 Page 2
environmental factors are not considered limiting. Although legal factors regarding permanent site designation may have to be resolved in the future, the shallow ocean disposal alternative is considered to be both feasible and availabie for large volumes of material.
The filling of submarine pits with dredged material represents another disposal alternative which is considered feasible and available for large volumes of dredged material. This alternative involves depositing material, dredged and transported through conventional means, into sub-aqueous pits which are usually of anthropogenic origin. Once the material has been placed in the pit it may be possible to cap the deposit, thereby isolating contaminants froia the environment. Tue decision to cap any given pit would be based on tue churacteristics of the dredged material and the availability of suitable capping material. Capping allows the sub-aqueous borrow pit alternative to be considered feasible for contaminated dredged material.
b. Borrow pits are created when the surficial sediments of the inner continental shelf or harbor area are mined for use as fill, construction aggregate or beach nourishment. Their use as a disposal site must await the results of technological, ecological and legal considerations presently being pursued. The mining activity itself presents an additional set of environmental concerns. Although mining activity has been curtailed recently due to reduced demand, between 1966 and 1974 at least 5.5 million yd3 were removed from New York Harbor annually (Schlee and Sanko, 1975; Pearce, 1979). The majority of the sediments on the shelf of the New York Bicht would seem to meet the requirements for coinmercial fill or construction material (Freelaud ind Swift, 1970); however, their recovery seems to be economically prohibitive at this time (Schlee and Sanko, 1975). In the past, the rost significant mining activity has taken place in Lower New York Bay, especially in the area of the West Bank, and more recently along the East bank of Ambrose Channel (see Fig. 2-2). The volume of the inactive pits in the Lower Bay has been estimated to exceed 25 million yu3 (COE, 1980a); bitre (1979) estimates that all of the pits within the Bight Apex inay have a total volume of about 70 million yao. The eutire volume jaight not be available for dredged material disposal due to high erosion potential in some areas, shallow water in some areas which could preclude barge access and possibly other factors.
There does exist the possibility of creating new borrow areas turour future mining operations and backfilling these pits with dredged material. Digging these
SUB-AQUEOUS BORROW PIT LOCATIONS IN THE NEW YORK AREA
pits would create a new set of environmental consequences, review of which are beyond the scope of this document. However, should the decision be wade to implement this option on a large scale, new pits could be designated which further mitigate any adverse environmental impacts (Section 4.1.1.2) associated with the sub-aqueous borrow pit alternative.
d. The use of borrow pits for the disposal of dreaged material is a relatively new concept and its environmental and social impacts liave not been thoroughly investigated (see Bokuniewicz et al., 1981). The biological, chemical and physical impacts are expected to be similar to other shallow water ocean disposal alternatives (see Section 4.0 and Mitre, 1979). 10wever, the use of uncontaminated Saud for capping is expected to reduce the long term impacts upon both the biological and chemical components of the environment (bukuniewicz et al., 1981) and almost eliminate physical impacts resulting from the introduction of different grain sizes. The stability of the cap renia ins to be proven. The potential unavoidable adverse impacts would include:
burial and disruption of the communities which are established within the pits;
limited release of chemical constituents at various stages; and
possible introduction of inappropriate grain sized sediments.
The severity of these impacts would be dependent upon the location of the borrow pit and the nature of the dredged material. These impacts are further explored in Section 4.0.
The social acceptability of using sub-aqueous borrow pits for dredged material disposal is dependent upon a consideration of human health and safety and potential reduction of fish habitats. Concern about human health would be based directly upon failure of the cap in nearshore waters and subsequent exposure of human populations to contaminated material (initre, 1979). Indirect health concerns are based on possible contamination of human food sources (see Section 3.1.6).
f. The second category of possible concern regarding the social acceptability of this alternative is based on
possible loss of productive recreational fishing grounds due to pit filling. Although not all pits are thought to have equal value to fisii, this impact is the subject of on-going studies (personal communication, H. Dokuniewicz, MSRC, December 1981) and presents an area of public concern. 8. illis alternative has been implemented successfully in the metropolitan area oy the Town of Hempstead (personal communication, Doheany, Town of hempstead, January 1982). The Town hus filled deep borrow pits with dredged material without apping; the program has fulfilled dreuged material disposal requirements while restoring the bay botton to a prouuctive state without deleterious Environmental side effects. ile ipprupriateness of applying the Town's experience to the iceds of ivew York Harbor requires investibition, it ioes, however, demonstrate the viability of this option, altrough there are potential legal concerns which could affect use of this alternative.
h. Enjineering concerns regarding the ability of the pit to contain drecised material and the concerns regarding capping present the most severe technical constraints to implementing this alternative. However, initial investigations inuicate tnitt engineering concerns will not be liwaiting fictors for the use of borrow pits in New York Harbur (Bokuniewicz et al., 1981). Final evaluation must await the results of on-going studies investigating:
the desree to which the pit can contain dredged material during dumping Operations,
the degree to which the capping materials can contain contaminants;
i. ing economics of this disposal alternative, although subject to site specific factors, do not differ substantially from those of current shallow ocean disposal dethods. titre (1979) estimates the average cost of disposal ia sub-aqueous pits to be about $1.22/yd3, which is divided as follows: $0.46/yd3 for ureàging; 30.00/yds ior transportation Jof. 10 wi); and capping and waintenance costs of $0.16/ydd (this last value would seeui be the cost variable). Although somewhat hypothetical, this estiuste compares favorably with the cost of the current dredging prograw (see Section 2.1). The cost of investigating the sub-aqueous alternative is estimated at $450,000 (COE, 1986), a cost borne entirely by the COE; however, upon full scale inplementation, capping and inaintenance costs could possibly be distributed among pit
The costs per yd3 of the current coe demonstration program using sub-aqueous borrow pit disposal ranges from $3.40 to $4.50 (personal communication, telephone conversation, W. Slezak, COE; may 1982).
j. The Sub-Aqueous burrow Pit Alternative is among a select few which could be implemented in a cost effective manner using technology which is presently available. The use of this disposal option may have an associated maintenance cost, resulting in an increase cost over current disposal methods. Additional costs may be incurred if pits are dug for disposal operations, however, these costs could be offset through the sale of material recovered.
k. The implementation of this alternative is dependent upon the successful completion of background studies and a demonstration dumping program presently being undertaken by the COE (COE, 1980b). This program will investigate the feasibility of this option. The management and coordination necessary to inplement sub-aqueous borrow pit disposal could be derived from legal authority already delegated to the COŁ and the 2PA and would require participation by state agencies.
1. In summary, sub-aqueous borrow pits represent an attractive disposal alternative especially for contaminated material, although final valuation wust await resolution of engineering and socioeconomic concerns. The desirability of creating pits for the disposal of large volumes of clean material would require further study and a quantification of the environmental criteria to be used in such a decision.
2.3.2.1.2 Protected Shallow Water Containment
A third feasible alternative available for large volumes of material is protected water containment. This alternative involves the deposition of dredged material into diked areas constructed in protected waters within the subject area, thereby creating an artificial island or peninsula. The Protected Shallow Water Containment alternative differs frora the Offshore Island Containment alternative, considered not feasible at this time (see Section 2.3.1.2.), primarily in the location of the activity. There are no protected water containment areas currently being utilized by the NY. District. However, both the Baltimore and New Orleans Districts do have similar active projects.
b. Protected water containment, would involve the creation of an artificial island close to shore (within the 3 mi New York/New Jersey influence zone) or creation of a peninsula contiguous with the shore. Several proposals for dredsed material containment islands within the Port of New York anu New Jersey areas have been studied (Howard, Needle, Page 3
Tammen and Berzendoff, 1976 as cited in Mitre, 1979). Examples of sucb sites are the West Bank containment area proposed for Ambrose Channel with a potential site capacity of 80 million you and the Long Island Sound Containment Area with a capacity of 4 million yd3 (Mitre, 1979). It should be noted that these sites represent proposals in the investigative stages of consideration. In all cases, the areas studied for diked disposal have limited capacity but will handle large volumes for some period of time. c. Proper site selection is inherent in the feasibility of this alternative. It is necessary to avoid productive areas such as tidal wetlands, shoals and native fisheries, and to choose sites in water sufficiently deep to prevent deleterious changes in circulation patterns and tue need for additional access channel dredging (personal communication, Colvin, DEC, to Zamioit, COE, 19 November 1980). The U.S. FW3 assessed eight areas in the New York District considered as potential sites for construction of large scale containment islands and concluded that in many cases there is insufficient site-specifiy biological data to "categorically identify areas where a spoil containment island should not be placed" (FWS, 1981). This study did not rule out use of several taller areas within the harbor.
d. Many sites in the N.Y. District can be immediately ruled out as potential areas for island construction because the environmental (e.5., Jamaica Bay as National Park and Wildlife Refuge; Davis, 1976) and physical conditions (e.g., lower seven miles of Cast. River is less than 3000 ft wide) are limiting (FWS, 1931). Tile effect of such a structure on fish and wildlife would be of primary concern because incomplete data evaluation in this area would probably engender strong public and legal opposition (Briggs, 1970; Boyce Thompson Institute, 1977; Friedman and hamilton, 1980). more locally pertinent sites should be evaluated, including smaller projects such as interpier areas of the Port, Gowanus Canal, and Newtown Creek. Such areas might ultimately be utilized by development interests to allow for facility expansion.
e. To aate, inforination on areas assessed for this purpose have been found lacking in one respect or another and more site-specific information is necessary. Prior to implementing this alternative, an inventory of the needs of the region in terins of natural areas may be useful.
f. The cost for disposai in this manner, although variable, would exceed the cost of present disposal methods and night include both construction and maintenance costs (Mitre, 1979). however, this increased cost may be justified since it would create near-shore islands that could be used for industrial facilities, recreational
facilities, and wildlife habitats (Davis, 1976; Soots and Landin, 1978; Coultas and Subrahmanyam, 1980, and Erwin, 1980). At this time it is unclear who would finance such a venture; however, joint public/private arrangements seem likely. Thus, the cost increase would have to be weighed against the ultimate benefits from the created area.
8. The environmental impacts would include loss of bottomlands, changes in existing aquatic circulation patterns and the short-term effects of construction and material deposition on the water column and biota. These effects would have to be evaluated on a site specific basis. Other factors to be considered include the time involved in implementation, the ultimate use of the newly created artificial island, and public acceptability. These would have to be evaluated after a site and plan have been proposed.
h. The implementation of this alternative would require an extensive knowledge of the site selected regarding its topographical features, environmental setting, habitat characteristics and associated fishery and wildlife resources. Only after careful site appraisal could the environmental, social acceptability, public health and welfare and legal factors be considered not limiting. As is the case with other feasible alternatives, protected island containment is a valid concept, especially for the disposal of large volumes of dredged material including the complete range of dredged material, from "clean" to contaminated (Morton, 1977; Mitre, 1979). however, the positive aspects are influenced by both actual and potential difficulties, including the availability of a realistic site, biological and non-biological considerations, and economic constraints.
This alternative involves disposal at upland sites where measures have been taken for containment so that any contaminants in the deposited material will not be available to the environment. Mitre (1979) reviewed the problems associated with upland disposal and concluded that this alternative is feasible for large volumes of dredged material, provided that mitigating measures are undertaken (see Section 2.4) and long-term monitoring activities are carried out on a long-term basis. The N.Y. vistrict is presently reviewing potential upland disposal sites; there are no upland disposal sites currently in use ithin he study area.
b. The goal of uplana disposal of dredged material containing containinants should be to control and minimize the possible adverse environmental impacts associated with
the transfer of toxicants into the ecosystem (COE, 1980a). Contaminants from upland disposal sites can be made available to local ecosystems by leaching into groundwater, surface runoff, plant uptake and direct animal uptake (Alloway and Davies, 1971, Banus et al., 1975; Cox and Rains, 1972; DeGroot and Allersma, 1975; Gambrell et al., 1977 a, b; and Mung et al., 1978). Therefore, site selection, knowledge of contaminating materials present, effective design and management of the containment facility, and active monitoring progra:as are inherent in the reasonability of this alternative. Information is lacking 01 the long-term effectiveness of upland containment; therefore, the biological availability and bioaccumulation of potentially hazardous (heavy metals, PCBs) ana undesirable (salt) luaterials which might ultimately escape must be considered in the implementation of this alternative (see Sections 2.5.1 ana 4.2.1.1.1).
c. In order to ensure public health and welfare and environmental protection, the DEC has developed several initial criteria for upland site selection for the disposal of dredged material (letter, Colvin, DEC to Zanmit, COE, February, lyol). In its summation the DEC considers the following sites (or site characteristics) to be prohibitea:
agricultural lands in use in an agricultural district, lands over sole aquifers or in aquifer recharge areas, and lands in drainage basins of water supply reservoirs;
areas designated as significant wildlife habitats or endangered species habitats;
areas proposed as coastal zone "geographical areas of particular concern"; and
areas adjacent to residential and institutional areas designatec or zoned for incompatible uses by local regional governmental and planning agencies.
areas to be avoided also include those where
Similar criteria have been developed by the New Jersey DEP (letter, Schmidt, DEP to Zanrmit, COE, August 1982).
d. Given these broad prohibitions, the availability of reasonable sites for upland disposal represents a major constraint for implementing this alternative in the New York Metropolitan area. Although the N.Y. District is currently investigating upland sites, any land suitable for dredged inaterial disposal would likely be considered for other purposes, such as the disposal of toxic wastes or as sanitary landfill.
e. Mitre (1980) identified 295 upland sites within 100 statutory mi of the Statue of Liberty as having the potential for use as disposal areas for dredged material; Mitre personnel investigated 15 of these sites. In most cases, there were limitations, mainly involving wetlands, recreation areas, reservoirs and aquifer recharge zones, which could eliminate the sites as possible dredged material disposal areas. Subsequeat review of the 295 sites, sponsored by the N.Y. District, has eliminated approximately 200 of these sites from further consideration; completion of the site review may eliminate additional sites (personal conmunication, Robert J. Will, N.Y. District COE, December 1982). Although the boundaries of this document include only the Port of New York and New Jersey, the efforts of the N.Y. District to identify upland sites for disposal of dredged naterial has not concentrated exclusively on the subject area defined by tiis EIS. Identification of sites outside the study area may arise as a result of the District's on-going efforts uader the Dredged Material Disposal Management Plan.
f. Public opposition would probably accrue from a number of factors, including perceived possible ground water contamination, land devaluation, changes in local property tax structures, noise, malodors and adverse visual impacts. Should these irapacts be minimized and productive use of containment site initiated, public education programs could be initiated which could gain social acceptability for a site.
g. Where uplans disposal sites huve been examined (Nitre, 1979; COE, 1981; Lus, 1981), the environmental, public health and welfare, social acceptability and legal considerations of concern can be minimized with wellresearched te selection, proper inplementation and mitigation, and long-term environmental monitoring programs. The cost of this alternative, including construction, transport, inland deposition, mitigation and environmental monitoring activities, has been estimated at between $2.50/yu3 and $7.747 yd3 oi ureaged inaterial (Nitre, 1979) and is not considered liwiting at this time. These costs are estimated from hypothetical projects: actual costs may be significantly higher. Containment area design and
construction are also considered not limiting at this time (Palermo et al., 1978). However, the assured long-term containment of all possible contaminants present in dredged material is questionable.
h. This alternative is considered feasible for large volumes of waterial; the degree of feasibility can be determined only after a site has been proposed and all of the parameters outlined above evaluated. The major limiting factor at this time would appear to be the availability of suitable containment sites.
Alternatives Involving Smaller Volumes
a. Wetlands are areas which are saturated or flooded for some period during the year and thereby support the flora and fauna adapted to such a habitat (Section 3.2). This alternative would employ the dispersed disposal (spreading) of dredged material onto existing wetlands.
b. Disposal of dreuged material along the Hudson River shoreline was a common practice (COE, 1981) until the environriental value of wetlands became recognized. Wetlands are important ecosystems offering a habitat for many species of plants, waterfowl, fish and wildlife (Jensen, 1977). Secondarily, they are an inportant part of the detrital food web, which channels nutrients and enersy into estuariue secondary production. This was first reported by Durkholder and Burnside (1957), and has become well-established in the scientific literature.
c. Recognizing the need to protect this fragile environment, Federal anu state agencies have instituted regulations a ined at curtailing development in existing wetlands (Section 1.2). Prior to institution of this alternative, all legal requirewents for dredged material disposal onto wetlands must be addressed and satisfiea.
d. This alternative might be considered on a sitespecific basis for small volumes of "clean" dredged material. In some cases, marsaes may recover and actually benefit froin the application of small volumes of dredged material (COE, 1977b; Lunz et al., 1978a, b). Careful evaluation is integral to the success of this alternative. latroduction of contaminated waterial ontu a wetland would be undesirable since some war'sh plants absorb, translocate, and concentrate certain toxinants, including heavy metals; their subsequent irigestion or degradation can move these cuataminants through the foou chain (Galubreil et al., 1977 a, b; Lee et al., 1975; Gallagher anu tibby, 1980). A careful evaluation of the lon;-term effects of physical burial of existing warsn ilor. and fauna wy dredged material deposition is also required (Luuz et al., 1978a, p). Page 4
The cost of this alternative would be greater than current disposal methods due to transport distance and disposal requirements. In cases where a dredying site is near wetlands, it may be possible to pulop the dredged material directly outo the wetland (as is done in some beach nourishment procedures). However, where pumping distance exceeds five miles, the costs start to become prohibitive (personal communication, lansky, COE, February 1983). Should the dredged material require extensive transport to the wetland (e.g., trucking or barging) the additional costs would increase significantly and might be a limiting factor. Social acceptability would not be a limiting factor if the proposeu site could be shown to benefit froin sediment depusition. No single factor would totally exclude this alternative from further consideration; however, based on the environmental economic and legal considerations, wetlands disposal would only be appropriate for a sinall volume of clean dredged material in a select number of localities.
The disposal of dredged material in a Sanitary Landfill is a special case of Contained Upland Disposal which would have material deposited in existing or newly created sanitary landfill sites. The fact that sanitary landfills must be contained facilities (see NYS DEC, Solid Waste Regulations, Part 360; NJ Adainistration Code, Title 7, Chapter 26), would allow containinated material to be utilized. Since sode landfill sites are extensive in size, this alternative could, ia theory, handle large volumes of material.
b. To be placed in a sanitary landfill, the dredged waterial would almost certainly have to be dewa tered to minimize the formation of leachates and to allow the material to be covered soon after deposition, a strict requirement at landfill sites. As a consequence of transportation distances, dewatering treatment, and the interaction of dredged material disposal with more conventional refuse disposal operations, the cost and logistics of this alternative are potential proble is.
i'he lost severe linitation to the implementation use of this alternative is the shortage of sufficient landfill sites to handle "regular refuse." It is highly unlikely that dredged material would be disposed in existing landfills and compete with the capacity of such sites to contain the quantities of garbage produced in the New York metropolitan area. Unless a site was specifically created to handle dredged material, the implementation of this alternative would seem unlinely. If such a site
created, the disposal would be essentially equivalent to the previously discussed contained upland alternative.
a. This alternative refers to the restoration or improvement of land quality, and possibly land value with the application of uredged material. Dredged material would be spread on inactive or barren sites, including strip nines, quarries, or gravel pits. As such area may be developed for various resource and habitat uses, this alternative is related to bot! creation of Wetlanus (Section 2.3.2.2.5) and Beach Nourishnent (Section 2.3.2.2.6). Included in this alternative is the potential use of dredged lua terial to improve warginal agricultural soils (Gupta et al., 1900). This disposal method is not in use currently by the N.Y. District.
b. The feasibility of this alternative depends largely on the physical and chemical characteristics of the dredged sediment, including grain size, permeability factors, texture and contaminant level. Dredged material can be utilized as a soil but is variable in texture and components, depending on its source. Sediments placed upland nay be sandy and iniertile, contaminated with heavy metals, saline, acidic, and have other characteristics that liivit plant growth (Hunt et ill., 1978, see also Section 2.1.3.1). wince this alternative does not involve containment, any toxicants in the dredged material would be available to the environment. Secondarily, the physical characteristics of the dredged material should be closely compatible with those of the disposal site.
Site evaluation must be thorough in order for the final outcome of the operation to be favorable and productive. Site-specific mitigation measures may be necessary to ensure success, because erosion and the breeding of disease vectors ay be problems following inplementation (Nelson ana Driggers, 1979; Scotton and Axtell, 1979; and Vorgetts et al., 1980).
d. All of the legal and social problens occurring with contained upland disposal also pertain to this alternative (Section 2.3.2.1.3). The cost of this type of disposal depends on a nuiaber of factors, including transport, trea tinent, mitigation measures, on-site handling and monitoring These act to increase the cost compared with current disposal methous. The idea of taking stresseu habitats and increasin; their quality is productive and beneficial and should be implemented where conditions are favorable. However, this alternative would have limited use since the criteria for use of the dredged material in this manner so rigorous and potential sites in the study
An additional constraint is presented by the highly urbanized nature of the New York metropolitan region. The possibility of finding a barren upland site which would benefit from de position of dredged material seems remote, considering the difficulties discussed in Section 2.3.2.1.3. The costs associated with transporting dredged material to sites out of the region (e.g., Midwestern stripmines) is expected to be prohibitive.
f. For these reasons the use of dredged material for landscape reclamation, although feasible, seems likely to be available only for limited volumes of material on a project specific basis.
