianus Wyville Thomson. Relatively common in some
areas; sessile on manganese nodules and other hard substrates. This
stalked crinoid was previously known only from the central Atlantic
(1 record) and near the Crozet Islands, Antarctica (1 record) in depths
of 2,880 ot 3,300 metres. The Lockheed specimens show some differences
which might warrant their referral to a new species.

Class Asteroida

Eremicaster gracilis (Sladen). Not common; burrows in soft substrates.
Eastern Pacific, from northern Chile to Southern Alaska, also near
Kamchatka, 2690-5204 metres (Madsen, 1961).

Hyphalaster inermis Sladen. Not common; burrows in soft substrates.
Northern and tropical Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Previously
unknown from eastern Pacific. 2278-5413 metres (Madsen, 1961).

Styracaster caroli Ludwig. Indian Ocean, east of Zanzibar and in the
Bay of Bengal. 2600-4820 metres (Madsen, 1961). Not common; burrows
in soft substrates.

St racaster elongatus Koehler. Not common. Burrows in soft substrates.
North Atlantic cean and Indian Ocean, 3310-4870 (Madsen, 1961).

Styracaster new species.

Plutonaster (?) new species.

Plutonaster is a widespread deep-sea genus, occuring in both Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans. This species superficially resembles a small Dytaster
gilberti, but differs in having less conspicuous spines around the margin.

Dytaster gilberti Fisher. Common. Burrows partially or completely
into soft substrates. Off California, 3953-4010 metres (Fisher, 1911).

Hymenaster violaceus Ludwig. Common. Burrows partially into soft
substrates. Off Acapulco, Mexico, 3382 metres (Fisher, 1911).

Freyella sp. Common. Either clings to hard substrates with arms
upraised for feeding or lies on seafloor with arms horizontal. There
are possibly two species represented, and it is possible that both are
new. As the classification of this group of starfish is somewhat
confused at the moment, it may be some time before this question can be
resolved.

130

Table 7-L (cont'd)

Class Ophiuroidea

Amphiodia cf. verrilli Lyman. Rare. Probably burrows in soft substrates.
This species is a new record for the Pacific; previously known only
from the North Atlantic, 765 metres.

Amphioplus new species. Rare. Probably burrows in soft substrates.
This is an unusual new species of a genus that has most of its represen-
tatives in shallow water. Only two or three species of Amphioplus
extend into deep-sea habitats. The genus is widely distributed in
world seas.

Amphiophiura convexa (Lyman). Common. On surface of substrate. Known
from several localities in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans,
2920-5270 metres (Madsen, 1951).

Ophiomusium armatum Koehler. Very common. On surface of substrate.
Near Philippines, 2021 metres (Koehler, 1922).

Ophiura new species. Rare. On surface of substrate. This is a
distinctive new species of the worldwide genus Ophiura.

Class Echinoidea

Plesiodiadema globulosum (Agassiz). Common. Eastern Pacific, Mexico
to Chile, 2830-3990 metres (Mortensen, 1940).

(?) Brissopsis sp. Fragments of a spatangoid echinoid are unidentifiable.
Spatangoids burrow in soft substrates.

Class Holothuroidea

Pseudostichopus mollis Theel. Common. On soft substrates. Eastern
Pacific, South Pacific, Antarctic, 240-5320 metres (Ludwig, 1894).

Synallactes new species. This widespread genus is common on soft
substrates.

Mesothuria new species. A widespread genus, common on soft substrates.

Deima validum Theel. Rare, on soft substrates. Cosmopolitan species,
1224-4320 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Oneirophanta mutabilis Theel. Common on soft substrates. Cosmopolitan
species, 1800-5800 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Oneirophanta setigera (Ludwig). Not common, on soft substrates.
Previously recorded from Gulf of Panama and vicinity in 2100-4064
metres, and from the southwest Pacific in 4540 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Psychropotes longicauda Theel. Common on soft substrates. Cosmopolitan
species, 2210-5173 metres (Hansen, 1975).

131

Table 7-L (cont'd)

Psychropotes semperiana Theel. Rare on soft substrates. Atlantic and
western Indian Oceans, 3465-5600 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Psychropotes verrucosa (Ludwig). Rare on soft substrates. Western
Indian Ocean to eastern Pacific Ocean 2417-7250 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Psychropotes new species. A single badly damaged specimen which cannot
be formally described.

Amperima species "A".

Amperima species "B".

Amperima rosea (Perrier). This is the Amperima species "C" of seafloor
photographs. Not common on soft substrates. North Atlantic, between
Azores and Portugal, 4060-5005 metres.

Amperima species "O".

