159 



■..■_: ,i.:.-.ay-j u^.liaiii, n xjiuro-i^.., i,l .» . .t... , -w, -v.i. ^. f.nv^-.. 



lisnycs in species conposit ion, clicnicdl contan inat ion, «nd 

 •iitrnpliiceitioii <vt o uidc unricty of other oulfftll sites ij«s not 

 .irouirted. Conparisons uerc narie betueen tlie HURA outfall nutrient 

 loading and otlier narine systens using Mixon's plot of prinary 

 •.Toductiuity ocrsus nutrient input. Included in tliis plot was the 

 ' obe Bay, Hauaii before and after seuage input. The results 

 -I. ^ used to sliou that the proposed outfall is not likely to cause 

 substantially increased phytoplankton production. Conparisons were 

 also made uith outfalls off the coast of California to indicate 

 tliat chemical contamination due to chlorinated liydrocarbons and 

 lieauy netals are not likely to be substantial. 



ft thorough analysis of existing information, from outfalls 

 uorld-uide, on gradients in species conposition and chemical 

 contamination in the plankton and benthos as a function of local 

 circulation was not done. Such an analysis uould likely prouide 

 clear empirical euidence as to the expected areal extent of 

 nutrient and toxic contamination from the proposed MURA outfall. 



D. Pathogens - The potential dangers of pathogenic organisms to 

 the health of the endangered species uas not discussed in the 

 Assessment. Uhile the longevity of mammalian uiruses and bacteria 

 in seauater is poorly studied, these disease uectors could 

 potentially adversely affect the endangered species. The location 

 of the proposed site is closer to Stelluagon Bank and could bring 

 such patliogens into closer proximity to the endangered species. 

 This-is only a remote possibility since the proposed discharge uill 

 be only about Z5x closer to Stelluagon. : - 



E. Attraction of endangered species - Another remote possibility 

 Ihe attraction of the endangered species to the location of the 



L posed outfall. Local eutrophicat ion of the enuironment 

 predicted by the EPA could seroe as a region of high concentrations 

 of plankton. Local enhancement of the zooplankton populations in 

 this region could be an attraction for Right uhales uhich are knoun 

 to feed in dense aggregations of zooplankton. This is probably not 

 a major concern, houeuer, since, although the mean flow of seauater 

 tlirough the outfall area is uery ueak, the residence time of the 

 zooplankton populations in this area, due to physical diffusion 

 (days), is much shorter than their generation time (ueeks). This 

 is euen more likely during the uinter-spring period uhen the uater 

 temperature is cold and zooplankton generation times are 1-2 

 months. Tliis time of year is the principal period for feeding by 

 the Right uhales as uell. Thus, although phytoplankton may 

 increase locally, the zooplankton populations uill probably haue no 

 significant ciiange . 



Conclusion 



The caueats discussed aboue are probably not major concerns. The 

 principal focus should be kept on the potential differences betueen 

 existing and proposed outfall locations. Tlie EPA has presented a. 

 convincing case for the lack of effect of the proposed outfall on 

 the endangered species. The Right uhale population appears to be 

 " only species uliich has a major portion of its total population 

 .abiting the Bays region. The proposed relocation of the MURA 

 outfall a relatively short distance to the east does- not appear to 

 present any additional danger to tliis species than that uhich 

 already exists. The zooplankton populations (Calanus) upon uhich 

 it feeds are unlikely to be significantly impacted by this 

 relocation. 