2.3.2.2.4 Sanitary Landiill Cover
a. This alternative involves the use of dredged material as cover for solid waste disposal facilities. Under its Dredged liaterial hangement Plan the N.Y. District is presently utilizing a contractor to investigate specifically which laws and regulations would apply to this activity, the testing protocols which would be required by state agencies, and site-specific factors which could affect this implementation of this alternative. The site-specific factors include:
engineering feasibility (grain size, water content, bearing strength, plastic and elastic linits)
b. Phase I of the investigation, completed in November, 1982, indicated that approximately 70 percent of the material dredged froin the Port of New York and New Jersey would be suitable paysically and chemically for final cover and that a linost 100 percent would be available for landfill cover after dewatering (Malcolm Pirnie, 1982). Preliminary cost analyses indicate that transportation costs may limit the volude of dredged material which could be utilized under this alternative. Feasibility and case studies are continuing, but there are indications that the use of
dredged material as sanitary landfill cover is cost comparable in some cases. Phase II of the District's study will examine in detail the feasibility of implementing this alternative at two specific sites, Fresh Kills, N.Y., and DeKorte Park, N.J.
c. Although limited, there is a continual demand for landfill cover and the use of dredged material for this purpose is being given consideration. The dredged material would have to be dewatered (Haliburton, 1978) and, if the solid waste receiving facility is located near freshwater, salt content of the dredged laterial may have to be reduced. In addition, were the dredged material to contain potential contaminants, special treatment processes may have to be included in the inplementation of this alternative to reduce contaminant levels. The increased costs of transport to a dewatering or treatment facility, the treatment processes themselves and the subsequent transport to the solid waste disposal site could be offset by the sale of the material. For example, the DeKorte State Park (N.J.) project may use approxidately 5.0 million yd3 of fill material (personal communication, Water Quality Section, Operations Division, N.Y. District, February, 1983). d. In general, there are no factors that would totally exclude this alternative froin implementation. In fact, in specific cases such as closure of a landfill (DeKorte State Park), with the use of very select dredged material (low permeability, uncontaminated) this alternative warrants thorough consideration.
e. The use of dredge material for sanitary landfill cover could only make use of limited volumes of dredged material following careful site evaluation. The increased cost could be partially defrayed by the purchase of the material and weighed against the ultimate productive use of the site.
a. This alternative basically involves creation of new land areas in or near the intertidal zone. Once established, such areas can be managed for a variety of resource values such as wildlife and avian habitats, scientific research and flood control. Since these areas are senerally under tidal influence, developinent as wetlands has received tre greatest attention in the literature. Although the particulars of the project will determine the final outcome, dredged material could be placed in such a way so as to create new or expanded wetlands, island habitats or upland environments, all of which are considered under wetlanas creation in tuis document.
b. Wetland development was the subject of an extensive research effort within the Dredged laterial Research Program (DMRP); follow-up studies were conducted at various field sites (COE, 1978). The sites were found to have withstood erosion and become productive areas. idany types of habitats have been created in these wetland sites and guidelines have been instituted to take advantage of the information gathered from implernentation of this research (Smith, 1978; COE, 1978; Lunz et al., 1978a; Soots and Landin, 1978).
c. Many factors must be considered in selecting the proper site and dredged sediment for wetland creation. Dredged material rich in organic matter or gravel is not suitable, while material containing a high mineral content is suitable (personal comuunication, Suszkowski, COE to NANOP-E, 1981). The material selected should also be relatively free of neavy metal or organic toxicants to preclude transport throuon the ecosystein by wetland plants (see Section 2.3.2.2.1). Site selectivity will determine the success of this alternative: highly productive areas will be excluded from consideration. Wetlands trap sediments and thus protect shellfish from excessive siltation and also dampen the effects of tidal surges, thereby stabilizing shorelines; factors such as these should be considered in site selection.
d. The cost of implenenting this alternative would be increased, over current disposal methods, although project specific factors will determine the amount of the increase. The final use of the site ay offset some of these increased expenditures. Implementing this alternative on a small scale inay be possible with the material from one dredging project; however, the cost effectiveness of this approach is difficult to evaluate. The cost per cubic yard of material disposed of in this manner might become competitive with current disposal costs on a large scale since start up costs (i.e., design, periait activities and site selection) are expected to be significant. Sucn large-scale wetland creation projects (which may take several years to complete) night require the involvement of a public agency, although such a project would not necessarily be within the COE's present authority.
when compared witil the current costs of ocean disposal, medium-sized wetland creation (approximately 100 acres) sites are cost-effective (WES, 1983). Unconfined sites are more cost-effective than diked sites, but several sites have been located within tne New York Harbor area which would support viable wetland projects. Larger sites are difficult to locate within the Port of New York and New Jersey area. However, with proper site and dredged material selection, there are no inerently limiting factors in this alternative. Page 5
b. Almost any solid non-toxic material can serve as an artificial reef. However, the material must be "bulky enough to project off the ocean bottom and massive enough to remain in place in severe storms" (Jensen, 1975). Many types of materials have been used for fishing reefs, including surplus warships, rock and rubble from building excavations, junked automobiles, automobile tires and other forms of solid waste (wooden tubs, beer crates, etc.) (Jensen, 1975; Stone et al., 1975). There are many examples of planned artificial reefs in the New York Bignt: Shinnecock Reef, constructed of 6000 automobile tires and a wooden barge, supports populations of tautog, scup, black sea bass and in winter Atlantic cod; Fire Island Reef, constructed of tires, rock and building rubble, wooden barges, a steel barge and a wooden boat hull, attracts (in addition to those species mentioned for Shinnecocis Reef) red hake, silver hake, Atlantic dackerel and summer flounder; and Rockaway Beach Reef, constructed of automobile bodies and tires ballasted with concrete, supports cunner, tautog, black sea bass, and red hake (Stone et al., 1974; Jensen, 1975).
In studies to determine the suitability of various materials for attracting fouling species, Pearce and Chess (1968, 1969) found that auto tires (rubber) was the best substrate during the first ten months (primary colonization) while concrete appeared to be the best substrate after 18 months (secondary habitation). In further investigations to determine optimum material characteristics, Hamer (1960, 1963) found that reefs should be constructed of heavy ina terials (concrete, pipes, and rocks) to prevent displacement in heavy seas and, therefore, suggested that tires and wooden ships not be used in shallow ocean waters. d. The U.S. Corps of Engiueers (1978) reported that from January, 1970, through june, 1977, only one percent of uredged material contained stone or some other material suitable for reef construction. Such high bulk material would most likely come from new work projects. According to Jensen (1975), the ideal reef has a high profile, offers tish and other inhabitants protection from strong currents and adverse sea conditions, and has numerous openings and surfaces to attract a wide range of marine organisms.
e. Considering the abundance of materials that adequately provide the bulk, weight, and habitat features necessary for constructing the ideal reef, it would seem that the use of dredged materials for this purpose would be Iginiwal. The physical characteristics of the dredged material itself are the liniting factors.
f. Recent work by Japanese researchers on use of silicic compounds as a coagulant which would allow for Page 6
d. Treatment of dredged material to reduce containination, prior to disposal, is a litigative measure which would be applicable to any disposal alternative. The only process considered compatible with all of the alternatives is incineration. Incineration is considered as a disposal technique in Section 2.3.1.6 and is determined to be unreasonable due to economic factors. Incineration as a pretrea tinent mitigative measure is also considered infeasible.
Overall Evaluation of Feasible Alternatives
a. This EIS evaluates nineteen possible alternatives for the disposal of material dredged from the Port of New York and New Jersey. Seven of these alternatives are considered presently infeasible due to proble.ns inherent in their implesentation. The twelve feasible alternatives could be basically implemented through technologies and techniques which are currently available, although specific sites remain to be defined for several alternatives.
b. The COE need not adopt any single approach to dredged material disposal and in fact the current disposal progran utilizes several disposal alternatives (i.e., Aud Dump, Beach Nourishinent and Upland Disposal). Eight of the twelve feasible alternatives have been identified as available for small volumes only and therefore require a supplemental disposal alternative. Attention to the factors outlined in this EIS will allow the development of an overall disposal strategy which results in the least environinental damage, while optimizing socioeconomic aspects. Regardless of the disposal strategy, selected new alternatives will arise and should be examined.
a. Review of the significance of the adverse environmental impacts associated with each alternative must be based upon a balancing of known and probable physical and chemical impacts. These adverse impacts must then be evaluated in terms of their effects upon the environment and the human ecosystem. The factors presented in this section and the environmental conditions presented in Section 3.0 serve as a basis for this evaluation.
b. Whenever possible, dredged material should be utilized in a productive inanuer (e.g., Beach Nourishment), since this would tend to offset some adverse environmental impacts. Environmental impacts may also be reduced if the site utilized for disposal is disturbed, since this may allow presevation of present levels of environmental quality at other locations. However, continued use of a disposal site way result in exhaustion of the assimilative capacity
of the site. Finally, adverse impacts may be reduced by isolating dredged material from the environment. Recognizing the environmental impacts associated with the disposal activity, it is important to develop mitigating measures to lessen these impacts.
c. An overall evaluation of the environmental impacts of the alternatives involving high volumes is difficult since only one of these alternatives, the Mud Dump, involves a specific site. However, the other three high volume alternatives involve containment and may therefore offer significant protection of the environment. The Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pit alternative offers the further advantage of utilizing previously disturbed sites, and may act to improve the ecology of these areas. The demonstrated environmental impacts of any of these alternatives are not sufficient to eliminate them from further consideration.
d. The environinental impacts resulting from alternatives involving smaller volumes are generally minimal and in several cases (Beach Nourishment and Wetlands Disposal (spreading)) nay be positive. Unfortunately, other factors greatly limit the capacity of these alternatives.
a. Social inpacts include both economic cost and benefits which lend theinselves to concise, if imperfect analysis, as well as social factors which are difficult to evaluate. At this tilde dredging of the Port of New York and New Jersey is necessary for the economic health of the region. The least expensive, proven method of disposal is the placement of dredged material at the Mud Dump. other high voluie alternative for which it is possible to project reasonable costs is use of Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pits. Due to the cost of transport to and construction of containment facilities, it is difficult to evaluate the costs of upland alternatives until specific projects are proposed. At this time these two factors are expected to result in increased disposal costs for these alternatives. This increase inay be offset to an undeterrained degree by benefits derived from the ultimate use of the site.
b. It is difficult for alternatives utilizing only small volumes of dredged waterial to be economically efficient. However, when the benefits derived exceed the incremental costs, the alternative becomes economically attractive. l'his evaluation is currently undertaken by the COE for beach nourishment projects and could be applied to other alternatives resulting in productive use of dredged inaterial (e.g., Wetland Creation).
c. There is public concern regarding the disposal of any potentially toxic material. Public opinion regarding natural resource policies are often the result of incomplete information. Public education may help gain acceptance of several of these alternatives. This concern is expected to affect decisions made regarding any upland disposal alternative; the specifics of this impact will depend upon the design and location of a project. Use of the Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pit alternative is also expected to result in sowe public concern. This issue may be resolved when the long-term value of the pits as a fish habitat is determined.
d. There are expected to be positive social benefits from several of the alternatives for both large and small projects. Recreational facilities created on shallow water coutiainment areas would be expected to have exceptionally high social value. Tie social value of other disposal alternatives is dependent upon site-specific factors.
a. Estimating the capacity of disposal alternatives is complicated by the engineering properties of dredged material and the effects of possible treatment of the material prior to disposal. The capacities presented throughout Section 2.3 represent best estimates and are subject to change after specific sites and disposal methods are identified. However, the distinction between high and low voluide alternatives is expected to stand.
b. Until such time as sites are identified for the other disposal alternatives, the Mud Dump offers the greatest proven capacity for all types of dredged material. gimilarly, the Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pit Alternative offers the greatest potential volume for which sites have been identified to contain contaminated or questionable material.
For many of the alternatives for which sites remain to be identified (e.6., Protected Water Containment) the feasibility of the alternative is questionable due to the intense competition for space in and around the Port of New York and New Jersey. This concern does not preclude these alternatives, but it does decrease their chances of being impleluented.
b. Alternatives which are currently utilized are more feasible; this includes the Mud Dump, Uncontained Upland Disposal and Beach Nourishment. There appear to be no engineering or legal factors which would eliminate the other feasible alternatives. There are factors which may detract from the feasibility of some alternatives.
Estimating the cost of various disposal methods is dependent upon available information for each alternative. A recent modification of data originally presented in hitre (1979) by Gordon et al. (1982) offers the following information. For untested disposal options these costs are assumed to represent iniaimura values. The values presented in Table 2-6 represent the best available estimates; for alternatives lacking sufficient information no estimate is presented.
a. Overall development and coordination of the various feasible alternatives for disposal of material dredged from the Port of New York and New Jersey is provided through the N.Y. District's Dredged Material Disposal Management Plan (see Section 1.4). Iwplementation of the alternatives identified under the plan and reviewed in this EIS will be conducted by the District in an incremental manner. Final evaluation of several alternatives will require additional research; as details emerge these alternatives will be integrated into the District's overall management strate y.
In order to facilitate this process this document attempts to rank the suitability of feasible alternatives. b. This ranking is divided according to each alternative's capacity to meet the dredged material disposal requirements of the Port. It is presently anticipated that use of one of the large volume alternatives will be sufficient to fulfil this requirement. However, implementation of a small volume alternative will require that supplemental disposal alternatives from one of the categories be utilized.
c. The factors which were used in this ranking are contained throughout Sections 2.0 and 4.0 and are summarized briefly below. Due to a lack of site-specific proposals for several of the alternatives, only general concerns and issues can be considered. Where several alternatives have similar characteristics, they are grouped together and common advantages are discussed.
Large Volume Alternatives
Mud Dump: Continued use of the Mud Dump site
Sub-Aqueous Pits: Disposal of dredged material in
Protected Water Containment, Contained Upland and Uncontained Upland Disposal: These three alternatives are grouped because they are feasible but require additional site-specific information before a final ranking an be determined. These alternatives should be considered in cases where a clearly defined need exists for alternate disposal options. Page 7
Small Volume Alternatives
Creation of Wetlanas, Artificial Reef Creation:
Sanitary Landfill Cover, Beach Nourishment, Highway Deicing Material, and Wetlands Disposal: These alternatives offer productive use of dredged material and were therefore grouped. Several are presently utilized on a case-by-case basis in this and uther areas and should be continued; others are only in the initial stages of investigation.
Sanitary Landfill: Since this alternative places dredsed material in direct competition with municipal solid waste, it can only be considered for small volumes of contaminated material.
2. The review of feasible alternatives presented in this €13 as well as other recent comprehensive reviews (Mitre, 1979; EPA, 1982) indicate that continued use of the wud Dump represents the preferred disposal aternative for large volumes of dredged material. These sources indicate that use of the Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pit alternative represents the most promising new disposal alternative for large volumes of contaminated or questionable dredged waterial. Smaller volumes of suitable dredged ma terial can be safely disposed of through beach nourishment, uncontained and contained upland disposal as well as through the options contained under "Alternatives involving Smaller Volumes" (3ection 2.3.2.2). The opportunities for these disposal alternatives, although limited, should be explored on a case by case basis. Implementation of new alternatives not covered in this EIS, especially those suitable for high volumes of material, would require a major effort on the part of the COE, EPA, various state agencies and the public. in lieu of tnis effort the najor disposal opportunities outlined in this EIS will fulfill the dredged material disposal requirement of the Port of New York and New Jersey well into the late 1990s.
a. The New York Bight is defined as the general ocean area between Montauk Point, New York, and Ca pe May, New Jersey, an area encompassing approximately 15,000 mia. The landward boundary of the Bight is formed by the coastline of New York and New Jersey; the seaward boundary is taken as the 100 fm isobath, often considered to be the continental shelf break; and the western and eastern boundaries are 38°30'i and 71°30'E, respectively (NOAA, 1976). It should be recognized that these boundaries are somewhat arbitrary and that the New York bight is also an integral part of the larger Mid-Atlantic Bight, as well as the Hudson River/New York Harbor estuary system (Fig. 3-1). b. The landward edge of the Bight covers approximately 390 km (245 mi) and is characterized by barrier islands with sandy beaches, large estuaries and gently sloping coastal plains (Yasso and Hartman, 1976). From the shoreline the Continental Shelf slopes gradually seaward for approximately 110 mi to a depth of about 100 fm, where the slope drops off precipitously.
c. The land and water associated with the New York Bight area are among the most bigbly utilized in the world. As a result of its cental location on the Atlantic sea board and its proximity to the New York metropolitan region, the New York Bight has been modified due to human activity. Of particular concern is the New York Bight Apex, an area of intense human activity, located between 40°10'N, 73°30'E and the shoreline of New York and New Jersey.
d. The location of the New York Bight is also of ecological significance (see Section 3.1.5). The bight encompasses a biologically unique area since it is the southern limit of the range of many boreal species and the northern limit of the range of many tropical and temperate species (NOAA, 1980). It is also an integral part of the estuarine systems along the coast of New York and New Jersey.
e. The estuarine area immediately adjacent the N.Y. bight Apex consists of the Lower Bay, Karitan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, located at the common mouth of the Hudson and Raritan Rivers. This Lower Bay Complex of New York Harbor exhibits estuarine circulation patterns (bottom intrusion of saline waters) which have been modified by numerous shoals, banks and ship channels. Water quality in the Lower Bay Complex is impacted by waters introduceu into the Hudson and
Raritan Rivers (Brinkhuis, 1980) and is of generally lower quality than that in the Outer Bigot.
a. The Continental Shelf of the New York Bight can be generally described as a sloping plain resulting from patterns of glaciation and changes in sea level over the past several million years (Freeland and Swift, 1978). The apex of the Bight is the result of a post glacial rise in sea level which partially submerged the lower valleys of the Hudson and Raritan Rivers (O'Connor et al., 1977). This geologic activity is also responsible for the distribution of most of this area's surficial sediments as well as its submarine geology. b. The limits of the New York Bight are morphologically defined by Block Canyon, which originates between vontauk Point and Block Island and the Delaware Shelf Valley, beginning off of Cape may, New Jersey. This section of the Mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf is bisected by the New York Bight's most prominent submarine feature, the Hudson Shelf and the Hudson Canyon. Believed to be the result of erosion during lowered sea level, the Hudson Shelf Valley and Canyon extend 340 km (183 mi) across the shelf; the width of the valley at mid-shelf averages between 12 and 15 km (6-8 nmi) (Freeland and Swift, 1978). Other morphological features of the Bight include the Christiaensen Basin at the head of the Hudson Valley, the various inlets along the saoreline of New York and New Jersey and the bills of dredged material deposited in the Bight apex (see Figure 2-1).
c. Located at the head of the Hudson Shelf Valley, the Christiaensen Basin is a crescent-shaped depression with an area of about 2.5 mi (EPA, 1982) and depths of between 15 and 20 fm (McLaughlin et al., 1975). It appears that the Basin is an area of natural accumulation of fine sediments (Swift et al., 1979) and that this process may have been accelerated by an order of magnitude due to the dumping of waste material, mainly sewage sludge (Freeland et al., 1979). The designated sites for the disposal of sewage sludge, cellar dirt and dredged materials are all within 5 km of the Christiaensen Basin and transport of suspended solids from the disposal sites to the Basin seems possible (see Section 3.1.3). d. The landward boundary of the New York Bight is formed by barrier islands with numerous tidal inlets (O'Connor et al., 1977). These inlets are areas where course and medium grained sediments are deposited by
littoral forces (Gross, 1976). Tidal forces may also result in entrainment and accumulation of fine sediments in the back bays behind these inlets (Swift et al., 1979).
e. As a result of dredged material dumping activities within the Bight apex, three bathymetrically discernible hills have developed since the 1800's. Two of these hills, Diamond and Castle, are the results of early dumping activities. The largest of these early hills is Castle, where the accumulation of material reaches approximately 15m (50 ft) high. Since about 1936, the greatest accumulation has taken place south of Castle Hill at the area designated as the idud Dump where the mound of dredged material covers 11 nmi2 (33 km2) (Dayal, et al., 1981) and has reached a peak height of 10.5 m (35 ft) (personal communication, Mansky, COE, January 1982).