Benthodytes incerta Ludwig. Not common on soft substrates. Eastern
Pacific, 2417-3570 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Peniagone diaphana (Theel). Not common on soft substrates. Atlantic
Ocean and Tasman Sea, 2550-5600 metres (Hansen, 1975).

Benthodytes new species. Not common on soft substrates. Cosmopolitan,
694-7250 metres.

New genus, new species. Common on soft substrates. This remarkable
large new holothurian belongs in the Family Laetmogonidae.

Psycheotrephes new species. Rare on soft substrates. Genus known from
Pacific Ocean and Antarctica in 4410-5029 metres.

Acaudina new species. Rare, burrowing in soft substrates. Genus known
from Americas and Australia in relatively shallow water.

Molpadia new species. Rare, burrowing in soft substrates. Genus
cosmopolitan, 5-5205 metres.

Table 7-M

Summary of Photographic Data (Appendix H, OMCO License Application)

CAMERA # PHOTOS TOTAL TOTAL # X H(s) E/S NUMERICALLY
RUN ANALYZED AREA INDIVIDUALS 100 m2 DOMINANT ORGANISMS
(m )

1 496 2538 533 21 2.1 0.3 Urchin
2 145 761 235 31 2.2 0.4 Urchin
3 317 2272 452 21 1.9 0.2 Urchin
4 182 1266 195 15 2.0 0.3 Urchin
5 160 837 76 9 2.3 0.5 Anemone
6 186 925 171 20 2.1 0.4 Ophiomusium
7 12 76 22 29 0.8 0.7 Urchin
8 61 390 75 19 1.8 0.4 Urchin
9 283 1944 301 16 2.2 0.3 Urchin
10 190 1228 139 11 2.1 0.4 Anemone
11 68 520 47 9 2.5 0.7 Anemone
12 205 1204 132 11 2.0 0.4 Anemone
13 495 2982 371 12 2.3 0.4 Anemone
14 423 3360 186 6 2.6 0.5 Anemone
15 208 1233 86 7 2.1 0.5 Anemone
16 270 1911 132 7 2.3 0.5 Urchin
17 323 1389 77 6 2.3 0.6 Anemone
18 159 1266 122 10 1.8 0.3 Urchin
19 64 299 28 9 1.3 0.5 Ophiomusium
20 506 2170 303 14 1.9 0.3 Ophiomusium
21 144 636 40 6 1.9 0.6 Anemone
22 55 196 11 7 1.6 0.9 Urchin

H (s) = Shannon-Wiener Community Diversity

E/S = Evenness

133

APPENDIX 8

Proposed Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions for
Ocean Mining Associates (OMA)

NOAA proposes to issue a license, Delta-Gamma, authorizing OMA to

engage in the deep seabed mining exploration activities described in OMA's

exploration plan, consistent with the provisions of the Act and 15 CFR

Part 970 and subject to the proposed terms, conditions and restrictions

(TCRs) below. The issuance proposal is contingent upon a finding by NOAA

that the exploration proposed in the OMA application will meet the require-

ments of � 105(a) of the Act. The proposed license would be exclusive

with respect to OMA as against any other United States citizen or any

citizen, national or governmental agency of, or any legal entity organized

or existing under the laws of, any reciprocating state.

Proposed TCRs

(1) Diligence.

(a) OMA shall pursue diligently the activities described in its

approved exploration plan (15 CFR 970.602). In order to show that it has

diligently pursued the activities in its approved exploration plan

(15 CFR 970.517), OMA shall submit to the Division of Ocean Minerals and

Energy of NOAA, in accordance with 15 CFR 970.602 and 970.901(b) and within

90 days of each anniversary of the date of the license, an annual report

demonstrating OMA's conformance to the schedule of activities, level of

activity, and expenditures set out in its application and subsequent amendments.

This report shall focus on exhibiting to NOAA the evolving ability of OMA

to apply for a permit for commercial recovery by the end of the 10 year

license period.

134

(b) As part of the requirements in (a) above, OMA's annual report

shall contain a description of the types and number of survey activities

conducted. Although corporate confidential data are not required by NOAA,

the described activities, such as nodule sampling and seafloor mapping,

shall be presented by OMA in such a manner as to provide satisfactory

evidence of progress made toward the delineation of a permit area(s).

OMA's annual report shall also contain (e.g., as an appendix) a list of

the environmental data, samples, and photographic records collected each

year (including related dates, locations, and type of equipment used) and

a statement of the status of the disposition of any biological or geological

samples taken (including where stored, how stored, analyses conducted,

findings or conclusions of such analyses, and the name and affiliation of

the person in charge of samples).

(2) Environmental Protection and Monitoring Requirements.