Sediment Composition and Sources
a. The bottom sediments of the New York Bight are primarily sand with scattered patches of gravel, except in the Hudson Shelf Valley, the Christiaensen Basin and in the immediate vicinities of tidal inlets (Swift et al., 1979). Composed primarily of quartz and feldspar, these sands are the results of various eroding processes which occurred during past fluctuations in sea level. Although clay and rock are exposed in some limited areas, especially along the Hudson Valley, the sand deposits on the floor of the Bight range from between 15 to 30 m in thickness (O'Connor et al., 1977).
b. The fine grained silt and mud components of the Bight's surficial sediments are primarily the result of natural forces, rather than human activity, except in the immediate area of the dredged ma terial disposal site and to a lesser extent at the sewage sludge site (Beardsley et al., 1976; Appendix B; Section 2.1.3). Fine-grained particles carried by currents into the Bight Apex settle out in the low topography of the Christiaensen Basin and the Hudson Shelf Valley. At times in localized areas, bottom currents can carry fine particles back into estuaries which act as semi-permanent sinks (Preeland et al., 1979). There appears to be some cycling of fine-grained material between the inner shelf and the estuary floors (Betzer, 1978; Freeland, et al., 1974).
c. Metal concentrations in the sediments of the Bight have been studied by numerous investigators and summarized in Mitre (1979). Distribution patterns for chromium, zinc, lead, copper and nickel are all similar. The highest concentrations are found near the head of the Hudson Canyon (in the vicinity of the sewage sludge disposal area and the Mud Dump) and surrounding areas have decreasing levels with Page 8
a trail of relatively high values extending into the Hudson Canyon and reaching seaward (Fig. 3-2).
a. Although the mechanics of sediment transport are only partially understood (Beardsley et al., 1976), it seems clear that, away from the surf and tide-dominated estuary mouths, bottom currents are not generally of sufficient strength to move non-cohesive sediments such as sand or gravel. Significant sand transport occurs only as a result of currents generated by storm events. These transport events are episodic and brief. Movement of sand both northwesterly and southwesterly along the coast of the New York Bight occurs. The predominate mode of transport is southwesterly in response to "northeaster" storms occurring during the winter season (Freeland and Swift, 1978; Swift et al., 1979).
b. Mud, which consists of fine-grained silt, sand and clay sediments combined with organic matter, is transported under less severe conditions. Due to its low density and small grain size, this material tends to remain suspended in the water column longer eventually settling out on the sea floor as mud patches. These patches are subject to resuspension by bottom currents (Swift et al., 1979) and may remain suspended for days or weeks and be transported relatively long distances before being deposited again (Freeland and Swift, 1978). Mud patch accumulation appears to be cyclic, being most extensive during late spring and summer and greatly reduced or absent during fall and winter (Harris, 1975).
c. The shelf floor in the New York Bight region is a dynamic and mobile surface with selective transport of bottom sediments occuring at depths of up to 30m (Swift et al., 1979). Recent reports (Freeland and Swift, 1978; Hansen, 1977; Swift et al., 1979; EPA, 1982) suggest that sediments originating in the Hudson and Raritan River systems settle out in the estuary; that both sand and fine-grain sediments are resuspended by episodic storm events and bottom currents respectively; and that there is a net counterclockwise transport of resuspended sediments with some entraining into backbays and some transport back into the Lower Bay Complex.
a. The New York Bight can be characterized as a shallow ocean system which exbibits two distinct seasonal oceanographic regimes. These regimes are generally the result of meterological factors which affect salinity, water temperature and circulation. In summer,
CONCENTRATION OF METALS AS INDICATED BY THE OCCURRENCE OF COPPER IN THE SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT (depth contours in feet, concentrations in PPM dry weight)
Bight exhibit thermally stratified conditions, while in the winter a generally unstratified condition exists. Seasonal variations in temperature and circulation are most pronounced in the Bight Apex and tend to decrease seaward over the shelf region (Swanson and Sindermann, 1979). The Apex can be further characterized as a partially mixed estuary system impacted by riverine systems, while the Lower Bay Complex exhibits estuarine characteristics.
a. Bowman and Wunderlich (1977) present a summary of salinity data and this section is based largely on their work. Seasonal patterns of salinity in the Bight are controlled by inputs from the Hudson River System and overland runoff. The volume of water entering the Bight from the Hudson and other rivers annually displaces a volume of water equal to about half of the apex. The combined discharges of the Hudson and Raritan Rivers result in a plume of low salinity water which is present throughout the year, but highly variable in location and intensity.
b. Surface salinity generally reaches its maximum at the end of the winter and minimum in the summer, having a winter maximum range of 30 parts per thousand (ppt) at the estuary mouth to about 34 ppt at the outer apex. As spring runoff increases freshwater input, salinities decrease to about 26 ppt in the estuary mouth and about 31 ppt in the outer apex. This increase in freshwater results in an increase in the vertical salinity gradient, with bottom waters being more saline and a typical gradient of from 0.025 to 0.05 ppt m-1. Regardless of season, the highest salinities normally occur at the bottom. This salinity gradient is a factor affecting circulation patterns (see Section 3.1.3.3).
c. The plume of low salinity Hudson River water is a persistent feature within the Bight and it appears to be split by a region of relatively high salinity at the head of the Hudson Shelf Valley (Han and Niedrauer, 1981). The least saline water tends to stay towards the New Jersey coast, while the remainder of the water is less saline than the outer shelf and that over the valley. It is the presence of this higher salinity water at the head of the valley which suggests flow up the valley bringing with it deep shelf waters into the inner Bight (Han and Niedrauer, 1981).
a. Seasonal temperature patterns are well defined and exhibit a persistent historical pattern of unstratified conditions from November until march, when freshwater
runoff and spring vernal warming begins building stratified conditions which peak in August (Mayer et al., 1979). Although completely isothermal (i.e., constant temperature) conditions are rare, vertical mixing due to winter storms and limited river inputs result in nearly horizontally isothermal winter conditions with an annual water temperature minimum of less than 2° C (Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977). There does exist a slight vertical temperature gradient with warmer water occurring offshore. b. During summer, surface waters rise to about 17 to 200 C and rapid warming occurs in waters resulting in a sharp temperature boundary or thermocline. Below the thermocline there remains a "cold pool" of water, usually found between 30 and 100m, which is thermally uniform and discrete from surrounding waters. This cold pool usually exbibits temperature from between 4 and 100 C (Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977). Although thought to be a remnant of winter waters, the source and nature of this pool is not totally understood (Beardsley et al., 1976; Han and Niedrauer, 1981).
c. Summer stratified conditions remain until fall storms increase vertical mixing of the water column and break down the thermocline. The transition periods between summer and winter conditions tend to be brief and variable. In addition to physical changes within the Bight itself, there exists a distinct temperature, salinity and density front between the waters of the shelf and the slope, and there is generally a warm saline intrusion of slope bottom wa ters along the outer shelf (Beardsley et al., 1976; Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977).
a. Circulation patterns within the New York Bight are not as well defined as temperature or salinity patterns. Major factors affecting circulation in this region are the geology of the region, the impacts of the Hudson estuary system and the right angle bend in the coastline between New York and New Jersey (Hansen, 1977; Mayer et al., 1979). The interaction of these factors with wind, which is the main driving force of surface currents in the Bight, results in a highly variable circulation pattern (Hansen, 1977).
b. Despite their variability, net circulation patterns for the Bight suggest a southwest flow, with surface currents generally being greater than bottom currents and current velocity increasing with distance from the shore (Mayer et al., 1979). Generalizations about seasonal circulation patterns for the Bight Apex cannot be made at this time. However, the apex does clearly exhibit characteristic estuarine circulation with a net seaward
movement of brackish surface waters and a shoreward flow of more saline bottom waters (Hansen, 1977). Tides within the Bight region are semidiurnal and result in an anticyclonic (counterclockwise) net flow. Bottom tidal currents average about 10 cm/s (0.2 knots) (Swanson, 1976).
c. Seasonal winds are the most important cause of surface currents and seem to be responsible for variations in net flow. Wind driven currents in the Bight indicate a net surface flow to the southwest at speeds averaging about 4 or 5 cm/s but subject to reversals, especially during sunmer, lasting from several days to three months (Hansen, 1977).
d. The Hudson Shelf Valley acts as an extension of the Hudson estuary and is responsible for a pet shoreward flow of bottom waters averaging several centimeters per day up the valley (Beardsley et al., 1976). Botton circulation in the valley seems to be dependent upon local bottom conditions.
a. The chemistry of the waters and sediments of the New York Bight is affected by natural physical, biological and geological processes as well as anthropogenic inputs. Although certain chemical characteristics show patterns similar to other coastal ocean areas which are largely influenced by terrestrial runoff, there is evidence of environmental impact due to human activities (O'Connor et al., 1977). Ascertaining the effect of any particular activity on the chemical properties of the waters of the New York Bight is complicated by the interaction of several factors involving chemical state changes in seawater, biological transformations, water circulation patterns and sedimentation rates and turnover (EPA, 1982).
a. Outflow from the Hudson estuary is a major source of dissolved nutrients to the New York Bight, extending as a plume of enriched water southward along the New Jersey coast. Elevated levels of dissolved inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous have been attributed to sewage inputs into the Hudson estuary. Transport to the Bight apex is largely controlled by river flow (Garside et al., 1976). Seasonal patterns of winter maxima and suminer minima for concentrations of nitrate and phosphate are generally observed throughout the Bight (O'Connor et al., 1977).
b. Within the apex of the Bight primary production within the water column is never nutrient limited (Garside et al., 1976; Malone, 1976b, 1977b). However, over most of Page 9
the shelf areas during the summer phytoplankton production depletes nutrients from surface waters and the seasonal thermocline restricts the replenishment from bottom waters until the total water column is mixed either by a storm event or autumnal cooling (Alexander and Alexander, i977; Walsh et al., 1976).
a. The concentration of organic carbon has been found in the sediments of the Bight to be indicative of waste-affected areas (Pearce, 1972; Hatcher and Keister, 1976). Elevated organic carbon levels were associated with finegrained sediments with the highest concentrations occurring in the Christiaensen Basin and at the head and downward into the Hudson Channel (Fig. 3-3). Surficial deposits in the Mud Dump contain organic carbon concentrations several fold higher than the 0.1 to 2 percent by weight generally found throughout the Bight sediments (Mitre, 1979); however, sewage inputs have been identified as the major source of organic matter to the sediments in the Bight (Hatcher and Keister, 1976) (see also Table 3-1). b. In situ production by phytoplankton within the water column is the largest input of organic carbon to the New York Bight (Hatcher and Keister, 1976; Malone and Chervin, 1979), although estuarine production can also contribute substantially at times (Segar et al., 1976; Malone and Chervin, 1979). Except for the settling of spring phytoplankton blooms, the input of phytoplankton carbon into the sediments has not been found to be an important source of the organic load in the Bight sediments (Hatcher and Keister, 1976; Malone and Chervin, 1979).
c. Elevated levels of organic carbon in bottom waters and within the sediments are of concern because of the possible increase in biological oxygen demand resulting from decomposition processes which under certain conditions can deplete the dissolved oxygen (Segar et al., 1976; Thomas et al., 1976). In addition, organic matter has been found to forma complexes with heavy metals and to play a significant role in the distribution of these metals within the sediments of the Bight and in particular dredged material sediments (Dayal et al., 1981).
Oxygen Concentrations and Anoxic Developments
a. Levels of dissolved oxygen are dependent upon several factors including temperature, salinity, rate of re-aeration, photosynthetic production and use by biological respiration processes and chemical oxidation (Alexander and Alexander, 1977; O'Connor et al., 1977). Because of high photosynthetic activity in surface waters of the New York
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS (depth contours in feet, concentration in percent by dry weight)
Bight, oxygen concentrations generally equal or exceed saturation levels. Subsurface oxygen concentrations are much more variable spatially and definite seasonal trends have been observed. Maximum concentrations occur during the winter and early spring, but the development of the seasonal thermocline restricts the vertical mixing of Bight waters so that by late summer the oxygen demands can reduce concentrations well below saturation levels.
b. In bottom waters of the Bight levels as low as 45 percent saturation are common during the summer months and near the disposal areas can reach minimum averages of 30 percent (O'Connor et al., 1977). The severity of this summer oxygen depletion has increased over the past decades. Some of the lowest concentrations have been measured in bottom waters flowing south along the New Jersey coast; the source of these deoxygenated waters has been attributed at least in part to the New York Harbor with its high oxygen demand (Alexander and Alexander, 1977). The development of anoxic conditions in bottom waters along the New Jersey coast during the summer has been a well-recognized problem and can lead to massive death of marine biota (Segar et al., 1976; Sharp, 1976; Mitre, 1979; see also Section 3.1.5.1). Vertical mixing of the water column and reduced temperatures during the autumn replenish oxygen, and saturation levels are eventually restored.
Heavy Metals, Trace Elements and Other Anthropogenic Inputs
a. Heavy metals both in the water column and within the sediments of the inner apex of the New York Bight are elevated beyond levels found in outer shelf areas and other unpolluted marine systems. Identified sources of increased heavy metals include the ocean dumping of dredged materials, sewage sludge, acid waste and cellar dirt as well as terrestrial runoff, waste water and atmospheric inputs (Mueller et al., 1976). The degree of enrichment of numerous heavy metals, (lead, copper, silver, mercury, cadmiun, iron and manganese) in dredged material deposits is several orders of magnitude greater than found for other coastal deposits (Dayal et al., 1981). Fine grained sediments near the Sewage Sludge Dump Site and within the Christiaensen Basin are also high in heavy metals; the pattern of decrease in metal concentration away from these disposal areas indicates dispersal by water currents (see Fig. 3-2) (Carmody et al., 1973). Surface waters in the vicinity of ocean dumpsites are not found to be affected by heavy metal contamination beyond that attributable to the Hudson River Plume (Segar and Cantillo, 1976); this is most likely a consequence of the rapid sequestering of these metals by particles and organic matter and relatively rapid removal from the water column by sedimentation.
b. The data available to date indicate that dredged waterial disposal is the single largest source of metals loading to the Bight, with a copper contribution of 47 percent; cadmium, 80 percent; lead, 37 percent; and chromium, 46 percent (mueller et al., 1976; Schubel et al., in press). Conflicting data exist regarding several other metals; however, zinc and mercury loadings appear to come primarily from atmospheric discharges and urban runoff. It has been estimated that dredged material contributes less than 3 percent of the total zinc loading and less than 20 percent of the total loading of mercury (Mueller et al., 1976). In addition controversy exists regarding the relative contribution of dredged material to the oil and grease (largely petroleum hydrocarbons) inputs to the Bight. Dredged na terial (34 percent), municipal wastes (22 percent) and urban runoff (23 percent) all appear to contribute significantly to the presence of this contaminant in the Bight (Mueller et al., 1976).
c. Human activities in the New York metropolitan area have introduced in addition to heavy metals numerous contaminants into the New York Bight through a variety of routes involving terrestrial runoff, rainfall, atmospheric fallout, industrial effluents as well as ocean aumping (Mueller et al., 1976; Table 3-1). The input of any particular pollutant can be quite variable but, in general, contamination is greatest within the Bight Apex and concentrations decrease with distance offshore (Mueller et al., 1976). Elevated levels of PCBs within the sediments of the Bigbt are largely a result of the dumping of sewage sludge (EPA, 1982). The highest concentrations of PCBs in the Bight are in the black muds of the Christiaensen Basin, although levels above background are also found in the Nud Dump (Table 3-2) (O'Connor et al., 1980; SPA, 1982). Areas of the Hudson River and Upper New York Harbor are the most highly polluted with PCBs. Dredging contaminated sediments from these areas presents a potential problem should the bioassay testing indicate a potential for bioaccumulation.
a. The New York Bight is part of a coastal ecosystem whose marine biota are reflective of a nearshore, marine environment. The major biotic units of interests are plankton, benthos, and fisheries. Although each group is considered separately, emphasis has been placed on the interdependence of the entire biotic community and the significance of environmental variables to their maintenance. Major studies and reviews consulted for this section were: Malone, 1977a; Yentsch, 1977; Malone, 1977b; ricHugh and Ginter, 1978; Malone and Caervin, 1979; Mitre, 1979; Pearce et al., 1981; and EPA, 1982. Page 10
a. Plankton communities are characterized by organisms with little or no swimming ability and thus are carried by ocean currents. Phytoplankton are composed of microalgae which are extremely important as primary producers within open ocean ecosystems. Phytoplankton are consumed by small animals, the zooplankton, thus forming the basis of an extremely complex trophic system on which the rest of the biotic community is dependent. The early life history stages of many species of fish and benthic invertebrates are spent as part of the plankton.
b. The pattern of phytoplankton production and seasonal succession in the Bight is typical of coastal, temperate waters (Malone, 1976a, 1977a; Walsh et al., 1976; Yentsch, 1977). Major environmental factors influencing primary productivity are temperature, light levels, vertical stability of the water column and nutrient supply. Production is seasonally variable, with the highest levels occurring during the summer and minimal levels occurring during the winter. Maximum production is observed in the inner apex of the Bight in association with the nutrient-rich plume of Hudson Estuary water. The early spring is characterized by blooms of diatom species which usually go largely unconsumed and settle into the sediments (Malone and Chervin, 1979). Later in the spring and during the summer, a diverse assemblage of phytoplankton populations develops and includes chlorophytes, dinoflagellates and coccolithophores. These populations are highly productive, yet densities are kept relatively low by the intense and closely coupled grazing of zooplankton populations which develop concomitantly.
c. Although phytoplankton blooms within the Bight are comnon, they usually are not harmful to the system. However, a bloom of the dinoflagellate Ceratium tripos during the spring and summer of 1976, was contributory to the development of anoxic conditions off the coast of New Jersey and the subsequent extensive mortality of shellfish and finfish (Sharp, 1976). The initial causes of the Ceratium bloom are unclear but do not appear to be associated with activities in the areas of the inner Bight since the large populations of the alga developed offshore and were moved shoreward by hydrographic conditions. However, as discussed in Section 3.1.4, the depletion of oxygen from bottom wa ters during the summer months, particularly near the New Jersey shore, is a continuing potential problem. d. Zooplankton populations in the Bight are dominated by copepod species typical of coastal shelf areas, but other important groups present are ciliates, chaetognaths, Page 11
fishermen have been bluefish, Atlantic mackerel and striped bass (Mitre, 1979). Most of the migratory species either spawn in coastal waters of the Bight or the larvae use nearshore areas as nurseries, indicating that the estuaries around the New York detropolitan area are continuing to be important to the maintenance of fish populations.
d. Evidence suggests that finfish populations are under environmental stress in the New York Bight. Increased incidence of fin rot and abnormalities in eggs has been documented and the decrease in commercial catches is most likely not due exclusively to overfishing (McHugh, 1977). Recently fin rot in winter flounder has been found to be declining but the reasons are undetermined (EPA, 1962). Physiological abnormalities which develop in fish caged near the sewage-sludge dump site have not been observed in fish and shellfish similarly exposed at the mud Dump, although the source and nature of the responsible agents from sewage sludge have not been ascertained.
a. The New York Bight has been adversely impacted by human activities, some of which have implications for human health. The most direct human health concern is consumption of contaminated shellfish. To address this concern, large areas of the Bight have been closed to shellfishing (see Figure 3-5). However, human health may be indirectly effected by degraded water quality at bathing beaches and reduced quality in other sea foods still taken from the Bight.
b. The sublethal effects of pollutants upon marine life pose the most serious direct threat to human health. Many marine organisms have the capacity to absorb and assimilate the contaminants found in the waters of the New York Bight, resulting in increased tissue levels of these contaminants and possible bioconcentration at higher trophic levels. These are species-dependent processes and are related to the form of the contaminant and the length of the organisms' exposure (Greiz et al., 1977; Greig and Wenzloff, 1977), especially important concerns for the shellfish resources of the New York Bigbt. Symptoms of physiological stress due to environmental degradation have been observed in crustaceans collected in the vicinity of the sewage sludge disposal area and the Mud Dump (Young and Pearce, 1975). While severe conditions are not found throughout the entire Bight, significant portions of this region have been closed to shellfishing by the Food and Drug Administration because of contamination by pathogenic micro-organisms (Figure 3-5; EPA, 1982).
c. The overall quality of the Bight Apex, especially the Lower and Upper Bay Complexes, have been degraded by pollution from anthropogenic sources. The major waterbodies of the Lower Bay Complex have been so degraded that the New York State Department of Conservation (DEC) has classified the Lower Hudson as Class I, meaning the waters are suitable only for secondary contact recreation and any other usage, except for primary contact recreation and shellfishing for market purposes, and the East River, Class SD, meaning "waters are not primarily for recreational purposes, shellfish culture or the development of finfish and because of natural or man-made conditions cannot meet the requirements of these uses." The classification system used by the DEC is based upon average health risk assessment for the general population, and even secondary contact may pose health concerns for certain segments of the population or for the general population at certain times (Cabelli et al., 1975).
d. Additional concerns have been raised regarding bacteria introduced into the Christiaensen Basin by the dumping of sewage sludge. Certain bacterial strains (R factor bacteria) found in this area are resistant to antibiotics (Koditschek, 1976) and although this area is within the shellfish closure zone, should such resistant bacteria enter the human diet they could eventually pose a threat to human health.
e. As a result of human activities, the environmental quality of the New York Bight has been adversely inpactea. The impacts have been especially acute within the Bight Apex. This environmental degradation has raised concerns for human health due to possible direct exposure and a result of consumption of contaminated fish. The severity of this impact is highly variable and only partially understood.
Assimilative Capacity of the New York Bight
a. The ability of an ecosystem to absorb various pollutant inputs without exhibiting significant degradation is considered its assimilative capacity. Inputs from natural or man-made sources which exceed the assimilative capacity of the system will disrupt natural cycling processes and reduce the ability of the system to regulate and maintain itself (Odum, 1971).
b. Estimating the assimilative capacity of the New York Bight requires quantification of major system inputs, sources and fates. To date, efforts by McLaughlin et al. (1975), Gross (1976), Nueller et al. (1976), Goldberg (1979), Mayer et al. (1982) and Schubel (in press) all resulted in incomplete estimations and serve to underscore
the difficulties inherent in such determinations. The research published to date does indicate that human activities, especially waste disposal, has impacted to various degrees certain parameters of the environmental quality of the Bight.
c. There are indications that coastal waters along the entire northeastern United States are enriched with nutrients derived from urban waste disposal practices (Yentsch, 1977). In the area of the Bight discoarges of municipal wastewater are major sources of nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria (Mueller et al., 1976). Dumping of sewage sludge and dredged material also represent sources of nutrients, especially phosphorous (see Table 3-1). Additional and many times unquantified sources of these materials include a tmospheric inputs, along shelf transport and shelf onwelling (Mitre, 1979)
d. Ocean disposal of wastes is also a major source of trace metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and synthetic organic materials (see Section 3.1.4.4). Disposal of dredged material has resulted in rates and magnitudes of metals inputs to the Bight which are orders of magnitude higher than for other coastal waters (Dayal et al., 1981). Urban runoff and dredged material disposal are both significant sources of petroleum bydrocarbons in the Bight (idueller et al., 1976). Although locally variable, levels of many organic compounds, including polychlorinated biphenyls, are elevated in the Bight. This situation has been attributed mainly to inputs from the Hudson River and from the disposal of sewage sludge in the Bight (EPA, 1982).
e. Lee and Jones (1977) and others have demonstrated that the relationship between contaminant loading and adverse environmental impacts is not always direct. The most direct impacts from anthropogenic (man-made) sources upon the Bight appear to be increased nutrient and trace metals loadings and increased sedimentation rates (see Section 3.1.2). The degree to which such impacts have accelerated coastal eutrophication and reduced the assimilative capacity of the Bight remains debatable (O'Connor, 1979).
f. Anthropogenic inputs of wastes into the Bight have resulted in increased body burden levels for several contaminant types in organisms utilizing the area (see Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1980). The effects of this stress represent an area of considerable controversy in the scientific community (see Section 3.1.5.3). The major physical oceanographic regimes of the Bight are still controlled by natural systems. However, human activity may contribute to several episodic system disruptions (e.g., anoxia). To date, the assimilative capacity of the New York Bight remains unquantified.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
a. The coastal areas of the Mid-Atlantic states have played a prominent role in American history from the earliest European settlements to the present time. Although the region contains many sites of historical importance, such as buildings and fortifications, the vast majority of these are located inland from the shoreline and are not within the New York Bight.
b. Due to the intensive use of the Port of New York and New Jersey, it seems reasonable to expect that some historically valuable wrecks would be found in the New York Bight. However, a detailed count of vessel remains has yet to be undertaken and although the Bight does contain numerous wrecks of varying historical value (e.g., U.S.S. San Diego), the extent of this resource is yet undetermined.
c. A review of the historical resources of the Mid-Atlantic region undertaken by the Bureau of Land Managment (BLM, 1981) indicates that the Mid-Atlantic shelf contains one site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that of the Civil War vessel USS Monitor, located in a NOAA administered Marine Sanctuary southeast of Cape Hatteras and outside of the New York Bight. Other wrecks may have some local value or interest but this would seem to be limited and not well-documented.
d. The archeological value of the New York Bight region with regards to prehistoric resources is more difficult to ascertain. Evidence of prehistoric occupation of the coastal area of the Atlantic is found throughout the region from the shoreline landward (BLM, 1981). There exists the possibility that sites which are presently under the waters of the New York Bight may have been above sea level and may have some archaeological significance. The greatest potential for such sites would seem to be along what was then river beds, harbor mouths and the coastal edge; in those same areas erosion would tend to be greatest. Due to sea level changes and the reworking of sediments, there would be partial to negligible preservation of any possible sites at the present time (BLM, 1981).
Recreation and Commercial Activities
a. The New York Bight forms the resource base for a wide range of activities. Due to its proximity to the densely populated New York Metropolitan region and its access to the entire Northeastern United States, the waters of the Bight are among the most highly utilized in the world. Quantification of all of the resources of the Bight is not possible, or necessary for this report. Rather the Page 12
Bight's resources can be categorized and presented in a generic fashion. The major resources of this region can subdivided as recreation, commercial fishing, transportation and iniscellaneous other uses.
b. The New York Bight represents a myriad of recreational opportunities. Nearly half of the shoreline of the Bight is currently devoted to public recreation (Carls, 1978). Contained within this shoreline are two major Federal recreation areas, Fire Island National Seashore and Gateway National Recreation Area; three na jor national wildlife refuges; a major interstate park, the Palisades; and numerous state and local areas. In addition to these public holdings there are substantial numbers of private facilities such as marinas, campgrounds, charter boat docks and similar commercial recreational facilities. c. The activities which take place within these areas are extremely diverse. The most popular forms of outdoor recreation in the New York Bight region are swimming/ sunbathing, recreational fishing and boating (Carls, 1978). Beach use for swimming/sunbathing is the most popular form of outdoor recreation and has reached new heights in the Bight region resulting in congestion and overcrowding at many facilities (see Table 3-3).
d. Opportunities for marine recreational fishing abound in this region, and it has been estimated that approximately 5.3 million people participated in this activity annually in the New York and New Jersey region during the mid-1970s (BLM, 1981). Ma jor species sought by recreational roarine fisherman include weakfish, bluefish, striped bass and flounder. Recreational fishing in the Bight takes a number of forms including surf fishing, bank and pier fishing and party and charter boat fishing. There are approximately 103 party and 155 charter boats on the South shore of Long Island and New York City with about 100 party and 225 charter boats operating on the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey (LIRPB, 1981). This activity is especially intense near shore and in the Bight Apex (EPA, 1982).
e. Recreational boating, although seasonally variable, is a significant activity in the New York Bight. Although subject to pressures froin fuel prices and lack of facilities, interest in recreational boating has grown tremendously during the 1970s and is expected to continue to grow (Carls, 1978).
f. The upward trend in all recreational activities in the Bight region is expected to continue due to increasing individual mobility, affluence and leisure time (Carls, 1978; LIRPB, 1981). These trends, combined with increasing population growth will result in an intensification of demand for coastal and marine recreational resources.
Beach Attendance at State and National Parks in the Greater New York Metropolitan Area in 1976
8. The biological communities of the New York Bight (see Section 3.1.5) form the resource base for this region's commercial fishery. This resource is exploited by domestic fishermen from the entire east coast and by foreign fishermen from a nuraber of nations. The difficulties in developing an accurate picture of commercial fishing activity are well documented (McHugh and Ginter, 1978; Azarovitz et al., 1980; LIRPB, 1981).
h. Stocks of many important commercial species of both shell and finfish show signs of overfishing and landings have remained fairly stable due largely to the industries ability to shift emphasis to different species (McHugh, 1977; McHugh and Ginter, 1978). Commercially important species include finfish like scup as well as shellfish such as surf clams and lobster. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 present the most recent data available regarding landings of important commercial fisheries in New York and New Jersey.
i. The location of commercial fishing areas change seasonally, and the species sought by fisherman is dependent upon abundance and price. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) of 1976 has also impacted the location and intensity of comercial fishing effort. Based on a concept of optimum yield, the FCMA sets quotas for commercial species, generally if the domestic fleet is unable to harvest the full quota, then foreign fisherman are allowed to fulfill the quota.
j. One of the most traditional uses of the New York Bight is for transportation and shipping. The Bight contains one of America's busiest ports, the Port of New York and New Jersey, which has long been among the national leaders in ship arrivals and tons of cargo handled. Almost 7,000 vessels called on the Port of New York and New Jersey in 1980 (LIRPB, 1981). The New York Bight is transected by three major shipping lanes, Nantucket to Ambrose, Hudson Canyon to Ambrose, and Barnegat Bay to Ambrose, all of which are recognized by international agreement. The New York Bight is also bounded by several regionally important ports including Philadelphia and Cape May to the South and New London and Providence to the North. The net result is that the waters of the New York Bight are among the most heavily utilized in the world for transportation and shipping. Although advancements, such as containerization of cargo, have changed the nature of much of the shipping and transportation industry, use of the Port of New York and New Jersey is expected to remain high (Hammon, 1976).
k. In addition, the New York Bight is utilized for a variety of other activities. Among these are:
Unpublished data, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Statistics Branch, Patchogue, N.Y.
Personal Communication (telephone conversation, 5 May 1982) LaVerde, NMFS, Toms River, N.J.
Scientific Research represented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) intensive Karine Eco-System's Analysis (LESA) program. This program is aimed at increasing knowledge about the Bight and man's impact upon it.
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Energy Development Activities the Bight is located at the junction of the BLM's North and Mid-Atlantic Lease areas and has been subject to lease sales and exploratory drilling.
Sand and Gravel Mining although experiencing a lull presently, sand and gravel mining in the Bight has been a commercially important activity. Since 1973, Lower N.Y. and Raritan Bays have been the only areas mined (EPA, 1982).
Military Uses - the Bight is contained within the Narragansett Bay Operating Area and is subject to occasional military activity such as submarine operations, gunnery practice, sea trials, radar tracking and general operations (BLM, 1981).
a. The nonmarine environment in the New York Metropolitan region is diverse in physical features, natural habitats, species composition, history, economics, social features, and political control. The nonmarine disposal of dredged materials taken from New York harbor would affect this spectrum of situations. Mitre (1979) considered sites within a radius of 100 mi of the Statue of Liberty in its review of potential disposal alternatives; although the study area of this report is essentially the Port Authority Boundaries, the discussion that follows can be applied on a regional basis for purposes of continuity.
a. The form of the land in the vicinity of New York City includes several major physical geographic areas. The Piedmont Province includes the Traissic lowlands where igneous rocks are prevalant as evidenced by the Palisades sill and the Watchung Mountains. This province is enclosed on the north by the New England Upland, represented in the area by the Manhattan Prong which terminates in the vicinity of Pelham Bay. The Ridge and Valley Province extends from northwestern New Jersey in a northeasterly direction into New York. Just east of the Ridge and Valley Province is the Highland Province. In eastern New Jersey the Coastal Plain Province occurs represented by the Inner Coastal Plain and Page 13
the Outer Coastal Plain. Much of the area has been overlain by glacial deposits (Department of Conservation and Economic Development, 1959).
b. The soils have developed from a diverse geologic substrate, Literally hundreds of soil types occur in the area, ranging from coarse sands to fine clays in texture. All of these soils have an acidic pH with relatively intense leaching in their upper horizon. For a summary of some of the representative soils in the area, see Ted row (1963).
a. Within the study area there are a large number of habitats. There are beaches, wetlands, and uplands which can be categorized in a number of ways, including their political control, economic value, sociological utilization, and biological composition (Cowardin et al., 1979; Ringold and Clark, 1980). These habitats exist in the context of one of the most developed and densely populated areas anywhere.
b. New York and New Jersey have over 3000 mi of tidal shoreline of which approximately ten percent is under federal ownership, 30 percent non-federal, public ownership, and 60 percent under private ownership. Of this shoreline, New York and New Jersey have over 500 mi defined as beaches (Ringold and Clark, 1980), some 200 mi of which exists along barrier islands. These beaches are among the most heavily used and valuable recreation areas in the country. National parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and other protected environments occur in the immediate vicinity of the Port of New York and New Jersey (see Section 3.1.9). Immediately adjacent to many of these beaches are sand dune habitats which are rich in aesthetic, recreational, and biological attributes. Fire Island is a classic example of a site which incorporates all of these elements.
c. New York Bight beaches are subject to annual and long-term changes in shape and position typical of ocean-facing shorelines. Wave refraction causes a littoral drift of beach sand in a predominantly westward direction along the south shore of Long Island, a northward drift along the New Jersey coast north of Dover township and a southward drift south of Dover township (Yasso and Hartmen, 1976). Coastal storms and human encroachment onto beaches amplify normal erosion by waves, wind and tide. The value of beaches coupled with their propensity for erosion makes beach nourishment an attractive and necessary process (see Section 2.3.2.2.6).
d. Wetlands are areas saturated or flooded for some interval of time during the year and support organisms adapted to such a habitat. Gusey (1976) identified 32,395
acres of coastal wetlands in New York and 215,760 acres in New Jersey. This represents 11.3 percent of the approximately 32 million acres of wetlands on the Atlantic Coast (Mitre, 1979). In the past wetland habitats have been destroyed or altered in the New York/New Jersey harbor area due to industrial development, Port expansion, increased shipping traffic, water pollution, dredge spoil deposition and general population pressures.
e. Wetlands provide an essential habitat for many species (e.g., migrating water fowl, juveniles of estuarine species) have high primary productivity rates; marsh detrital degradation serves as an important energy source for estuarine organisms (Odum, 1970, 1971). Wetlands also serve as natural settling basins for inorganic and organic substances (Bowen, 1966; Patrick et al., 1971).
f. Wetlands can be classified in a number of ways; broadly into freshwater or saltwater, and more specifically into over 20 different types (Ringold and Clark, 1980). Coastal saline wetlands are habitats which are key connectors with the marine environment and additionally partial habitat for many terrestrial species. Coastal salt flats dominated by glasswort, salt meadows dominated by saltgrass, and salt marshes dominated by cordgrass are examples which occur in the area (Niering and warren, 1980).
g. Freshwater and brackish water wetlands are habitats often more diverse and important than island habitats; they are comparatively a small portion of the landscape. Forested (swamps), shrubby, and herbaceous wetland types are well represented in the area. Historically, dredged material was used extensively to fill such low lying areas as freshwater wetland disposal and was viewed as a valuable practice creating dry land from areas considered useless (COE, 1981).
h. The terrestrial habitats incorporated in this area support thousands of plant and wildlife species. The variety of habitats reflects not only the physical features of the area (e.g. geology, soils, topography) but the effect of past and present land development and use. Undeveloped areas include barren sites, abandoned fields, shrublands and forests. With the decline in agriculture in this area in the last 50-75 years, much of the previously cleared land has been allowed to revert to secondary growth woodland or has been more intensively developed to the exclusion of natural communities or species. Secondary growth in abandoned fields begins with weeds and small woody vegetation followed eventually by hardwood species or hemlock/hardwood stands which form stable climax communities in the absence of human or natural disturbances. The development sequence from old-field to ina ture forest requires more than 150 years in this region.
i. Upland habitats in the region should support deciduous forests, which can be divided into three major categories. Northern Hardwood Forests occur in the areas north and west of New York, Appalachian Oak Forests occur in areas west of New York, and Southeastern Oak Forests occur in the southern portions of the area. The Pine Barrens Forest is also present in southern New Jersey and to a lesser extent in the southern parts of Long Island. This forest type is found on sandy soils where fires are a major controlling factor in the development of the vegetation. However, as indicated above, a long history of human disturbance has resulted in most of the vegetation in upland areas occurring as successional communities or second growth areas. The successional development of plant communities in the area has been reviewed by Hanks (1972) and the general structure and function of eastern forests is reviewed by Likens et al. (1979).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
a. This section is divided according to the type of environment in which the disposal operation would take place and follows the format established in Section 3.0. In addition, the section is further divided according to the volume capacity of the alternatives.
Alternatives Involving Large Volumes
a. The environmental consequences of alternatives capable of accommodating large volumes of dredged material are dependent upon the characteristics of the dredged material as discussed in Section 2.1.3 as well as the environmental conditions at the disposal site as presented in Section 3.1. Included in this category are the Mud Dump, Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pits and Protected Shallow Water Containment Areas. For each of these alternatives environmental impacts are further divided into physical, chemical and biological impacts.
The physical impacts of disposal of dredged material at the Mud Dump or other shallow ocean sites are dictated by the physical processes affecting the fate of the material. Sources for this section include Betzer, 1978; Bokuniewicz, 1979; Mitre, 1979; and EPA, 1982.
b. After release from a barge or hopper dredge, dredged material descends through the water column as a cloud or slurry which may contain solid clumps driven by excess head pressure at speeds up to 1 m/sec (Bokuniewicz, 1979). The material reaches the bottom in a matter of seconds, approximately 5 to 15 sec in water depth of about 25m as would be expected at the Mud Dump (Mitre, 1979; see also Fig. 2-1). During this descent, water currents have little effect upon the fate of the material.
c. Upon impact with the bottom, the cloud of material undergoes limited horizontal spreading; the cloud slows, thins and travels radially outward. There is some selective sorting of sediments inherent in this process; fine grain sediments, which generally exhibit the greatest affinity for contaminants (see Section 2.1.3), would be expected to be driven to the edges of the deposit with sediment grain size and mass increasing towards the center of the deposit
(Bokuniewicz, 1979; EPA, 1982). Higber cohesive properties of the material may reduce spreading. The layer formed by the discharge of a single barge would have a thickness of several millimeters and the bulk of the material would be expected to be contained within about 300m of the dump point (Bokuniewicz, 1979). All of the settleable material released would sink out of the water column and be deposited on the bottom within approximately two hours of dumping.
d. The short-term physical impacts associated with such a disposal operation would include temporary increase in local turbidity, burial of organisms utilizing the bottom in the immediate area of the disposal site and subsequent alteration of existing habitats. Short-term physical impacts of disposal at the Hud Dump are not generally considered significant when balanced against the long-term degradation of water quality in the Bight Apex resulting from ocean disposal of other material, especially sewage sludge (see also Section 3.1.4).
e. Over time the physical impacts of disposal at the Mud Dump site are significant and result from both the volume of material disposed and characteristics of that material. The shallow ocean disposal of dredged material represeuts the single most significant source of sediments in the Bight region (Gross, 1976; Mueller et al., 1976). Prior disposal operations have resulted in significant modification of the bottom topography in the vicinity of the disposal site (Section 3.1.2). Continued deposition in this manner may result in disturbance of circulation patterns and possible hazards to navigation (Mitre, 1979). Further, introduction of material of different grain size can alter the habitat available to local organisms (see Section 3.1.5) and is considered a long-term physical impact.
f. A related long-term impact of disposal at the Mud Dump is the periodic resuspension and subsequent transport of material which is deposited through dumping. However, the long-term effects of sustained low levels of increased suspended sediments on the ecosystem are not well known (Bokuniewicz, 1979). While the natural bottom sediments in the Bight region are clearly subject to transport under certain conditions (see Section 3.1.2.3), the relatively small grain size of dredged material and its generally unconsolidated nature when combined with the off bottom elevations occurring at the top of the northwest corner of the deposit result in potentially significant amounts of material being subject to erosion (Mitre, 1979; EPA, 1982).
8. Dayal et al. (1981) recently studied the sedimentology of the dredged material deposit at the Mud Dump and indicated that the maximum sedimentation rate was approximately 0.8m/yr and that the eastern face of the Page 14
deposit was subject to winnowing of sediments, on the order of approximately 0.2m/yr. Although the fate of these eroded sediments has not been conclusively determined, they are not thought to be a major contributor to the mud patches found in the Bight Apex or Christiaensen Basin (Freeland et al., 1979). Therefore, it would seem reasonable to suspect that material which is resuspended at the mound is largely fine grained and that some portion of it is subsequently redeposited onto the mound with the remainder being moved away from the mound. The sedimentation rate in the remainder of the Bight is variable. However, dredged material deposit has resulted in increased local sedimentation.
h. The net amount of material lost from the mound over time is difficult to determine due to the variables inherent in measuring the volume of material dredged (i.e., the number of barge loads versus bathymetric surveys before and after a project) (EPA, 1982). Based on mass bulk calculations, Dayal et al. (1981) estimated that 82 percent of the material dumped during the period 1936-1978 is currently present in the deposit. Some of this difference can be attributed to post-depositional compaction of dredged material at the Mud Dump. The same calculations for the period 1973-1978, for which data are more reliable, indicate that the mass of waterial retained at the deposit approaches 98 percent (Dayal et al., 1981; see also Mueller et al., 1976). Thus it seems reasonable to assume that most of the material deposited at the Mud Dump remains there and that long-term physical impacts are localized in nature.
a. Disposal of dredged material causes adverse chemical impacts to the marine environment only if the sediments dredged are contaminated with hazardous material, and then only if harmful amounts of the contaminant are released to the environment and become available for uptake (Lee and Jones, 1977; COE, 1979; Mitre, 1979). During its brief transport through the water column, dredged material, which is initially 50 percent water, acts to trap and entrain ocean water. During this period and upon impact with the bottom, much of this interstitial water is rapidly lost and may carry with it some portion of the soluble contaminants contained within the dredged material.
b. Release of dredged material into the marine environment often causes a small initial decrease in D.O. levels, with rapid return to normal conditions (EPA, 1982). The reduction in D.O. is largely limited to surface waters and may be related to increased turbidity. Although the oxygen demand of dredged material way act to aggravate already adverse summer D.O. conditions (see Section
3.1.4.3), the effect is localized. Disposal of dredged material in the Bight Area does not seem to have been responsible for the anoxic conditions which led to widespread benthic mortalities during the summer of 1976 (Swanson and Sindermann, 1979; Section 3.1.5).
c. In a similar manner nutrient release from dredged material is limited and rapidly diluted to background levels (EPA, 1982). Although under certain conditions such release might take a limited contribution to the rapid growth of undesirable organisms, it is considered minor in comparison to the ubiquitous nature of nutrients available from other sources, especially sewage sludge (Mueller et al., 1976).
d. In dredged material, metals may occur as insoluble oxides of iron or manganese, insoluble sulfides, soluble compounds or inorganic complexes (Betzer, 1978). Significant quantities of trace metals may be released from dredged material into seawater during disposal operations. In general, these concentrations rapidly return to background levels (CoE, 1977a; EPA, 1982). The species of metal as well as the quantity released depends upon environmental conditions at the site (see Section 3.1).
e. Field investigations into the impacts of organic compounds at the Mud Dump sponsored by the COE do not indicate significant uptake by organisms above the levels expected in Bight waters (O'Connor, 1982). These data generally agree with other reported research which indicates that organic compounds, of which the most thoroughly studied are PCBS, ia dredged material are not available in significant quantities for short-term uptake (EPA, 1982; O'Connor, 1982; Mayer et al., 1982).
f. Long-term chemical impacts of dredged material disposal at the Mud Dump, which may last several decades, result from the persistance of contaminants in the marine environment and their subsequent effects upon the ecosystem. This persistance involves both inorganic and organic chemical processes. The mound of dredged material deposited at the Mud Dump may act as a source of contaminants which are gradually released to surrounding waters. The release may be accelerated by episodic changes in water chemistry (e.g., seasonal dissolved oxygen change) as well as extraordinary events like the severe anoxic conditions of 1976) which initiate increased contaminant release (mitre, 1979). Unlike short-term chemical impacts, which are related to specific dumping incidents, long-term cheinical release of contaminants would continue even were disposal of dredged material at the Mud Dump discontinued.
g. There are some indications of long-term release of metals from dredged sediment deposit to the overlying water
column (Mueller et al., 1976; Dayal et al., 1981). Much of this information is based on bulk analysis which does not indicate the mechanisms involved in the release of metals to the water column nor their subsequent availability in the environment (see Section 2.1.3).
h. Due to the complexity of natural conditions at the uud Dump, equilibrium equations derived from Eb-pH diagrams and thermodynamic considerations are of limited value in determining long-term release of metals from dredged sediments. There is evidence to suggest that the majority of trace metals contained within dredged material are rather permanently removed from the environment as a result of their association with these sediments (Dayal et al., 1981; mitre, 1979; EPA, 1982). The sequestering mechanisms are poorly understood, and it is difficult to ascertain their long-term stability.
i. Recent data indicate that there is a sedimentderived flux of dissolved iron, manganese and zinc to the water column resulting from diagenetic mobilization of these metals from dredged material (Brannon et al., 1976; Dayal et al., 1981). Other metals, particularly cadmium, copper and mercury, are present in extremely low levels and their release is negligible (Dayal et al., 1981; EPA, 1982). Although there is conflicting information regarding several of these metals (see Braonon et al., 1976), generally low levels of release are reported for most species.