(a) OMA shall conduct activities under the license to assure

protection of the environment (15 CFR 970.518) and so as not to create a

significant adverse effect on the environment (15 CFR 970.506).

(b) OMA shall notify NOAA of any endangered species it observes,

within 60 days of such observations, as discussed in NOAA's Technical

Guidance Document (September 1981).

under this license if no at-sea mining system tests are conducted.

(d) In order to ensure protection of the environment and in

accordance with 15 CFR 970.700-.702, OMA is prohibited from engaging in

at-sea mining system test activities until NOAA has both approved an OMA

exploration plan revision (including NOAA preparation of a supplemental

environmental impact statement (EIS)) relating to test activities, and

135

amended the TCRs applicable to OMA's license to include an approved

environmental monitoring plan and any necessary TCRs relating to conduct

of mining system test activities.

(e) If OMA proposes to conduct at-sea mining system tests,

OMA shall submit to NOAA, at least one year prior to the proposed test

initiation date, an exploration plan revision and a plan by which OMA

proposes to monitor the environmental impacts of test activities (hereafter,

monitoring plan).

(f) If OMA proposes to conduct at-sea mining system tests,

in order to prepare the supplement to the EIS, referenced in paragraph (2)(d)

and as part of the site-specific monitoring activities required of OMA,

the exploration plan revision shall include detailed test plans and test

site-specific baseline data which NOAA determines are adequate to address

the unresolved environmental concerns and to assess the adequacy of

the environmental predictions contained in NOAA's Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement (1981) (see NOAA's Technical Guidance Document, September,

1981, for further guidance).

(i) The baseline data must include data from water column

measurements acquired during at least two seasons, spaced approximately six

months apart, and at least one statistically designed sampling of the benthic

fauna.

(ii) OMA is strongly encouraged to consult with NOAA

concerning the adequacy of OMA's proposed sampling strategy prior to

initiation of baseline data collection. At the request of OMA, NOAA will

provide written confirmation of the adequacy of a sampling strategy devised

as a result of such a consultation.

1 36

(g) OMA's proposed environmental monitoring plan referenced

in paragraph (2)(e) shall be responsive to the objectives in (2)(f) above,

and shall incorporate the information developed from the baseline data.

The monitoring plan shall involve areas expected to be impacted as well as

nearby control areas and shall include provision for immediate pre-test

data collection, test monitoring and post-test monitoring, and a schedule

for submission of resulting data to NOAA. Post-test monitoring shall

include at least three years of sampling, the most intensive sampling

being conducted immediately following testing and emphasizing the recovery

of the benthic fauna.

(h) Baseline and monitoring data shall be submitted to NOAA in

accordance with current formats of NOAA's National Oceanographic Data Center.

(i) If onshore processing tests are to be conducted at either

existing onshore facilities or newly constructed facilities, OMA shall

consult with NOAA as-soon as possible, so that a determination can be made

as to the need for a supplementary EIS. If NOAA determines that a supplement

to the EIS is required, OMA shall submit the necessary data to NOAA no

later than one year prior to the proposed initiation of operations (see

Technical Guidance Document, dated September, 1981). NOAA will work with

other Federal, state and local agencies to incorporate their environmental

information needs into a supplementary EIS, if deemed necessary, or other

environmental assessment documentation and assist in facilitating the

obtainment of the necessary permits from state, local and Federal agencies,

as appropriate.

137

(3) Resource Conservation Requirements. OMA shall conduct activities

with due regard for prevention of waste and future opportunity for commercial

recovery of the unrecovered balance of the hard mineral resources in the

license area (15 CFR 970.519). If at-sea mining system tests are conducted,

NOAA requires timely information on the implications of OMA's pattern of

mining. Therefore, OMA shall submit to NOAA all collector tracks, and

relevant nodule production and other data indicative of mining efficiency,

no later than 60 days after completion of each mining test (15 CFR 970.603).

(4) Freedom of the High Seas Requirements. OMA shall conduct its

exploration activities in a manner which will not unreasonably interfere

with the interests of other nations in their exercise of the freedoms of

the high seas, as recognized under general principles of international

law, such as fishing, navigation, submarine pipeline and cable laying, and

scientific research (15 CFR 970.520).

(5) Safety at Sea Requirements. In order to promote the safety of

life and property at sea (15 CFR 970.521), all U.S. flag vessels used in

activities authorized by OMA's license shall meet existing regulatory

requirements applicable to such vessels, including the possession of a

current valid Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection. Foreign flag vessels

used in activities authorized under the license shall comply with the certificate

requirements of either the International Convention for the Safety of

Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74), or the International Convention for the Safety

of Life at Sea, 1960 (SOLAS 60), whichever is applicable to the flag state

nation. If the nation where a vessel is documented is not a signatory of

SOLAS 74 or SOLAS 60, alternatively, the International Association of

Classification Societies (IACS) requirements shall be met (15 CFR Subpart H).