a. The biological communities at the Mud Dump site are impacted through both physical burial and alteration of habitat type as well as exposure to suspended sediments and chemical contaminants. Clearly, the most important short-term impact is the burial of benthic organisms following dumping. This effect is localized and limited to the immediate disposal area. Most species which live on mud or sand bottoms (e.g. mud crabs and worms) are mobile and exhibit both morphological and physiological adaptations for crawing through sediments; many are able to migrate vertically through deposits of up to about 30cm (Hirsch et al., 1978). The more mobile benthic organisms (e.g. cancer crabs) would be expected to be able to burrow out from beneath each barye dump of dredged material, since the maximum taickness of each barge deposit would not be expected to exceed about one foot. However, since a typical ocean disposal dredging operation involves disposal at a taunt bouy, it would also be expected that a certain percentage of mobile organisms in the dumping area would be repeatedly buried during the period of the operation. How these organisms would respond to this stress, is difficult to predict. dobility also allows for rapid recolonization of areas disturbed by disposal operations. The more similar the sediments to the natural substrate of an organism, the less deleterious the effects of sediment addition.
b. The repeated deposition of material which occurs at the mud Dump may act to compound some of these impacts. Presently the active sections of the mud Dump site are rather barren due to the frequency and volume of material dumped (EPA, 1982). Burial of organisins at the Mud Dump would be expected to cause death and injury to some benthic organisms which occupy the site; others would be able to extricate themselves.
c. The effects of suspended sediment levels on the ecosystem are not well understood (Bokuniewicz, 1979). In general, suspended sediment tolerance decreases with increasing temperature and decreasing D.O. The increase in suspended sediments resulting from dredged material disposal at the Mud Dump are not sufficient to adversely impact most organisms, although deposition may smother some fish eggs (Hirsch et al., 1978) should they be present.
d. The composition of the benthic community is largely determined by substrate type (see Section 3.1.5.2). significant alteration of substrate type through de position of dredged material can therefore change the nature of the benthic community. This alteration of microhabitat may eliminate those species with exacting substrate requirements. It may be difficult to distinguish this change from normal successional changes at the site. Continual dumping of dredged material at the Mud Dump site creates new habitat types and microhabitats resulting in a flux in the limited benthic community which utilizes the
e. Should toxic chemical contaminants be present in dredged material in a biologically active or available form, the biota of the system may be adversely impacted. The uptake of toxic material is a highly species dependent process. Toxicity levels for many marine organisms have not been defined, due in part to their highly variable life cycles.
f. Sub-lethal effects resulting from biological uptake are difficult to evaluate. The biota of the New York Bight exhibit physiological signs of environmental stress. As discussed in Section 3.1.5, the possible sources of this stress include the Hudson/Raritan River outflow, sewage sludge disposal and other ocean dumping activities, as well as disposal of dredged material. Most of the research conducted to date indicates that release of sediment associated contaminants and their uptake into organism tissues is the exception, rather than the rule (Brannon et al., 1976; Hirsch et al., 1978; Suskowski and Mansky, 1982). 8. There is no conclusive evidence which would indicate that significant biological uptake is occurring at the aud Dump site. Furthermore, due to the multiplicity of variables involved, it cannot be established with certainty that halting disposal of dredged material at the Mud Dump would result in biological recovery (Mitre, 1979) or short-term iinprovement (Greig et al., 1977).
a. The socioeconomic consequences of continued disposal at the Mud Dump site include both positive and negative impacts. The regional economy in terms of both commerce and energy supply is dependent upon keeping the Port of New York and New Jersey open to modern shipping and this requires dredging. Negative socioeconomic impacts resulting from continuation of disposal at the Mud Dump include possible human health impacts associated with contaminated seafood and loss of public use of certain amenities from a limited portion of the New York Bight (see Section 3.1.6).
b. The Maritime Association of the Port of New York and New Jersey reports 6,723 vessels calling on Port Authority facilities in 1980; this is considered a conservative estimate (LIRPB, 1981). The Port of New York and New Jersey is the nation's leader in terms of cargo handling (see Section 2.1). This commerce results in significant direct and indirect economic benefits for the region. Since 1948, when the Port Authority acquired Port Newark, the agency has directly invested over $450 million in facilities improvements at the port (Hammon, 1976). This investment has been matched by an unspecified, but highly significant, private investment. Direct employment in the shipping industry at the Port exceeds 10,000 persons with an annual payroll in excess of $150 million (Hammon, 1976; Mitre, 1979). The dredging industry alone employs between 300 and 500 persons (Mitre, 1979) and the New York District COE budget for dredging activities between 1976 and 1981 ranged from $4 to $16 million annually.
c. A significant indirect economic effect resulting from dredging is continued energy supply to the region. Petroleum products are one of the most important products entering the port and much of the region depends upon imported oil for energy. In 1980 over 200,000 long tons of hydrocarbons and related chemicals were imported through the Port (Port Authority, 1981). Mitre (1979) estinated that there was an annual payroll of $5.6 billion dependent upon continued operation of New York Harbor.
d. The adverse socioeconomic consequences include possible effects upon human health (see Section 3.1.6) and reduced use of the N.Y. Bight's environmental resources. Many marine organisms have the capacity to assimilate Page 15
c. Socioeconomic impacts resulting from this disposal option are localized in nature and include loss of the site for recreation, commercial fishing and shellfishing. Interference with navigation and other uses of the Bight are minimal. Use of the mud Dump for dredged material disposal is one of the least expensive disposal alternatives available.
d. To reduce some of the adverse impacts associated with dredged material disposal at the kiud Dump, it is possible to cover contaminated material with uncontaminated material, thereby offering some degree of isolation and containment. Recent studies conducted by the N.Y. District under its Dredsed Material Disposal Management Plan (see Section 1.4) indicate that capping does offer isolation when properly conducted. However, episodic storm events may result in removal of some material from the cap and reduce the usefulness of this option (O'Connor, 1982). The present COE policy is to initiate the capping of contaminated material deposited at the Mud Dump within two weeks (personal communication, J. Mansky, COE, January 1982) and this would seem to reduce possible long-term impacts. e. Additional mitigation may be possible through preand post-disposal management of disposal activities so as not to aggravate any existing adverse conditions. This may mean limiting disposal during summer months, when low D.O. levels and high water temperature (Section 3.1.3) could act to compound the impacts from dredged material disposal. The degree of nitigation achieved through such a measure would have to be balanced against any increased costs incurred through such interruption to disposal. Proper management of disposal operations will eliminate adverse impacts on navigation and net water circulation patterns.
a. Most of the borrow pits are located in the Lower Bay of N.Y. Harbor, a region where water quality has been adversely impacted by the Hudson Raritan River plumes (Brinkhuis, 1980). Use of the sub-aqueous borrow pit alternative would result in disposal operations similar to those which are currently utilized at the Mud Dump. Barges or hopper dredges would transport dredged material to a site on the continental shelf where it would be released and deposited on the bottom. Use of this alternative would require that dumping be managed in such a way that existing submarine pits were filled and possibly capped. b. The limited physical impacts upon the water column resulting from increased turbidity and suspended solids, as Page 16
be possible to dig relatively deep, narrow pits, thereby minimizing the surface area of the material exposed to the environment and thus retarding the spreading of contaminants (personal communication, J. Hansky, COE, December 1981). An important component of the Sub-Aqueous disposal strategy is capping, which is largely a mitigative measure. Careful management of disposal operations to insure that capping is achieved in a timely manner can further reduce adverse impacts. The coE through its current regulatory authority could manage disposal operations in such a way as to optimize the benefits derived from capping. This is currently practiced at the Mud Dump and could be carried out for the Sub-Aqueous Borrow Pit Alternative in a similar
Disposal in Protected Shallow Water Containment Areas
Environmental Consequences
a. The protected shallow water containment concept is described in Section 2.3.2.1.2. Such areas would utilize near-shore sites and would be able to contain large volumes of dredged material, with disposal limited to a finite time period such as 10, 20, even 50 years. Although several different types of design could be utilized (1.e. diked island or confined peninsula), this alternative differs from other aquatic, high volume alternatives in that dredged material would be confined during the entire history of the facility, thereby eliminating many of the short-term chemical and physical impacts discussed in Section 4.1.1.1. Unlike continued use of the Mud Dumpor utilization of sub-aqueous borrow pits, use of this alternative might involve a previously undisturbed site and one of its most significant environmental impacts would be the loss of bottomlands. Use of the Protected Shallow Water Containment Alternative would result in short-term impacts as a result of facility construction and long-term impacts from facility operation.
a. The major short-term physical impacts associated with this alternative would result from facility construction and are therefore dependent upon project design. Any type of construction activity in the shallow aquatic environment would be expected to have short-term water quality impacts. These are often the result of increased turbidity and alteration of bottom sediments. Such impacts are generally short-term and highly localized in nature.
b. Long-term physical impacts would include destruction of existing bottomland and subsequent loss of habitat (FWS, 1981) as well as possible alterations of existing circulation patterns. Loss of bottomlands would have to be balanced against the ultimate productive use of the containment facility: if the guidelines established in Section 2.3.2.1.2 are followed, it is assumed that a net loss in ecosystem productivity would not occur and that the final use of the site would increase productivity and diversity (Soots and Landin, 1978). Net long term physical changes in terms of habitat availability will depend upon a balancing of areas created and areas destroyed.
c. Long-term changes in circulation patterns would have to be carefully evaluated in order to allow the project's success and ensure its positive contribution to the environment (Mitre, 1979). Predicting long-term circulation patterns in complex areas such as New York Harbor is a difficult task. Detailed long-term circulation patterns for this area are not currently available (Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977). A modeling program might be required once a project has been proposed. Regardless of whether the proposed project was to be developed as an island or a peninsula, its impact on the present rate of shoreline erosion would have to be evaluated.
a. Other than the short-term localized impacts associated with construction, the short-term chemical impacts resulting from this alternative are expected to be minimal (Mitre, 1979). This assumes that the design of the facility will adequately isolate any contaminants found in the dredged material. This isolation might be achieved through use of impervious diking material or through use of a confinement structure with buffering by clean material, which may or may not be of dredged origin (see Section 2.3.2.1.2).
b. The possibility exists for long-term chemical impact as a result of leaching of contaminants to both the marine and groundwater areas. This is similar to the type of impact associated with upland alternatives and is discussed in detail in Section 4.2.1. Should the shallow water containment area be developed as a peninsula, it is possible that contaminants may be introduced into any groundwater aquifer which is contiguous with the site. Dewatering may belp minimize these impacts. The impacts resulting from this possibility are difficult to assess in a general manner, but proper site selection and facility design should minimize such impacts (Mitre, 1979).
a. Successful evaluation and implementation of all of the factors identified in Section 2.3 are expected to result in generally positive environmental impacts. There may be some localized loss of babitat and alteration of fish migration routes; however careful environmental assessments prior to facility construction are expected to minimize these negative impacts (Mitre, 1979).
b. It is important to evaluate the cumulative effect of the project upon the biota of the region. This consideration would have to be based on both the specifics of the project and the environmental conditions at the time of implementation and may require a holistic review of biological data regarding available habitats and their utilization by various desirable species. An initial step in such a review has been undertaken by the FWS (1981). This report does not question the feasibility of the Shallow Water Containment Facility Alternative, but it does clearly indicate the difficulties inherent in selecting the site near New York Harbor.
c. The long term biological impacts associated with this alternative are dependent upon facility design and site-specific factors. Development of a shallow water containment facility would ideally be aimed at increasing number of marine organisms (e.g. development of avian babitat) using the area and long-term system stability (Soots and Landin, 1978), while offering a disposal alternative for dredged material.
a. The concept of disposal of dredged material in protected shallow water containment areas is an attempt to utilize dredged material in a productive manner. It is expected to have generally positive social and economic impacts; the degree of these impacts as well as a balancing of positive and negative impacts would depend upon the specifics of the project. Implementation of the alternative may increase available avian habitats (Soots and Landin, 1978), recreation areas, and shoreline facilities and would add to shoreline stability. All of these effects are considered positive. It is possible that loss of bottom land would represent a negative social impact if it meant loss of productive fishing grounds. The increased disposal costs associated with this alternative (Section 2.3.2.1.2) would be considered a negative impact.
a. It is difficult to evaluate the exact unavoidable impacts which would result from this alternative until a
specific project is proposed. In general the environmental impacts would be expected to include:
Short term water quality degradation due to construction activities;
Loss of bottomland (resulting in possible
b. Proper site evaluation and environmental review should result in generally positive social impacts. The balancing of these benefits and the environmental cost would depend on project specific factors. The problems inherent in the site selection process are expected to resolve many potential social impacts.
c. Protected Shallow Water Containment Areas would be expensive to develop. Unless significant revenue could be generated through use of the site, this alternative may be cost prohibitive. Should a proposal be implemented, and successfully managed, there may be economic benefits.
d. The single most important form of mitigation is proper site selection aimed at reducing both adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Specific measures to ensure that desirable plant and animal species utilize the area may be required. Such management measures are outlined for the contained upland alternatives (Section 2.3.2.1.3) and can be applied to the area created by shallow water containment.
Alternatives Involving Smaller Volumes
a. Wetlands (and other habitat) creation is one of the disposal options identified by the N.Y. District as available for "special cases" (Mitre, 1979). Building and siting wetlands has been studied by the COE's Dredged Material Research Program, and sites established under that program have been monitored since 1978 by the COE's Dredging Operation Technical Support Program (OTS). Wetlands and shoreline stabilization have also been examined by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC).
b. Under an InterAgency Agreement with the New York District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Study of Preliminary Siting of Containment Areas and Islands in the New York and New Jersey Harbor Area. The study was a literature search based on existing data which identified areas of bigh biological productivity in the New York and New Jersey Harbor area. These highly productive areas will be excluded from siting of containment areas and íslands. The Final Report, delivered in May 1982, (see letter report, Hamilton, FWS, to Smith, COE, May 1982) is also applicable to the siting of wetlands, since highly productive areas will be excluded from wetland siting as well as from containment area siting. Table 2-4 presents a summary of this alternative.
c. Wetlands creation is a significant component of a more general program designed to use dredged materials productively and to enhance the environment by increasing productivity and providing habitats. This section deals primarily with wetland creation but often there can be considerable overlap with other environmental enhancement possibilities such as avian habitat islands and upland areas. Marshes are considered to be any community of grasses or herbs that experience periodic innundation. Marshes are important environments in providing energy production for animal populations (including detrital feeders), wildlife habitat and cover, stabilizing nutrient cycles, controlling erosion, retaining floodwaters and providing aesthetically pleasing areas. While the public wants to maximize the economic and cultural uses of the coastal marine environment, they also are interested in retaining or restoring as much of the natural integrity of this environment as possible.
d. The environmental advantages identified with the range of options covered under this alternative include public appeal, creation of desirable biological communities, and potential enhancement or mitigation of past habitat destruction. Some of the environmental problems include the lack of appropriate sites, the loss of or replacement of other habitats, potential release of some contaminants, and the loss of sites for subsequent disposal activities.
As is true with upland alternatives, site selection and evaluation, the nature of the dredged material utilized, and biological considerations are critical elements in reducing negative environmental impacts. See Table 4-1 for a summary of the chemical impacts.
a. Important factors to consider in siting include the location of the site; the size of the proposed area (small to moderate projects would include 10 to 500 acres while large projects would be from 500 to 1000 acres or more); and Page 17
physical site characteristics such as fetch, shoreline configuration at the site, slope, sediment size distribution of the original material, wind, boat traffic, and potential for stabilization.
b. Low energy, shallow water sites near dredging operations are preferable for wetland creation. Low energy areas are frequently found in the lee of beaches, islands, and suoals where wave energy in the shallow water is dissipated. If low energy sites cannot be found, then protective stabilizing structures are necessary to protect the site from erosion. The size distribution of the dreaged material is also important. For example, hydraulically placed clay will usually require a protective structure (Smith, 1978). The location of a site would be enhanced in areas where the habitats being replaced are deemed less important than the wetland habitats created. Also areas where marshes are eroding or where they have been destroyed in the past should receive special attention. It may be most effective to site wetland creation projects near existing wetlands. Productive areas such as sea grass meadows, clan flats, and oyster beds should be avoided. Biologically productive areas in the Port of New York and New Jersey will be defined by the FWS report on containment areas (see Section 4.1.2.1).
c. The final elevation and grade of the wetland created is an inportant factor since this affects the tidal range and site salinity and hence the types of plant and animal populations occupying the site. For example, salt marshes are most productive within the upper third of the tidal range while freshwater marshes should be flooded to depths ranging from 0.1 to 1.0m. The final elevation is determined by the settling and consolidation characteristics of the material disposed at the site.
d. The orientation and shape of the new marsh will largely determine its efficiency as a disposal site and effectiveness as a biological addition to the natural environment. The shape of the site should minimize changes in drainage and circulation patterns, reduce any high energy forces in the area, and take advantage of the bottom topography in the area. The size of the disposal area is a function of the site's volume and the manner in which the site is filled. Filling techniques that can affect size include:
one time filling, used in small sites;
cellular filling in compartments where each
• Type of Dredged Material:
a. The types of dredged material used to create the wetlands site are also important. Factors to consider in this area are: the size distribution of the material, the organic matter content, and contaminant levels. Dredged material for wetlands creation can range from coarse sand to clay-sized material, but silt and clay-sized materials are preferable. Material which has an unacceptably high percentage of organic matter or material with high levels of coarse material and high permeability with poor drainage characteristics like gravel, are unsuitable for use. Uncontaminated dredged material is best for wetlands creation, although "questionable" material may be utilized in some cases. Contaminated material should not be considered for use in this alternative (Table 4-1). Of particular concern are those sediments high in the heavy metals mercury, cadmiuta, arsenic and lead, because leaching, direct bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification from dredged material which contains heavy metals are potential impacts (Table 4-1). b. Contaminants are subject to several modes of transport from intertidal sites:
unless confined disposal and control of of suspended particulates into adjacent surface waters, especially with hydraulic dredging. Nearshore waters are often important spawning, nursery and babitat areas for a quatic and benthic organisms, which would be severely affected by contamination; there may be extensive long-term erosion of contaminated solids in high energy zones;leaching by the gravitational flow of water into subsurface aquifers and eventually into adjacent wa ters; and
entry into food webs by plant uptake and detrital transport (Table 4-1).
c. Frequent intertidal flooding of the fine-textured, organic sediments results in a thin surface, oxidized layer overlying a deep anaerobic subsurface sediment layer. The depth and possible presence of a surface, oxidized layer may
Accumulation in biota; Evidence suggests some plants do not take up and translocate lead readily however, marsh plants have been shown to accumulate lead (COE, 1980); Chemical processes in sediment water systems is effective in immobilizing lead.
Plant uptake and result- and arsenic toxicity; Long-term leaching under conditions of high pH and reduced sediments.
Copepods exposed to 0.1ppm arsenic for 72 hours - LC (Davey and Phelps, 1977); 2. Arsenic does bioaccumulate but does not appear to be progressively concentrated along the food chain (EPA, 1976b; Woolson, 1975).
Conditions at marshland site may promote arsenic mobility (See Table 4-2 ), therefore, sediments high in arsenic should be dis- posed of in another manner.
ZINC COPPER NICKEL CHROMIUM
Initial dewatering efflu-
1. Benthic organisms have been shown to Lunz (1978) reported in a study of many
Disposal sediments contaminated be decided on levels of contam- ination (i.e. oysters are part- icularly toxic to chromium, Britt and Hushon, 1976). Slightly contaminated sediments may be used for marsh creation. The near neutral pH, high organic and possible sulfide concentra-tions characteristic of salt marshes should result in effec- tive immobilization (Lee et al., 1978). MITIGATION: minimize suspended solids discharge in effluent; control erosion; cap dredged sediment with clean material; manage plant populations; fre- quent monitoring.
Plants seem to immobilize high iron concentrations near root surfaces; Manganese will be associ- ated with particulates; leaching into groundwater or surface waters; Plant uptake and trans- port with manganese; Possible plant toxicity.
1. Iron toxicity does not readily seem to present itself in aquatic and benthic fauna (Neff et al., 1978) Benthic organisms studied did not implicate manganese as toxicity problems (Shuba, et al., 1978).
Unless the concentrations of iron and manganese in dredged sediments are extremely high, marshland creation could be considered with the following mitigation measures: 1. reduce suspended particulated2. possible capping of dredged sediment with clear material; 3. continual monitoring
ECOSYSTEM TRANSPORT ACCUMULATION AND TOXICITY DATA REFERENCES
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH MITIGATION MEASURES WHERE APPLICABLE
1. Hoeppel (1978) studied nine dredged material containment areas (some were lowland) and concluded that ammonia nitrogen and low removal efficiencies could impact adjacent areas (Hoeppel et al., 1978).
With proper site selection, sediments containing higher than normal concentrations of nitrogen and ammonium-N could be beneficial in flora establishment; monitoring must be undertaken and leachates controlled in lowenergy areas to prevent eutrophication. Page 18
vary with the frequency and duration of flooding cycles. An intertidal site subject to infrequent flooding may develop a much deeper oxidized layer. The oxidation-reduction conditions of a contaminated dredged material may have a profound influence on processes affecting mobility and transport of many contaminants (Table 4-1). Therefore, the physical characteristics of the marsh region will greatly influence the degree of possible toxicant transport. Plant populations influenced by salinity, climate, sediment type, land flooding regimes may also influence the oxidationreduction potentials within the root zone and also affect contaminant availability.
d. The literature indicates that sediment-bound petroleum hydrocarbons have relatively little impact during most dreaging and dredged ina terial disposal operations but represent a potential biological hazard (Lee et al., 1975; Shelton and Hunter, 1975; DiSalvo et al., 1977, Hirsch et al., 1978). In selecting a disposal alternative for sediments highly contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, elutriate and benthic bioassays should be conducted to determine potential release, benthic availability and toxicity (COE, 1980a). Petroleum hydrocarbons associated with sediments appear to be less of a potential threat than chlorinated hydrocarbons or some of the more toxic beavy metals mentioned previously. e. Disposal of highly contaminated sediment should be restricted near spawning and nursery areas, productive benthic communities, and where production is harvested for human consumption. Those sediments where concentration and/or toxicity is found to be high should be contained. Intertidal disposal will result in anaerobic conditions for the bulk of deposited dredged material which favors the stability of petroleum hydrocarbons. At concentrations found in most sediments there will be little adverse effects on plant colonization; however, where intense habitat development is next to important nursery or spawning grounds, disposal of contaminated sediments should be avoided (COE, 1980a). Initial dewatering effluents may contain elevated petroleum bydrocarbon levels, but on-site management practices to maximize solids removal from effluents will minimize or eliminate these short-term impacts.
f. Any sediment containing potentially dangerous levels of PCBs must be disposed of in a contained facility to remove these compounds from the environment. Disposal of pesticides has been legally restricted because of the toxicity and persistence problems (Burks and Engler, 1978). Since the dredged sediment from the study area is not appreciably contaminated with PCBs or DDT, this type of contaminant will not limit the disposal of dredged sediments to create wetlands. Where dredged sediment is known to be
contaminated with high levels of potentially toxic materials, especially those known to be mobile and/or readily accumulated by organisms, marsh creation as a disposal alternative should be avoided.
• Areas of Biological Importance:
a. The biological areas that are important to consider include plant species establishment, animal species colonization, productivity and energy flow characteristics and nutrient cycling and material transfers in biotic communities. In order to obtain the maximum vegetative cover on a site as quickly as possible, the dredged material must be in place and have a stable surface at the beginning of a growing season. The propagation of marsh plants can be achieved by natural invasion which has the advantage of reducing costs, or artificial propagation which has the advantage of establishing target species and reducing undesirable species (Smith, 1978). The plant species selected to occupy the site should be controlled by the following factors (COE, 1978): project goal and location, climate and microclima te, tolerance, soil characteristics (texture, fertility, pH and contaminants, growth characteristics, availability, maintenance, and costs. Lists of possible species, plans for plant associations, planting techniques and timing, and substrate preparation have all been studied and considered (CoE, 1978).
b. Some of the potential problems in establishng communities on created habitat sites include project timing (dredging and biological calendars may not match); contaminant uptake by organisms; invasion of undesirable plant or animal species, and pests and diseases occurring at the site. However, the literature concludes that it is possible to construct or develop habitats that are physically and vegetatively similar to natural habitats (Allen et al., 1978; Clairain et al., 1978; Cole, 1978; and Lunz et al., 1978a, b). In some cases created babitats may retain some differences in structure and function from similar natural areas. Even so, dredged material habitats such as Windmill Point, Virginia, often have a value equal to natural situations (VIHS, 1978).
a. The social acceptability of creating wetlands is generally high. Often the created habitats have a perceived worth that the public finds lacking in many other situations. Probably the two major issues in creating wetlands from the public's standpoint are 1) who will pay for the habitat developinent, and 2) who will own the habitat when it is completed. À central theme which runs through both issues is the economic worth of the habitat created.
b. The economic feasibility of habitat development should be considered in the context of the long-term benefits of site development since these benefits can be applied against the additional costs that will be incurred in creating the area. The long-term benefits could be the increased habitat diversity occurring as the result of a succession of habitat types in the same place which uses time as an integrator of diversity. For example, through successive disposal and/or post-disposal management, a soft-bottom habitat could develop into a grass bed, then a wetland, a mesic island and finally an upland. This approach requires careful management with constant evaluation. Examples of the kinds of evaluation needed would be:
short-term assessment of food and space for
long-term monitoring of plant succession,
c. In deciding if the incremental costs to create habitats is reasonable, the most direct approach is to balance the additional costs against the monetary value of the habitat created. Some estimates of wetland value are based on the production of energy by the natural communities on the site (LMS, 1981). Gupta and Foster (1976) base habitat values on the sum of four benefits: wildlife occupying the site, visual and cultural benefits, water supply improvements, and flood control. Because of the difficulties in arriving at a monetary value for wetlands to determine reasonable incremental costs, LMS (1981) concluded that wetlands creation should be considered only for federal projects. If successful, over time, non-Federal projects could then be considered. A detailed analysis of a possible site at Hempstead Harbor was conducted by LMS (1981). In suminary, the project had the following characteristics:
less than 2 million cubic yards of pollutant- free fine grained material would be needed;
the project was federally sponsored and the
transport distances, therefore associated costs, would be increased over current disposal costs;
the primary benefits of the projects would be visual, cultural, and biological enhancement.
The study concluded that after two decades, the value of the wetland created would still be much less than the cost of its development and that the project should not be deemed reasonable unless costs could be significantly reduced in getting dredged material to the site.
4.1.2.1.3 Summary of Adverse Impacts
a. Wetlands creation is both feasible and desirable from an environmental perspective. It is socially acceptable and economically reasonable under the proper circumstances. Therefore, the adverse impacts associated with this alternative are minimal. They would include loss of some non-renewable energy and materials, although long-term recycling could essentially remove materials from this category; and loss of or replacement of original habitats.
b. Proper site selection, design, and development can eliminate the major difficulties associated with wetland creation. Some examples of measures that could be applied to minimize commonly encountered problems follow.
In high energy areas where loss of material
clean dredged material or material containing with suspended solids during deposition or dewa tering. The site may be covered with clean material with the realization that long-term mixing of sediments will occur due to the activity of local plants and animals.
Activities should be scheduled for those periods of the year which would result in minimal adverse impact. For example, if high levels of nutrients such as phosphorus are present, cool season deposition would minimize nuisance phytoplankton growth.. Timing could also coincide with the least sensitive periods of the life cycle of desirable species in the
Colonization of the site by desirable species through planting and management techniques should be accomplished.
Post-construction monitoring should be
Artificial Reef/Shallow Habitat Creation
Environmental Consequences
a. Unless large-sized materials are found and separated from the other particulates, most dredged material is unsuitable for reef construction (Section 2.3.2.2.7). If suitable material can be found, it should be relatively uncontaminated as its use will be to create habitats for encrusting organisms and subsequently fish species. Secondarily, if the material is not of sufficient bulk and weight, it will be easily displaced in heavy seas and may adversely affect adjacent habitats. The habitat replaced by the reef construction should be carefully evaluated. Proper disposal techniques and site selection can minimize any adverse environmental impacts to existing bottomlands and associated biota (Section 4.1.1.3.1). Disposal will cause short-term water quality effects such as turbidity and sediment upheaval. The colonization of the created babitat should be a positive environmental impact.
a. The cost of the separation of dredged material and the transport distance would have to be weighed against the value of the habitat created. Public opinion should be favorable, as commercially and recreationally popular fish species may be attracted to the area.
a. A loss of bottomlands will occur in the area where the reef is nstructed as well as a short-term dispersal of benthic organisms in the areas immediately adjacent to the site. Changes in water circulation patterns could occur. Mitigating measures for the Artificial Reef /Shallow Water Habitat Alternative are essentially the same as those listed for disposal in protected shallow water containment areas. Page 19
Alternatives Involving Large Volumes
a. The environmental impacts of terrestrial disposal of dredged material in the two reasonable disposal options for this category, Contained Upland Disposal and Sanitary Landfill, are discussed in this section. The capacity, long-term availability and usefulness with contaminated material make the contained upland disposal alternative among a select few that could reduce dependence on shallow ocean disposal. Sanitary landfill is judged to be a distant secondary option because of the critical need for designated sanitary landfills for other disposal needs. The following discussion of environmental impacts of these two options is therefore weighted toward containment of contaminated dredged material in upland areas not designated primarily for refuse.
a. This alternative would dispose of large volumes of dredged material in containment facilities sited in upland areas. Given proper design, long-term monitoring, and mitigation procedures, this alternative can accommodate large amounts of contaminated material. Section 2.3.2.1.3, contains additional information and perspectives on this alternative. An overall summary of the feasibility of this alternative appears in Table 2-4.
Use of contained upland disposal sites may be problematic because it requires removing material from the aquatic environment and attempting to isolate it in the terrestrial environment. This results in changes in major systems parameters such as salinity, pH, temperature regimes, and ionic structure. The interaction of some of these factors and use of this alternative are presented in Table 4-2 with an emphasis on contaminated dredged material. The three major factors to be considered in evaluating the significance of the environmental impacts associated with this alternative are:
contaminants present in the dredged material;
properties of the sediment containing the
the fate of contaminants under the physical, geochemical, and biological conditions associated with the disposal alternative.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR HEAVY METAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN DREDGED MATERIAL
WITH RESPECT TO FACTORS AFFECTING CONTAINMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF UPLAND DISPOSAL
30 ppm sprayed on seedling pear tree leaves retarded growth (Yopp et al. 1974)
secondary treatment to remove fine particulates of effluent; ponded conditions limin. (prevent acidity and favor sulfide precipitates.
20-3000mg ingestion in humans acute toxicily (EPA, 1976b).
15mg/kg injected into rat resulted in death (U.S.HEW 1977)
maximize solid removali limin erosion control maintenance of fine textured soil
5ppm chromium in soil caused wilting and chlorosis in soy- bean seedlings (Yopp et al., 1974); 102mg/kg chromium injected into mice LDgo (U.S.HEW 19775ppm copper in nutrient solu. tion to carrot seedlings toxicity (Yopp et al., 1974); 3.5mg/kg injected in mice LD (U.S.HEW, 1977); 4 ppi nickel in soil of alfal. pha - chlorosis (Yopp et al. 1974); 25 mg/kg injected into rats LD (US HEW, 1977 50 15 mg/kg zinc injected into (U.S.HEW 1977)
IRON Under the more oxidiz- Elevated Formation of Maximize solids Neither iron or manganese is MANGANESE ing conditions of levels eachates; In removal considered to be highly upland disposal in initial bediments con- toxic; they are included in Fe, and Mn play impor- effluent Laining reactive this table because of the in tant roles in immobilFe long-term fluence they have on the izing more toxic metals þxidation will solubilities of other metals For a more in depth discuss- Conditions in- ion see: Neff et al., 1978; Shuba et al., 1978; Windon lity of other 1972; Brannon et al., 1976; toxicants Gambrell et al., 1977a; and Langmuir and Whittemore 1971 data summarized from Mitre, 1979 and COE, 1980 leaching infers (in all cases where mentioned) groundwater or surface water contamination with the leachates
The upland disposal of any material, whether contaminated or not, can have physical, chemical, or biological consequences (see Section 3.2). when disposing of contaminated materials in an upland environment, their escape from the disposal site and entry into the biotic and abiotic environment are the principal concerns (Mitre, 1979).
b. The environmental impacts for this alternative can be addressed most efficiently by dividing them into four categories:
Impacts from the construction of the facility, including site selection;
Disposal impacts and subsequent short-term impacts; and
Post-disposal impacts of a long-term nature.
a. Choosing an appropriate site for a contained upland disposal facility is a critical element in reducing the potential environmental problems associated with this alternative. This is true for all phases of implementing the alternative from construction through long-term monitoring and mitigation. The site selection process is especially important if containment failure occurs since proper siting could reduce some but perhaps not all adverse consequences. Upland site selection screening criteria have been summarized and reviewed by others (litre, 1979; COE, 1981; LS, 1981; and personal communication Colvin, DEC to Zammit, COE, February 1981). Some important site selection criteria are summarized below and apply mainly to the disposal of contaminated material, since this is likely to be the bulk of dredged material placed in upland containment.
Soils: to be acceptable, the soils should have low permeability (less than 1 x 10-5cm/sec), have high levels of silt and clay and be other than Class I or Class II agricultural soils.
Slope: the presence of deep gullies or slopes over 10-15 percent are unacceptable features for a site.
Surface Waters: the site should be over 300 ft. from any pond or lake used for recreation or agriculture or any water body classified by state law. One hundred year floodplains and wetland areas should be avoided. Areas within 200 ft. of intermittent streams are unaccep- table.
Bedrock: areas where bedrock is closer than 50 ft. to the surface, especially in fractured materials or carbonates, are unacceptable.
Groundwater: areas are unacceptable where the groundwater is less than 10 ft. below the surface and where wells or recharged areas are nearer than 500-1000 ft. Sites near or over sole-source aquifers are also unacceptable, including areas in drainage basins of water supply reservoirs.
Committed Land: sites are unacceptable when they are located in designated agricultural districts, or near (within 1000 ft.) such areas as parks, residential areas, or historic sites.
Biologically Sensitive Areas: unacceptable if they are habitats for unique or regionally significant rare or endangered species.
b. The above description of physical site selection is brief and other factors including social acceptability, economics, and legal constraints are important. However, a reduction in the potential long-terin environmental concerns is dependent on careful site selection. The discussion which follows assunes that a rigorous containment facility is being considered with the potential to isolate contaminants from the environment. Despite the increased expense this isolation may be desirable for highly contaminated material. This is likely to be the case since other alternatives are available for cleaner or small-volume dredged materials.
a. Two types of containment facilities can be built: ponded types, which retain some fluid materials for long periods; and non-ponded types, in which fluids are removed as quickly as possible and solid materials are stored. Additionally, a facility can be designed for either interim holding or long-term containment (COE, 1980a).
b. Ponded long-term contained upland disposal should be considered only where: Page 20
mobile and very toxic contaminants are present in high levels;
other disposal alternatives are not feasible;
The containment structure must be lined with an impervious barrier that will operate without failure for long periods of time. Therefore, this option should be considered only for small volumes of highly contaminated sediments. Only small volumes of dredged material should be considered since the capacity of the facility would be reduced due to the large volumes of water associated with the material. This alternative offers the advantages of an upland disposal method where conditions of the dredge material will not change if leaching is controlled, ponding is maintained and reducing conditions favor immobilization.
c. Non-ponded long-term contained upland disposal is suitable for larger volumes of dredged material and possibly more frequent applications of new material to the site than are possible in ponded areas. These sites, if properly designed, constructed, and maintained could be used for many types of material if the oxidizing conditions produced by dewatering are not important.
d. The consequences of site selection should be minimized by choosing sites meeting the criteria which have been outlined above. These criteria will be further developed based on research undertaken by the CoE (e.g. Palermo et al., 1978), and should result in a facility being located where its presence and operation are least disruptive. Additionally, proper site selection could reduce the adverse impacts if the facility failed to operate as desired. Construction results in the unavoidable impacts of eliminating the original habitat and biota of the immediate area. The value of the habitat destroyed must be weighed against the need for the facility.
• Impacts of Transporting the Material to Upland Sites:
a. Dredged materials can be transported either as a slurry pumped to the site or as solids moved to the site. In either case transportation systems such as navigable waterways, railroads, highways or easement areas may be important in site selection and construction of a facility. During the disposal process, the system used to convey the
materials would have to be operated and maintained. Should spills occur, especially of highly contaminated na terial, a Qumber of small scale adverse impacts could occur which are equivalent to those impacts associated with the actual disposal site. Therefore, habitat destruction and operating impacts such as pollution, noise, and life history disruptions of representative species would be associated with materials transport. If materials are spilled or released (e.g., airborne) while being transported, they could produce a wide range of environmental site specific impacts of a temporary and minor nature. Additionally, if pretreatment of the material is required, such as dewa tering, there may be impacts associated with such activities.
• Disposal Impacts and Subsequent Short-term Impacts:
a. Site selection, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of contained upland sites should all be geared toward reducing two major environmental concerns: transport of materials, especially contaminants, away from the site as liquids or solids; and uptake of contaminated materials directly or indirectly by organisms at or near the disposal site.
b. Since on-site bioavailability can be controlled to a large degree, the major consideration becomes immobilizing the material and all associated contaminants. Especially critical is the need to keep potentially hazardous materials from entering either surface or groundwater supplies. In the short-term, if the material is dewa tered, the effluent which is removed may be bigb in suspended particles and their associated contaminants. The effluent will also be more saline than freshwater. Before discharge, its effluent quality must be such that it does not degrade or contaminate other areas. During or after disposal, wind erosion could mobilize solid materials and introduce them into the environment. Short-term measures could be implemented to reduce this possibility (see Section 4.2.1.1.3)
c. The biological uptake and degree of accumulation of contaminants is variable among different types of organisms (Table 4-1). Among plants, uptake is often a passive process and high accumulations of toxicants are possible (Yopp et al., 1974), especially cadmium uptake in an upland environment. Uptake is often species dependent and is based on both internal factors (e.g., cell size, content of vacuoles, and translocation) and external factors (e.g., concentration in soil, chelating agents, other ions present, pH of the substrate) (Bowen, 1966). Accumulation of contaminants by plants may result in a significant redistribution of some materials in the soil profile, and soil animals can further redistribute materials.
Post-Disposal Impacts of a Long-Term Nature:
a. The long-term environmental impacts of contained upland disposal are minimal if the containment facility continues to function and materials are not released into the environment (Chen et al., 1978). However, the long-term effectiveness of contained facilities is an unproven factor, since such sites would have to retain their integrity for more than 50 years, especially if highly contaminated materials were involved. Failure of the facility, even of a minor level, could allow a significant release of undesirable materials over an extended period of time. Examples of some impacts of contaminant release could include:
pollution of surface or groundwater from leachates escaping from the site (heavy metals, salts, organics, etc. could be involved; (see Table 4-1).
uptake and subsequent transfer of released pollutants by organisms could result in changes in species composition in the area, altered biotic and abiotic interactions (e.g., plants and soils), and intra- and interspecific interactions could change with unpredictable long-term consequences.
were proper controls not implemented, wind or water could erode the material and transport it away from the site.
b. It is important to consider what kinds of biological communities would potentially occupy a facility that had ceased active operation. Disposal management factors must be included in the planning process to insure that pests such as rats or mosquitoes which might utilize the area or undesirable weedy plants such as giant reed grass or poison ivy would not occur. If a habitat is planned for the inactive site, it must be isolated from the stored materials, if biological uptake would occur with adverse consequences.
a. The types and degree of socioeconomic consequences associated with this alternative depend in large measure on the actual site selected. Proper site selection can reduce or eliminate many negative socioeconomic factors. Site selection criteria are discussed previously in this section. Socioeconomic consequences of contained upland disposal have been evaluated from a number of standpoints and are reviewed by Mitre (1979), COE (1981), and LMS (1981) among others.
When negative, social factors, such as public health and welfare, economic factors, and legal concerns can result in public opposition to such disposal.
b. Public health and welfare concerns include the following:
contaminant release (Saucier et al., 1978);
noise and odors (Harrison and Chisholm, 1974; Wakeford and MacDonald, 1974);
c. Economic factors indirectly associated with a disposal site could be devaluation of property in the vicinity and potential alterations of the local tax structure. More directly, the economics of a site would include:
reclamation (e.g. Skjei, 1976; Lunz et al., 1978a; Souder et al., 1978; Mitre, 1979).
d. Mitre (1980) evaluated 15 representative upland sites in detail. For example, a site in North Hempstead in Nassau County, Long Island, is a sand and gravel pit and had the advantages of being near the harbor; already a disturbed site, it seemed to have a high probability for reasonable land rehabilitation. However, its disadvantages included high land cost, lack of immediate availability, displacement of industry, proximity to densely populated areas and potential groundwater contamination. The capital costs to acquire, develop, operate, and restore the site approximated $100 million, and annual operating costs were approximately $1 million (upper limit estimates from 1978).
e. Whether the cost of a disposal alternative is acceptable depends on a site specific analysis. In
addition, whether the cost is justified is influenced by the concept of "reasonable incremental economic cost" (LMS, 1981). This approach is based on both a cost-benefit analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The LMS (1981) report concludes that an approximate 20 percent increase in costs for alternatives to ocean disposal might be a reasonable increment. However, application of this concept has proven difficult.
f. The legal constraints of this disposal alternative could be extensive if public health and welfare damage became an issue. Acquiring a site, especially if residence relocations were involved, would probably lead to legal entanglements. Also, state, local, and Federal laws would have to be considered (e.g. compliance with the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976). Proper planning, site selection, public education, and public participation can elimiante or minimize all of the above concerns. Social acceptability is certainly possible and likely under the appropriate conditions.