1 38

(6) Federal Observers' Monitoring Requirements.

(a) OMA shall permit NOAA to place Federal officers or employees

designated as observers aboard vessels used by the licensee in exploration

activities to (i) monitor, including data and sample collection by the

observer, such activities at such time and to such extent as NOAA deems

reasonable and necessary to assess the effectiveness of the TCRs of the

license; and (ii) report to NOAA whenever such officers or employees have

reason to believe there is a failure to comply with such TCRs.

(b) Whenever OMA is engaged in collection of baseline data

or is otherwise monitoring pursuant to a monitoring plan, as described in

(2) above, the at-sea observer, after consultation with OMA, is authorized

to specify minor changes in OMA's sampling protocol or strategy if the

observer determines that a change is necessary to address unanticipated

results or to assure that the objectives of the monitoring strategy are

met. The observer shall document such changes and rationale, in writing,

and OMA shall comply with such changes.

and OMA, and OMA shall cooperate with observers in the performance of their

monitoring function, in accordance with 15 CFR 970.1105. OMA shall notify

NOAA of each exploration cruise and the scope of cruise activities at

least 60 days prior to each vessel departure.

(7) Records.

(a) OMA shall keep and maintain for not less than three

years such records, consistent with standard accounting principles, as

will facilitate an effective audit of OMA's expenditures for exploration

for hard mineral resources in its license area (15 CFR 970.901).

1 39

(b) Records used as the basis for the annual report shall be

maintained for not less than three years following submission of the report,

except that environmental data, photographic records and samples shall be

kept for the term of the license unless the licensee has requested, and

received in writing from NOAA, either permission to dispose of these data,

records and samples or instructions to deliver them to a location designated

by NOAA. The licensee shall make its request to NOAA in writing six months

in advance of its proposed disposition, and shall bear the expenses of

delivery of such data, records and samples to the location designated by

NOAA.
(8) Special TCRs. NOAA is authorized to issue special TCRs for the
conservation of natural resources, protection of the environment and safety

of life and property at sea, when required by differing physical and environ-

mental conditions in the license area (15 CFR 970.523). At this time, NOAA

does not intend to impose any special TCRs on the OMA license; however,

should additional data (e.g., licensee-submitted environmental baseline data

acquired in accordance with paragraph (2)(f)) suggest that such conditions are

necessary, NOAA will amend the license TCRs to reflect appropriate conditions.

(9) Shipwrecks and Cultural Materials. Within 60 days of discovery,

OMA shall notify NOAA of any shipwrecks or other cultural materials discovered

in the course of exploration activities. (See National Historic Preservation

Act.)

(10) Violations.. It is unlawful for OMA to violate any provision

of the Act, any regulation issued under the Act, or any term, condition or

restriction of the license.

140

(11) Emergency orders. NOAA may order immediate suspension of the

license, or immediate suspension or modification of particular activities

under this license, if the President determines by Executive Order that

such immediate suspension or modification is necessary to avoid any conflict

with any international obligation of the United States established by any

convention or treaty in force with respect to the United States or to

avoid any situation which may be reasonably expected to lead to a breach

of international peace and security involving armed conflict, or if the

Administrator of NOAA determines such an action is necessary to prevent a

significant adverse effect to the environment or to preserve the safety of

life or property at sea. Upon receipt of an emergency order issued pursuant

to 15 CFR 970.511, OMA shall immediately suspend or modify activities in

accordance with the requirements of the order until such time as OMA

receives written notificat ion from NOAA that the emergency order is rescinded.

(12) Notice of Changes. OMA shall notify NOAA promptly of any

changes in the membership or legal structure of its consortium, of any

changes in its exploration plan, or of any other circumstances that might

substantially affect any NOAA determination, or basis for license issuance

or transfer, or the sufficiency of the TCRs to accomplish their intended

purpose.

(13) Notice of Other Federal Requirements.

(a) The Department of Defense requested that the licensee be

notified of requirements to file appropriate Notices to Mariners and,

as required by law, to obtain export licenses.

(b) Pertinent statutory and regulatory authorities and require-

ments of other agencies and units of government are not satisfied by the

issuance of this license and TCRs.

141

require submission, with the permit application, of environmental baseline

data in addition to the data requirements of paragraph (2) of these TCRs.

(14) Modifications

r ~~~~~~These TCRs may be modified in accordance with 5 CFR 970.512

should OMA modify its exploration plan or otherwise change its program.

Date:
Paul M. Wolff
Assistant Administrator for
Ocean Services and Coastal
Zone Management