The implementation of an effective, well-sited facility would result in the following adverse impacts:
the original habitat of the site would be destroyed;
the site would utilize some nonrenewable
the site has a finite lifespan for disposal purposes yet results in long-term changes in the landscapes.
b. The primary objective of contained disposal is to isolate the potentially toxic material as completely as possible, thus minimizing the migration of chemicals into the environment. When dredged material slurry is disposed of in a well-designed and conscientiously operated containment area, the majority of solids will settle out and be retained within the basin. Dredged material slurry generated by hydraulic pipeline dredges averages approximately 15 percent solids and 85 percent water by weight (Barnard and Hand, 1978). Solids range from clay to sizes larger than gravel (Section 2.1.3 and Appendix B).
c. The vast majority of potentially toxic material is associated with the fine-grained material (clays, silts) or the organic material (averages 1-10 percent by weight; Barnard and Hand, 1978). Any of this fine-grained material Page 21
suspended in the ponded water will be eventually discharged as effluent, unless specifically retained because of contaminants present. Since it is in this fraction that the majority of contaminants are located, it would be beneficial to ensure the sedimentation and therefore the containment of these suspended particulates. The ponded water should be allowed to settle and tests (settling or elutriate) should be performed to determine the levels of contamination still in the aqueous phase prior to discharge (Barnard and hand, 1978). Treatment may be enhanced through use of flocculants and effluent filtration through pervious dikes, weirs, or granular media cartridges. These secondary treatment methods can be included in the design of the containment facility if the dredged sediments to be contained have been determined to be unacceptably high in water soluble contaminants. Both procedures will naturally increase the cost of disposal but may be necessary to ensure pollutant containment.
d. The effective use of filtration methods depends on the quantity and quality of the suspended material, because filter systems may not effectively retain particles of clay size (less than 0.004mm) and can become quickly clogged (Bernard and Hand, 1978). Optimally, the containment system should be designed based on the settling properties of the material or effluent and the water quality criteria that must be satisfied.
e. After the suspended material has been removed, it may be necessary to further treat the effluent to remove dissolved chemicals and colloidal matter. Bernard and Hand (1978) outline several possible methods, including activated charcoal adsorption, ion exchange, chemical precipitation, breakpoint chlorination, and biological nitrification. The process selected would be determined by specifications of the project.
f. The estimated capital and operational/maintenance costs of a fully engineered system of polyelectrolyte treatment (flocculant treatment) designed to handle 25 mgd (equal to 20 inch dredge production rate of 5,144 yd3) /hr), 365 days per year would be approximately $1.5 million capital expenditure and $2.2 million operational/maintenance expenditure, irrespective of sludge handling or disposal costs (Bernard and hand, 1978). These figures represent 1978 estimates and are highly variable.
g. To date no standard procedures for treating heavily contaminated dredged material have emerged. The key concern is removal of solids, since toxicants are adsorbed to the fine particles of the sediments. Disposal of dredged material from contaminated sites may require additional measures in design and operation of the containment
facility. The containment area may have to be sealed with clay or another type of impervious liner to prevent any long-term leaching and migration of the contaminants into the environment. Incineration is not considered a cost-effective method for sedinent detoxification for the study area primarily due to the large inorganic contaminant fraction present in the dredged sediments.
h. In order to lengthen the life span of the containment facility, dewatering (densifying) the dredged material may be beneficial, especially if the upland site selected is a long distance inland. The volune occupied by the liquid phase of the dredged material greatly reduces the available future disposal voluwe. This dewatering process can be undertaken at an upland containment site by evaporative techniques, like progressive trenching, depending on the size and location of the facility, the contaminant load of the dredged material, and the future use of the site (Haliburton, 1978). Evaporation must exceed precipitation for this alternative to be feasible. This process is extremely valuable and may be used in conjunction with other disposal alternative such as sanitary landfill cover, marsbland disposal, wetland creation, and landscape reclamation when the dredged material to be used is relatively uncontaminated and the final product desired is "soil-like."
i. The construction of a contained upland facility will destroy the immediate site of construction; it is necessary to minimize any adverse environmental impacts on adjacent communities. For example, if dredged material is to be transported to the upland site via pipeline, it would be environmentally sound to select pipeline easements which maximize the use of existing road shoulders and utilize rights of way. In this manner tree cutting and road construction would be minimized and adjacent ecosystems left relatively undisturbed.
j. In order to prevent mobilization of contaminants there are mitigation measures that should be considered depending on the type of contamination (Table 4-2). Selection of a site with low permeable soil would help ensure hydrologic isolation of contaminants present (Mitre, 1979). Since acid conditions usually promote the formation of weak organic acids which, in turn, can ionize to complex-forming groups and thus elevate metal solubilities, the addition of lime to the upland site may help maintain an alkaline pH and thereby decrease metal solubilization and leacha te production (COE, 1980a). Only if the sediment contains high concentrations of arsenic would this measure prove not only unaffective but hazardous. In many cases, the addition of lime may be unreasonable due to the large volumes necessary. As mentioned previously, lining the
facility with an imprevious artificial liner would maximize toxicant retention (Mung et al., 1978).
k. If the material deposited is extremely contaminated it may be necessary to prevent plant colonization. It might also be beneficial to cap the deposited sediment with uncontaminated material where the depth is sufficient to isolate the toxicants from plant roots and burrowing animals. It is important that the capping process which involves clean material does not affect the potential for leaching
1. The salinity of the dredged material will affect upland disposal. However, the negative effects of saline sediments are most significant for upland alternatives of landscape reclamation and habitat creation. In cases where the salt content would prevent plant colonization, dilution with fresh water is recommended. However, for contained upland disposal of material from contaminated and clean sites, dilution can be accomplished by natural precipitation. The salt content of dredged material actually aids the formation of flocculants, thus facilitating the removal of suspended particulates from the effluent. A complex effect of salinity that should be considered is the ease with which sodium ions displace other cations froin exchange complexes on colloids. Usually, metal solubility is of greater concern when freshwater sediments are placed in saline environments as more soluble compounds are formed by reaction with chloride ions (COE, 1980a). In most cases it is unnecessary to utilize any measures to mitigate the effects of salinity for the contained upland disposal alternative (containment should preclude salt intrusion into existing aquifers). Mitigation measures to control both wind and water erosion of materials from the site would also have to be implemented.
m. An extremely important mitigation measure for contained upland disposal is conscientious, long-term biological monitoring. Da ta are sparse on the potential for leaching, bioavailability, and bioaccumulation of contaminants from contained upland facilities. In order to properly maintain a contained facility, an active program of monitoring of the environment (water and organisms) must be undertaken. With proper forewarning, many hazards could be avoided or abated. Unlike other alternatives, timing of facility construction or material de position (seasonal) would be a relatively unimportant mitigating measure for upland disposal.
a. The disposal of dredged material in sanitary landfill sites is a special case of contained upland disposal (see Section 4.2.1.1). This alternative is distinct from the use of dredged material as cover for sanitary landfills, which is being considered separately.
a. Since sanitary landfills are contained facilities, the major attraction for their use as sites for dredged material disposition would be for substantially contaminated material. Disposal of relatively clean material in these sites, given the host of other alternatives for disposal of clean material, is unwarranted. Since containment is assumed, the environmental consequences discussed for contained upland disposal can be applied to this alternative (see Section 4.2.1.1).
a. The socioeconomic impacts described for contained upland disposal apply to the sanitary landfill alternative. In addition, a major negative impact is the competition for capacity that would result if dredged material were placed in existing landfill sites. Public opposition, as well as agency and regulatory entanglements, could be anticipated if other than occasional usage of landfills as disposal sites is considered.
If implemented, the adverse impacts associated with contained upland disposal would apply to this alternative. In addition, the loss of future disposal capacity for conventional refuse would occur if dredged materials were disposed of in any quantities in landfill areas.
b. The mitigation measures outlined in contained upland disposal would apply to sanitary landfill. Reduction of competition for landfill capacity would only be possible if small quantities of dredged material were placed in landfills. This could be appropriate for small volumes of highly contaminated dredged material, dredged near landfill which itself was stable enough to insure proper long-term containment.
Alternatives Involving Smaller Volumes
Uncontained Upland Disposal and Sanitary Landfill Cover
a. Uncontained upland alternatives including landscape reclamation and agricultural land treatment (see Section 2.3.2.2.3) are being considered together with sanitary landfill cover (Section 2.3.2.2.4) since their environmental and socioeconomic impacts and potential mitigation measures all require that the dredged ina terial utilized be relatively uncontaminated and preferably dewa tered. There should be no adverse environmental impacts associated with these alternatives providing fastidious standards are applied to the selection of potential dredged material (as outlined in Section 2.3). Any material containing high concentrations of potentially toxic materials cannot be considered for any of these disposal methods. All of the adverse environmental impacts in upland environments associated with contaminant transport have been discussed in the contained Upland Disposal section (see 4.2.1.1; Table 4-1).
b. The landscape reclamation alternative does not provide for any dredged material containment. There would be easy access of contaminants to the groundwater via leachate formation and into the biosphere via direct uptake. Even considering a six inch topsoil cap, agricultural land treatment and sanitary landfill cover alternatives include the establishment of vegetative growth on the site. This would assure a transport vector for any potentially available toxicant present in the deposited dredged sediment. Thus, the primary adverse environmental impact associated with dredged material disposal in this manner, namely, potential contaminant transport, could be avoided with proper dredged material selection. For this reason, these alternatives are considered available only for small volumes of material.
c. The objectives of sanitary landfill cover are explained by the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission regarding the Dekorte State Park, a site requiring landfill cover. Cover material must:
assure adequate support in terms of quality and depth for vegetative growth;
lessen the generation of leachate from landfills;
provide a buffer zone between escaping landfill gases and the vegetative growth;
provide adequate depth of soil over landfill to minimize future refuse exposure due to erosion and settlement; and Page 22
provide adequate coverage to prevent nuisance problems (personal communication, Mattson, Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, to Suszkowski, CoE, April 1981).
Thus, in this and the other productive use alternatives considered here, the dredged material must act as a "soil" when used as cover so that vegetation can be established. In order to use dredged material as cover or as an agricultural soil supplement, it must first be dewatered (Haliburton, 1978; Brown et al., 1980) and secondarily reduced of salt concentrations where necessary (Goddard, 1978; as cited Mitre 1979; Kodaira and Hamada, 1980). If the material deposited has a high salinity, the groundwater may become contaminated with salt and any potential vegetation establishment will be adversely affected.
d. In a greenhouse study on the agricultural value of dredged material conducted by the Agricultural Research Service for DMRP, it was found that under the right conditions, dredged material can itself support forage crop growth and can be used to improve marginal agricultural land (Gupta et al., 1978, 1980). As with any area where vegetative cover is to be established, colonization by "weedy" species should be prevented and circumstances favoring the propagation of disease vectors, such as mosquitoes, should be avoided. Dust formation, at the time of disposal and under dry conditions, will be temporary and result in no severe environmental consequences. The site would have to be designed so that erosion by precipitation and wind would not be a major factor. Other environmental impacts would be similar to those detailed in the Contained Upland Disposal section (4.2.1.1).
a. The use of dredged material as a soil for landscape reclamation, agricultural soil improvement and sanitary landfill cover offers a productive alternative to conventional disposal practices. The socioeconomic effectiveness depends on the local requirements, legal and economic constraints, and in the case of sanitary landfill cover, the demand for cover material and the manner in which it has been previously provided (see Section 2.3.2.2.4).
b. Landscape reclamation refers to restoring or improving land value using unconfined dredged material involving disposal on currently inactive, barren or excavated sites (e.g., strip mines, quarries). The same socioeconomic problems considered in contained upland disposal (Section 4.2.1.1) pertain to this disposal alternative and include contaminant release (precluding the
selection of clean dredged material), pests, noise, odors, visual clutter and obstruction, and on-site injury (litre, 1979). Economic factors involve the acquisition of the site, and the transport, treatment (dewatering) and deposition of the dredged material. Whether the cost is justified depends on the value of the landscape reclaimed; this must be determined on a site-selective basis. Mitre (1979) characterized 113 out of the 295 barren areas identified in the New York District for consideration as sites for dredged material disposal and believed that many of them would benefit from reclamation efforts. Public opinion would be greatly influenced by the local demand for land and any applicable institutional and legal constraints involved (Conrad and Peck, 1978).
c. Agricultural soil improvement involves the use of dewa tered dredged material to amend marginal agricultural lands. Since it has been shown that dredged material can support vegetation, public opinion should be favorable. The economic burden of dewatering, removal of salts, transport and disposal could be defrayed by the sale of the material.
d. Sanitary landfill cover is a potentially reasonable disposal method providing there are landfill areas that require cover material. As with soil improvement, the sale of the material may defray the cost of treatment and transport. LMS (1981) estimates that a $4-$9/yd3 cost should be considered a reasonable incremental cost for dredged material disposal in this manner. The procedure to determine reasonableness of the incremental cost is similar to that used for beach nourishment (Section 4.2.2.3). The use of dredsed material is being considered as landfill cover for the proposed DeKorte State Park. All of the dredged material tested for preliminary feasibility passed the EP toxicity test which was one of the criteria set by the Federal and state regulatory agencies. This representative dredged material from the New York Harbor area includes "clean," "questionable,' and some "contaminated" material, based on bioassay testing (Malcolm Pirnie, 1982). Local opposition may come from construction companies which had planned on transporting and providing cover material (soil). In order to supply large quantities of dewa tered dredged material, a containment area could be used as a rehandling or processing basin from which some or all of the material could be removed and transported, depending on the demand. This would provide a continual source of material, irrespective of dredging schedules.
In all cases the socioeconomic impacts must be decided on a site selective basis considering the land value, soil value, legal restraints, local industrial concerns, and subsequent public opinion.
a. Final determination of the types of dredged material to be used has not been finalized, but will most likely not be limited to "clean" material. Proper design and operation of the dewatering facility will minimize any adverse environmental impact. Any increased costs involved in these various alternatives would be considered adverse socioeconomic impacts.
b. Dewatering dredged material is discussed in Section 4.2.1.1. Secondary treatment may also be required to remove high salt concentrations via dilution techniques (Goddard, 1978, as cited by mitre, 1979) to prevent unnecessary salt intrusions into the groundwater. Dust problems at the time of disposal may be abated by wetting the material prior to deposition, and the establishment of ground cover will reduce further air pollution problems. The establishment of vegetation will also control erosion. Subsequent monitoring will be required to prevent the colonization by "weedy" species and to ensure against pest infestations.
In contrast to creating wetlands with dredged material (Section 4.1.2.1), wetlands disposal involves the dispersal of dredged material over an existing wetland. Wetlands disposal is one of several reasonable disposal alternatives involving shallow/ shoreline areas (see Section 2.3.2.2.1). Because wetlands are considered a valuable national resource (see Section 1.2), they have been the subject of extensive scientific study and dredged material disposal review.
a. Since wetlands are essential habitats for many species, have high productivity, supply the estuarine detrital food web, impact on estuarine dependent fisheries (Gosselink et al., 1974), benefit water quality, and act as basins or sinks for a variety of materials (Patrick et al., 1971; Sweet, 1971) their value had been recognized and protected by numerous state and federal laws. As a result of the accepted importance of wetlands, their use in disposal situations is possible only when there is no alternative disposal site. The COE has sponsored significant research on the effects of dredged material disposal on wetlands as a part of the DMRP (see, for example, Lunz, 1978a, b). The earlier evidence had indicated that wetlands were highly sensitive areas, susceptive to long-term change (Psuty et al., 1974). However, recent studies have shown that evaluations of impacts must be site selective since some marshes may recover and benefit from the application of small volumes of dredged material (COE, 1977b; Lunz et al., 1978a, b). Considering the broad spectrum of adverse impacts that
contaminated material could have on such sites, only clean material should be used (see Table 4-1). Less toxic materials, such as nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, may cause local eutrophication if present in high amounts, but may actually increase productivity if found in minimal concentration in the disposed material. Assuming the use of clean material, the other major environmental influence would be the physical burial of existing marsh plants and animals or changes in site elevation sufficient to alter physical features of the site, thereby resulting in species composition changes.
a. The social impacts of wetlands disposal revolve around the need for use of this alternative. If no other option exists and environmental damage can be minimized, the social acceptability should be positive. The economic impacts relate to the cost/benefit of using sensitive, already perturbed and reduced habitats to dispose of dredged material in light of the othe disposal alternatives. The transport and dispersal of the material on the wetland would have to be balanced against the risk of further declines in this environmental setting. An additional socioeconomic factor is the actual or perceived disruption of fishing, spawning or hatching habitats in adjacent areas. In this context public opposition could be substantial.
a. Given the lack of other disposal alternatives, the use of clean material, detailed site selection, extensive monitoring and evaluation, and reasonable costs, there should be no long-term adverse impacts of wetlands disposal. Implementation of this alternative in other circumstances could lead to a rather large number of impacts including legal, environinental, social and economic. The kinds of mitigating activities that could be utilized for this alternative are essentially the same as those associated with wetlands creation (see Section 4.1.2.1).
a. The physical processes inherent the coastal beach environment (i.e., erosion) necessitate periodic renewal in the form of sand de position: the use of dredged material for this activity is currently practiced. Unfortunately, only 2 percent of the material dredged in the NY District from 1966-1977 was suitable for beach renewal (Mitre, 1979) because the dredged material must be both free of contaminants and composed of sand with a grain size
composition closely approximating that of the beach to be nourished. Adverse environmental impacts can be minimized if the material to be utilized is properly selected.
b. The adverse environmental impacts incurred with beach nourishment, considering the use of clean sand, would be local and of short duration. Although the high energy of the tidal zone would be expected to release contaminants, the use of uncontaminated material which contains only a limited fine grained fraction will effectively reduce any possible chemical impacts associated with this activity (personal communication, Engler, COE, WES, July 1982). Deposition of material onto beaches will have an immediate affect on organisms utilizing the beach. However, considering the nature of the environment and the organisms adapted to such a habitat, any effects of burial should be short-term (Hirsch et al., 1978). The population density of intertidal benthic invertebrates might decline, especially at the dredged material discharge point (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974). This effect should not be ecologically damaging as invertebrate migrations from adjacent non-nourished beach areas usually replenish species numbers (Hitre, 1979). Any adverse effects on nesting shore birds could be avoided by seasonaly timing of deposition activities. In general, beach nourishment should have a positive impact on the environment by temporarily stabilizing a portion of the coastal community and providing a renewal habitat for the organisms associated with it (i.e. nesting sites).
a. New York and New Jersey beaches are valued recreation areas (Section 3.1.8.2): 52 percent of the New York shoreline and 46 percent of the New Jersey shoreline is classified as beach area (Ringold and Clark, 1980). Erosion is a natural hazard, presenting an environmental problem for shoreline organisms and a socioeconomic problem for the users and owners of shoreline developments and facilities. All of the 638 miles of New York shoreline (including beaches) is considered to be significantly eroding (Ringold and Clark, 1980). A tremendous amount of money is spent on erosion control projects (construction of groios, bulkheads, seawalls; inlet navigation projects) to protect beaches. However, in lieu of the expense and technological problems associated with these projects, beacb nourishment is vital to counteract erosion.
b. Beach attendance in the New York metropolitan region is a major form of outdoor recreation (Section 3.1.8.2). The economic stability of many coastal communities is dependent on the tourism and fishing industries associated with their shorelines. Thus the maintenance of beaches is of extreme importance to much of the public. Page 23
c. There are some negative factors associated with beach nourishment that concern the public. These factors, such as malodors, noise, dust, turbidity, and visual impacts, are usually of short duration. Deposited beach sand becomes indistinguishable from existing sand over time due to climatic factors (sun-bleaching, winter storus, precipitation). As long as the material being used is compatible and relatively free from contamination, beach nourishment using dredged material should have public approval.
d. There is a large variability in the cost of beach nourishment, depending primarily on transport distance. Sediments composed of sand and relatively free of contaminants are found only in select areas (see Appendix B). Thus, the transport and mobilization costs of dredged material deposition will be increased over current disposal methods. This increase may be considered a reasonable incremental cost and must be decided on a site-specific basis. LMS (1981) suggests the following procedure to determine incremental costs for this alternative:
perform a cost evaluation to determine the
deny ocean dumping permits to those dredging sponsors who can deliver and place material at incremental cost less than or equal to the beach replenishment incremental unit cost; and
if the incremental delivery and placement costs
e. In general, the increased economic burden could be offset by the parties concerned; LMS (1981) concludes a $3-$5/ yd3 incremental cost is reasonable. These figures represent 1979-1980 values. The New York District has not used the reasonable incremental cost analysis as previously described.
f. Socioeconomic impacts must be considered on site-specific basis for this alternative: with suitable dredged material availability, transport distances and costs kept minimal, the impacts should be positive.
a. The short-term effects associated with the deposition process itself are unavoidable. These include impacts on the benthic communities and the subsequent short-term reduction in invertebrate population densities. The initial turbidity and visual impacts are all reversible with time, but unavoidable at the time of deposition.
b. With proper material selection and site availability the only mitigating measure directly related to this alternative is the consideration of seasonal placement to aba te any impact on the biota. The potential impact to nesting birds could be minimized by placing dredged material during those times of year when the life cycle of the particular species in question would not be affected. Proper seasonal placement would also lessen the impact on other organisms.
c. Since the percentage of dredged material suitable for beach nourishment is minimal, it would be beneficial to develop economical methods of separating sand from dredged material. This would allow a much greater percentage (Mitre, 1979, estimates up to 45 percent) of sediments dredged to be used for this alternative, since contaminants will most probably be separated in the process (toxicants usually adhere to the silt and clay fraction; see Section 2.1).
Due to the large number of human beings exposed to any material used as a highway deicing agent, only uncontaminated dredged material could be considered for this particular use. Dredged material used for this purpose would require dewa tering and stockpiling. Depending upon the location and type of material presently used for this purpose (i.e., sand vs. salt), substitution of dredged material may result in some physical change to roads, vehicles and vegetation. The degree to which such impacts would replace or compound present impacts has not been quantified. Sites presently used as deicing material stockpiles may have to be modified or relocated to meet the dewatering and storage requirements of the dredged material.
b. There also exists the presently uninvestigated possibility that dredged material utilized under this alternative would acquire contaminants while on the streets and then reenter the Harbor from storm sewer drains. Proper management practices such as rigorous grain size separation, proper application techniques and storm sewer management may reduce or eliminate this potential problem.
4.2.2.4.2 Socioeconomic Impacts
a. Investigations by the Rock Island Corps District (see letter, Mansky to Kamlet, July 1982) indicate that use of dredged material as a road deicing agent may have the positive socioeconomic impact of reducing the cost of winter road deicing. That dredged material would be competitive in cost with other forms of deicing material remains to be proven. However, should dredged material displace sand or salt as a deicing agent, there could be adverse impacts upon local sand and gravel operators; in actuality, the volume of dredged material available for deicing may be too small to significantly affect the sand and salt supply industry. Since the beach nourishment and deicing alternatives utilize similar dredged material, they would seem to be in competition.
a. Implementation of this alternative would require further study by the N.Y. District. At this time adverse impacts are expected to include possible impacts to roads, vebicles roadside vegetation and possible increased harbor sediment contamination. The possible economic loss to sand and salt contractors should be considered. Adaitional adverse impacts such as loss of useable land would be dependent on the site-specific factors for individual projects.
b. Proper dredged material selection and application techniques should be employed to reduce the possibility of introduction of contaminants to terrestrial systems and possible reentry into the Harbor. Economic impacts to sand and salt vendors and contractors may be reduced by phasing the use of dredged material while displaced suppliers develop other markets. Dredged material could be stockpiled in reserve and used only in situations where other sources of road deicers are in short supply or are absent.
Preparers of the Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation of this EIS was accomplished by Cosper Environmental Services, Inc., Jersey City, N.J., in conjunction with the N.Y. District COE. The background and qualifications of individuals involved in this project are summarized in Table 5-1. Page 24
Development of this EIS is a direct response to public concern and involvement in the dredging and disposal activities undertaken and regulated by the N.Y. District CoE. In 1977, public interest prompted the District to conduct a Dredged Material Disposal Alternative Workshop which took place October 11-13. This public meeting was coordinated by the Mitre Corporation, which subsequently published both the workshop Proceedings and a review of Current Practices and Candidate Alternatives for Disposal of Dredged Material within the New York District (Mitre, 1977). The major findings of these reports have been incorporated into this document.
b. Public involvement in the Dredged Material Disposal Management Plan for the Port of New York and New Jersey is facilitated through the on-going efforts of the Public Involvement Coordination Group. This group meets every six weeks to review the District's progress on the plan (Incremental Implementation Plan; see Section 1.4) and related research activities. The Public Involvement Coordination Group and Steering Committee were informed of the progress of this EIS during its development.
Notice of Intent to develop an EIS concerning Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material was published in the Federal Register on 2 March 1981. A public scoping meeting was conducted by the District on 24 April 1981 to allow for early agency and public participation in the EIS process. The persons attending this Scoping Meeting are listed in Table 6-1. The issues raised at this meeting included review of alternatives, impacts of disposal upon fisheries resources and cumulative impacts of continued disposal operations.
d. Work commenced on development of this EIS during the fall of 1981. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, and the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, provided the N.Y. District with agency contacts and were designated as Cooperating Agencies. The National Marine Fisheries Service was contacted by letter to be a cooperating agency; no response regarding the request was received (all such correspondence is included in Appendix E). The DEIS was released for public review on 1 June 1982 and Notice of Filing appeared in the Federal Register on 25 June 1982. The District solicited public coments on the DEIS through 9 August 1982. A list of Federal and State Agencies, local officials/ groups/organizations, and individuals sent copies of the DEIS appears in Table 6-2.
Major Issues Indicated in the Comments on the DEIS
A list of parties commenting on the DEIS can be found in Table 6-3. Copies of the comment letters can be found in Appendix D. A summary of substantive comments and responses is provided in Section 6.3.
Mr. William Costa, P.E. Mr. Phillip Iskowitz Ms. SarahJohnston Mr. Leo Goubourn Ms. Miriam Backman Mrs. Mary Reed Mr. Terrance McLaughlin Ms. Roase Marie Lynch Chairperson Mr. A. Buhur Mr. E. Odierma Chairperson Chairperson Mr. Frank Sedido Ms. Leona Stermann Mr. Ed Sodonsky Ms. Carol Greitzer Mr. Martin Vaccaro Mr. John Murray, P.E. Mr. William Perks Mr. Leo Chaffey Ms. Martha Mixon Mr. Louis Grumiger Ms. C. Paggi Mr. Eugene Golum Mr. B. Blum Mr. A.R. Trautman Thorton Willett Mr. Ray English Mr. W. Haupt Mrs. Warren Zapp De. Malcolm Hair, Director Mr. John Bowers Ms. Anne Cunningham Mr. Frank Nolan Mr. Jospeh Valuri, P.E. Mr. Ellsworth Solisbury Ms. Kathleen Rippere Mr. Ken Feustel Director Mr. Allen Francis Mr. Allen Francis, Jr. Mr. Edward Harrington Mr. Albert Corvette Mr. F. Devine Mr. Arthur Harkin Mr. P. Scala Mr. DeWitt Davies Mr. Anthony Cerrato
City of New Rochelle Comm. Develop. of West NJ & NY Councilman (Flushing) CouncilwomanDept. of Economic Develop., Monmouth Cty. Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Public Works, Woodbridge EDF Edison, NJ, Chamber of Commerce Ferry Point Civic Association Freehold Environ. ComunissionFriends of Rockaway General Contractors of NJ Gowanus CÁC Howell Health Department Hudson/Bergen Chamber of Commerce Hudson County Clean Air Huntington, DEP ILA AFL-CIO Intergovernment Services Agency, NY International Terminal Operators UnionInternational Terminal Operators Union Jersey City/Hudson Cty. Chamber of Commerce League of Women Voters Lindenhurst, DEC Local 25, AFL-CIO, Marine Division Local 25, IVOE Local 25, IVOE Local 25, IVOE Local 333 Local 1456 Local 1456-8 Local 1814 Long Island Regional Planning Board Longshoreman's Union
Capt. R. Hart Mr. T. Donovan Mr. J.M. Pepe Mr. Thomas Block Mr. J. Demarino Mr. David Dischner Mr. W.J. Kriese Capt. McNelly Mr. David Morris Mr. A. D'Amato
Ms. Susan King Chairperson Mr. T. Ciaccia
Mr. Lou Figurelli Mr. Ken Kamlet Mrs. N.M. Joffer Ms. Kathleen McDonough Mr. Ellis Vieser Mr. G. Oliver Papps Mr. John Nerstan Mr. John Ulrich Ms. Helen Becker Mr. Herbert Tschudi Mr. Robert Alpern Mr. Mike Smyth Mr. Marvin Baratt Mr. Yash Paul Sai Mr. Mike Balerazo Ms. Susan Faila Ms. Eileen Kaufman Mr. Peter French Ms. Jewett Ms. Helga Busemann Ms. Pamela Esterman Ms. Linda O'Leary Mr. Daniel Curll III Mr. Thomas Whyatt Mr. Christopher Roosevelt Ms. Ruth Mingoia Mr. John Dobi Mr. Robert Franklin Hon. Carol Bellamy Mr. Richard Buegler Mr. Renwick Ms. Mindy Trepel Capt. George A. Canvin Capt. Roche
Marine Index Bureau Nassau County Department of Commerce Page 25
Mr. James Ward Ms. K. Doherty Mr. William Pell Ms. Mary Codd Mr. Anthony Giacobbi Mr. Michael Dimina Dr. Robert Nuzzi Mr. John Wehrenberg Mr. Joe Bennett Mr. Tomas Doheny, Jr. Mr. H. Udell Ms. J. Dietrich Mr. Paul Ponessa Mr. Barry Langer Mr. R. Lapinski Mr. Lee Chaffey Mr. A.D. Sakolow Mr. Eugene Deutsch Mr. R. Wasp Mr. J. Muenziner Ms. Joan Walter
Seafarer's International Sierra Club Southold Town Hall Staten Island Council Member Staten Island Council Member Staten Island Federation of man Suffolk County Health Department Suffolk County Legislature Town Clerk, Neptune, NJ Town of Hempstead, NY Town of Hempstead, NY Town of Huntington, NY Town of North Hempstead, NY Town of Teaneck, NJ Town of Woodbridge, NJ Town of Woodbridge, NJ Trust for Public Land U.S. MR/AMAX Westchester County Dept. of Health Westchester Planning Department Westside Highway Project
Mr. R. C. Allen Alfred Angiola Mr. Charlie Arternian Mr. Joe Barbaya Mr. Francis Barry Hon. John D. Bennet Mr. Gordon Bishop Mr. E.H. Bockley Mr. John Buzzi Mr. Jospeh Canta Dr. A. E. Cok Mr. Frank Cuam Ms. Robin Davies Mr. Mike DeLorenzo Mr. Vincent DePass Mr. K. Dirlam Mr. John Driscoll Ms. Mary Engels Mr. D. Epstein Mr. K. L. Estabrook, Esq. Dr. William Ferren Mr. Fisher Mr. A. Fleming
Mr. Frank Ganuzzi Mr. John Gaspari Mr. M. Gerrard Ms. Donna Gerstle Mr. M. Gillette Mr. Alfred Goldis Mr. Richard G. Gray Mr. J. Haarlinger Mr. Barry Haupt Mr. G. Healy Capt. A. Herrsens Mr. Ray Kimmel Mr. Emmett King Mr. R. J. Kinney Ms. Jane Kresch Mr. John Lescourt Mr. Michael Lloyd Mr. Walter McCann Mr. Hugh McManus Ms. K. Minsch Mr. Robert Murphy Mr. Darwin Murray Mr. Alfred Nathan
Dr. J. Oppenheminer Mr. George Panitz Mr. Palina Mr. William Perks Ms. Mary Beth Pfeiffer Mr. Phillip Piccigallo Capt. Joe Pizzutp Mr. Chas, Pound Mr. Robert Pound Mr. J. Prokop Mr. William Renwich Mr. George Rhodes Mr. M. Rosenburg Mr. Harris Sanders Ms. Barbara Safer Mr. R.T. Schedfeger Mr. Theodore Schwartz Prof. T. Zimmie
Mr. Scotti Ms. Cathy Seligman Mr. Constatine Sidman Mr. J. Spanier Mr. Ken Spaulding Mr. Ronald Sprague Mr. Kim Stavola Mr. James Stomber Mr. Greg Stovey Mr. A. Swensen Mr. Ray Talley Dr. Edwin C. Tifft Mr. Whitney Tilt Mr. Henry Trutheff Mr. R. Van Dalen Mr. Kurt Velsor Mr. F. Wrigton
The exclusion of one alternative, the use of dredged material as a highway deicing agent, was brought to the attention of the District by the National Wildlife Federation. This alternative, currently classified as "feasible pending further investigation," is included in the FEIS in Section 2.3.2.2.8.
A number of commentors on the DEIS had similar observations on several of the issues raised: that the DEIS had been released prematurely; that, because specific sites for the disposal options had not been selected, comparisons of disposal options was not clear; and that the toxicant nature of dredged material had received too little attention. These and other substantive comments were addressed in the Comment and Response Section (6.3) and efforts to add to or amend the text to reflect these concerns were made. For example, new tabular information concerning the potential toxic nature of dredged material was added to Section 2.1.3 and Appendix B.
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Office of the Administrator
Comment 1. The DEIS was premature and the results of pending studies should be included.
Response 1. The EIS was developed as a direct response to a judicial order which resulted from a lawsuit brought against the District by the National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Defense Fund. This order dictated the timing of the EIS process. Whenever possible, the results of on-going COE research are included in the FEIS (e.g., see Sections 2.3.2.1.1.2, 2.3.2.2.4, and 2.3.2.1.2). If new information is developed as a result of the pending studies, a supplement to the EIS will be prepared.
b. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Office of Marine Pollution Assessment
Comment 1. The toxicant nature of dredged material, past, present, and future, receives little attention.
Response 1. The amount and types of potentially toxic material present in dredged material is highly project specific and many times varies considerably within a single project site. A summary of the chemical composition of dredged material analyzed from Federal projects is presented in Table B-2. Section 2.1.3 has been revised to highlight information regarding potential toxicants in dredged material.
Comment 2. Because specific sites for the disposal options have not been selected, even representative ones (except for the Mud Dump), the comparison of alternatives suffers greatly.
Whenever sites are presently utilized, they are identified
in the FEIS. Where alternatives have had site-specific proposals in the past, the DEIS identified the site (e.g., Hoffman-Swinburne Islands) and determined future feasibility of use. On-going COE research concerning specific site identification is presented in Sections 1.4 and 4.1.1.1.2. This EIS was developed as a direct response to a judicial order; this order dictated the timing of the EIS process. If new information is developed as a result of pending studies, a supplement will be prepared.
Comment 3. Ambrose Channel is projected as filling with silt (pg. 2-1), when in fact Ambrose sediments are 98% sand (pg. 2-5).
The FEIS was revised to reflect this fact.
Comment 4. With the acknowledged changing pollutant character of material dredged, would there be a monitoring program and a proposed strategy for conducting it?
Response 4. Monitoring of the changing character of pollutants in dredged material is presently accomplished through the COE dredged material testing requirements as discussed in Section 1.4. Overall responsibility for monitoring environmental change resides with EPA.
Comment 5. What plans are there for ascertaining the degree of degradation at and around the Mud Dump periodically over the next ten years or so?
Response 5. while overall responsibility for monitoring environmental change resides with EPA, the COE will continue to monitor under the longrange monitoring program. This program will continue to be implemented with the guidance of the Steering Committee.
Comment 6. The DEIS does not provide comprehensive planning which makes use of all dredged material disposal options.
Response 6. It is not within the purpose of this EIS to develop a dredged material management plan. The District's well-publicized Dredged Material Management Plan is currently under development and is expected to be completed by January, 1984. Upon completion of this plan, or sooner, all practical disposal options will be considered for implementation within the framework of the plan.
United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary
Comunent 1. The DEIS was premature and the results of pending studies should be included. The present EIS may require a supplement.
Response 1. See response to Comment l., United States Deaprtment of Commerce, Office of the Administrator. When appropriate, the District will evaluate the need to supplement the EIS.
Comunent 2. The impacts associated with the use of the sub-aqueous borrow pits remain an area of concern.
Response 2. Impacts associated with the use of sub-aqueous borrow pits are highlighted in Section 2.3.2.1.1.? and throughout Section 4.1.1.4. Page 26
It is recognized that they represent a present area of concern (see Summary). Any supplement to this EIS will address site-specific impacts of implementation of the sub-aqueous borrow pit alternative. The alternative will not be implemented until the impacts of the alternative are determined to be acceptable.
Comment 3. The National Marine Fisheries Service should be contacted with regard to impacts on the shortnose sturgeon.
Response 3. The NMFS was contacted by letter (Tosi, COE to Beach, NMFS, 28 December 1982) regarding this question.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Comment 1. The DEIS is premature, the outcome of pending COE studies should be included, and the present EIS may require a supplement.
Response 1. See response to Comment l., United States Department of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Comment 1. The FEIS should indicate that dredged material exhibiting any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261 for the upland disposal alternative be subject to the hazardous waste regulations under RCRA.
Section 2.0 reflects the fact that dredged material is covered
Comment 2. This EIS has been rated as ER-2, indicating that we have environmental reservations about the project's potential wetland impacts and that more information on alternatives is required to complete out environmental review. The FEIS should be supplemented upon completion of the implementation plan.
Response 2. See response to Comment 1., United States Department of
Comment l. The purpose of and need for the proposed action needs to stress economic aspects of dredging to a greater degree.
Section 1.0 of the document was revised.
Comment 2. Borrow pits should be used for dredged material disposal only when their value for sand mining has been physically, technologically, economically and legally exhausted.
Response 2. The lower bay complex contains many important resources, including sand and fisheries. The promotion and utilization of only one
resource at the expense of others is not appropriate. Responsibility for managing the various resources in the bay resides with several agencies, including the two states and the Federal Government. The utilization of appropriate pits for dredged material disposal would be consistent with an overall management program for the bay which recognizes the multipurpose use of such an area.
Comment 3. We strongly oppose the proposal on DEIS page 4-51 to "deny ocean dumping permits to those dredging sponsors who can deliver and place dredged material at an incremental cost less than or equal to beach replenishment incremental unit cost" due to factors such as scheduling, availability of equipment and community acceptance.
Response 3. Section 4.2.2.3.2 has been revised to provide a further explanation of this statement.
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection
Comment l. We recommend that the bight outer apex site be studied in detail and that use of the Mud Dump site be phased out after 10 years if the results of that study are positive.
Response 1. The N.Y. District does not feel that exhaustion of the capacity of the Mud Dump is imminent enough to consider moving the site, which would result in impacting an additional area of the Bight. Section 2.0 discusses alternative ocean disposal sites in the N.Y. Bight.
Comment 1. It is important that a plan be in place that would allow the dovetailing of large project disposal with maintenance dredging disposal.
Response 1. It is recognized that large-scale Port improvements may generate large volumes of dredged material in a relatively short time period and that the availability of this material may make it feasible or at least stimulate the construction of a containment facility. Planning for disposal in such cases could be accomplished by the CoE only if a Congressionallyauthorized study were undertaken.
Comment 2. The effect of reduction of Federal funds for dredging is not discussed in the EIS.
Response 2. It is extremely difficult to predict this effect; however, reduction in funding would possibly result in fewer low-priority projects being maintained.
Comment 3. The results of Corps-sponsored studies presently underway which are investigating the upland and sanitary landfill alternatives should be incorporated into the FEIS. The results of a study sponsored by Con Edison that is investigating the use of fly ash in the construction of artificial reefs should also be included.
Preliminary results of the CoE studies are discussed in
Sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.2.1, respectively. If new information is developed as a result of pending studies or the con Edison study, it will be contained in a supplement to the EIS.
Connent 1. We are opposed to the use of any contaminated materials as daily or final cover at sanitary landfill sites.
Response 1. Contaminated material (based on the current bioassay/bioaccumulation procedures) represents a small percentage of available dredged material. Furthermore, EP toxicity and/or other appropriate tests would be performed prior to application of physically suitable dredged material to sanitary landfill sites to determine its acceptability in terms of its leachate potential. Logistical and material processing considerations render this alternative difficult to implement. See Section 4.2.2.1.
Comment 2. As a cover material there seems to be a problem with sustaining vegetative growth.
Response 2. Most dredged material could sustain vegetative growth. any case, dredged material would probably not be used as final cover, although it could be well-suited for intermediate cover.
Comment 3. The use of dredged material for beach nourishment on Staten Island is not addressed.
Response 3. It was not within the scope of this EIS to determine the feasibility of every specific site for beach nourishment. The beaches of Staten Island would certainly be candidates for receipt of appropriate dredged material.
Comment 4. PCB concentrations in the Arthur Kill and Kill van Kull should be included in Table 3-2.
The appropriate adjustments have been made to this table.
Comment 1. We strongly urge you to fully explore all alternatives, especially any possibilities which allow containment of the dredged material.
Response 1. The N.Y. District is continuing to explore the possibility of implementing all practical alternatives to ocean dumping under its Dredged Material Management Plan. Many of these possible alternatives involve containment of the dredged material, e.g., upland containment sites, shallow water containment and sub-aqueous borrow pit containment.
Comment 2. The DEIS fails to draw conclusions on the impact of continued use of the Mud Dump upon commercial fishing, especially shellfish.
Response 2. The impacts of continued disposal of dredged material on fisheries resources is discussed in Section 4.1.1.1 of the EIS. Although there is documentation of degradation of the fisheries of the N.Y. Bight (see Section 3.1.5.3 (d)) and Section 3.1.5.2 lb and c)), a direct causal relationship with dredged material disposal has not been established. The EIS draws this conclusion as stated in Section 4.1.1.1 (g). In addition, there is no indication that halting dredged material disposal at the Mud Dump would allow for opening of commercial shellfishing grounds should other forms of ocean disposal continue in or near the apex of the Bight. A determination to reopen closed areas would have to be made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In fact, cessation of all ocean dumping activities might not result in the reopening of any parts of the restricted areas in question because of the continuing problem of non-point source and combined outfall pollution.
Comment 3. The accumulation of PCBs in New York Harbor and subsequent bioaccumulation of PCBs in fish contaminated in the disposal area is a problem for local fishermen.
Response 3. The Corps acknowledges your concern. Some of the mitigative and "special care" procedures currently used (e.g., capping) help to isolate dredged material from the environment.
Comment 4. The relationship between dredged material disposal and the adverse environmental conditions which contributed to the 1976 anoxia fish kill requires additional attention.
Response 4. Investigations to date do not indicate that dredged material disposal practices contributed to the anoxia and associated fish kill of 1976 (see Swanson and Sinderman, 1979). NOAA considers the 1976 anoxia to have been caused by natural events, i.e., the trapping of large numbers of Ceratium in the bottom layer of the water column of the Bight, and subsequent high levels of respiration resulting in abnormally high consumption of oxygen.
Comment 1. Since sub-aqueous borrow pits are a viable disposal alternative and since most of the existing pits lie outside the N.Y. Bight, Section 3.0 is incomplete.
Response 1. Text Section 3.1.1 was revised to include a description of the Lower Bay Complex which contains the borrow pits.
League of women Voters of Monmouth County, N.J.
Comment 1. We are: in favor of ocean dumping until other alternatives can be found--ultimately, the constituents of dredged material should be recycled; in favor of wetland creation; opposed to dumping on wetlands; in favor of beach nourishment; and in favor of studying capping.
National wildlife Federation
Comment 1. There is a need to quantify the mass loading of dredged material inputs to the N.Y. Bight in relation to other sources.
Response 1. Section 3.1.4.4 was revised to provide quantitative information regarding metals and oil and grease loading to the Bight. Paragraph (a) of Section 3.1.4.2 provides information regarding total organic carbon concentrations, sources and fates; however, quantitative mass loading information was not included since the research presented indicated dredged material is not a significant source. Data regarding PCBs were often incomplete and sometimes contradictory (see House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1980) and, although information regarding this contaminant is provided in Section 3.2.4.4, mass balance estimates were not possible due to lack of a firm data base.
Cominent 2. There is a need to make some assessment of the assimilative capacity of the N.X. Bight and Mud Dump site.
Response 2. Section 3.1.7, Assimilative Capacity of the New York Bight, was added to the text to reflect this concern.
Comment 3. There is a need to include, in the discussion of impacts, an analysis of bioassay and bioaccumulation test results.
Response 3. Table 2-1 was added to the FEIS to provide detailed, projectspecific physical, chemical and biological testing results. These results were then reviewed in terms of the frequency and volume of material dredged in order to determine the most environmentally desirable disposal option. The bioassay and bioaccumulation data presented in this table and the discussion of testing programs serve as the basis for the discussion of impacts presented in Section 4.0.
Comment 4. The assertion in the draft EIS that dredged material is generally described in terms of physical and chemical characteristics is inaccurate and misleading. Biological testing is also a key component of the regulatory testing procedure.
Section 1.4 of the text has been revised to reflect this point.
Comment 5. A discussion of Bulk Sediment Testing in relation to the interim guidance matrix should be provided.
Such a discussion was added to Section 1.4.
Comment 6. There is a need to group and discuss alternatives in separate Iong- and short-term categories in relation to anticipated disposal requirements.
Response 6. The alternatives are generally presented in Section 2.0 as feasible or infeasible and, whenever possible, specific factors which may change such a distinction are highlighted (e.g., Section 2.3.1.1 (el). In addition, Table 2-2 attempts to quantify the length of time for which each alternative is available by addressing specifically short- and longterm alternatives. See also Section 2.5.6. Final development, integration |
Why was getting the port of New Orleans important to the United States apex
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 wiewird Inc.
