Dredging the port : maintaining maritime facilities in New York and New Jersey Problems and options

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

LAAA-LOWS

Dredging the Port:
Maintaining Maritime Facilities
In New York and New Jersey

Problems and Options

New York State Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources
and Waterfront Revitalization

February 1, 1995

Contents
Section Page

I. The Dredging Issue ............................................ 1

A. Harborwide ............................................ 1

B. Howland Hook Terminal .................................... 1

II. Federal Laws and Regulations ..................................... 2

A. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(Ocean Dumping Act component, 33 USC 1401) ..................... 2

1. EPA Permit to Transport Dredged Material (33 USC 1412)
2. Corps Dredged Material Disposal Permit (33 USC 1413)
3. Waiver of Requirements (33 USC 1413.(d))

B. Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments) ......... 3

C. Coastal Zone Management Act
(and 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reathorization Amendment) ................. 4

III. Chronology of Events ........................................... 4

A. Harborwide Since 1970 ..................................... 4

B. Howland Hook Terminal .................................... 5

IV. Dredging Options and Ramifications .................................. 6

A. Involved Interagency Organizations .............................. 6

1. Harbor Estuary Program Manaagement Conference
2. Dredging Task Force
3. Interagency Committee
4. Bi-State Committee

B. Howland Hook Terminal .................................... 8

1. Borrow Pit Disposal
2. On-Site Upland Disposal
3. Upland Disposal
4. Contained Disposal at Piers
5. Ocean Disposal

C. Harborwide ............................................ 9

1. Disposal at the Mud Dump Site
2. Disposal at Alternative Ocean Sites
3. Disposal at Existing Borrow Pits
4. Disposal at Containment Islands
V. Recommended Action ........................................... 11

A. Howland Hook ......................................... 11

1. On-site Upland Disposal
2. Consistency Review

B. Harborwide Dredging Solutions ............................... 12

1. Near Tenn
2. Long Term

Addendum: Howland Hook Work Description

The Dredging Issue

A. Harborwide

The Port of New York and New Jersey plays a vital role in the economy of the
region, handling more general and containerized cargo than any other east coast
port. New York Harbor is not naturally deep, and rivers continuously transport and
deposit sediment, filling in navigation channels and berthing areas. To maintain the
Port for modern deep draft vessels, which draw as much as 40 feet of water, large
quantities of sediments (6 to 7 million cubic yards annually) must be dredged. A
majority of this material was, and continues to be, disposed at the Mud Dump Site
located 6 miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey and 11 miles south of Rockaway,
New York.

Ocean disposal has been the primary disposal option for materials dredged from
New York Harbor. Other disposal options in the region have generally not been
used because of the readily available and relatively low cost of ocean disposal, as
well as conflicting uses and environmental concerns associated with other
alternatives.

New York Harbor, including its many berthing areas and channels, contains
primarily fine-grained sediments which are often contaminated with heavy metals,
PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and dioxin. Depending on their concentration, these
contaminants may impact the ecosystem. Certain contaminants are
bioaccumulated in marine organisms and may biomagnify up through the food
chain and pose a threat to biota and public health. Dredging contributes to the
resuspension of these sediments. Ocean disposal exposes additional marine
organisms and habitats to these contaminants. Highly contaminated dredged
material from New York Harbor may require management (i.e. capping with clean
material) if it is disposed at the Mud Dump Site, or may be precluded from ocean
disposal.

B. Howland Hook Terminal

Howland Hook container terminal on Staten Island is leased by the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey from the City of New York. Vacant since 1986, the
Port Authority has sublet the facility to Howland Hook Container Services, Inc.
Before the terminal can open, the Port Authority must dredge 150,000 cubic yards
of sediments from the berthing area. The sediments are contaminated with dioxin
and cannot be disposed at the Mud Dump Site. An existing borrow pit in New
York Harbor, 3 miles south of Staten Island, would be used for disposal purposes.

The Port Authority claims that the requisite federal and state permit approvals must
be issued by April 1, 1995, if the terminal is to be ready to accept 60,000
containers this year. A public hearing on this dredging and disposal project is
tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1995, and will be co-sponsored by DOS and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit, if
DOS determines that the project is inconsistent with the State's Coastal
Management Program.

IL Federal Laws and RegWations

A. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act
Component, 33 USC 1401)

The Act regulates the transportation and disposal of dredged material in ocean
waters within the territorial seas of the United States (outside of the State's three-
mile territorial limit. Within the territorial limits of the State, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act applies - see B. below). The Act and its regulations
consolidated management of the transportation and disposal of dredged material
in U.S. territorial waters among four federal agencies: the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency, which jointly regulate ocean dumping; the
Coast Guard, which enforces the Act and its regulations; and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, which jointly monitors ocean disposal with EPA,
and may establish marine sanctuaries pursuant to other sections of the Act. Under
the Act, EPA designates, manages and authorizes dredged material ocean
disposal sites. The USA Corps of Engineers administers the permit process for the
use of the sites.

The Mud Dump Site has existed since 1914, and was formally designated as the
region's dredged material ocean disposal site in 1984. Most material dredged from
the New York Harbor is disposed of at this site. In 1989, EPA reported the site
had a capacity for 100 million cubic yards of dredged material. The Act requires
EPA and the Corps to investigate alternative sites in deeper water further offshore
near the Continental Shelf (> 100 miles from shore).

1. EPA Pennit to Transport Dredged Materml (33 USC 1412)

EPA issues permits to transport dredged material that is disposed into
ocean waters. Permits may be issued when disposal will not unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.

EPA may not issue permits that would result in violations of federal water
quality standards. To the extent that EPA may do so without relaxing the
statutory requirements (see discussion of waiver, below), EPA must apply
standards and criteria binding upon the United States by the International
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter, including its Annexes. The Act delegates broad

discretion to EPA in adopting permit approval criteria, but does not require
the EPA to balance the factors that are considered when deciding on an
ocean-dumping permit application (City of NY v. USEPA, DCNY 1981, 543
F. Supp. 1084).

2. Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Disposal Permit (33 USC 1413)

The Corps is authorized to issue permits for disposing dredged material in
ocean waters. The purpose of the Act is to regulate the disposal of material
in order to protect ocean waters, marine ecosystems, and public health and
safety. General standards for the issuance of permits are the same as EPA
standards for permits to transport material.

EPA and the Corps developed procedures and criteria to implement these
standards. The procedures and criteria establish categories of dredged
material, testing protocols and standards for determining whether or not
permits may be issued to transport or dispose dredged material. EPA
opposes the issuance of permits by the Corps if alternatives exist which are
technically feasible and environmentally acceptable with less overall
environmental impacts. Where testing results based on the EPA criteria
indicate acute toxicity potential, dredged material may not be disposed of
at the Mud Dump.

3. Waiver of Requirements (33 USC 1413. (d))

The Secretary of the Army may certify that there are no economically
feasible alternative methods or sites, and request EPA to waive the
requirements of the Ocean Dumping Act and allow disposal at a site which
would result in non-compliance with the Act. Within 30 days of a request
for a waiver from the COE, EPA must grant the waiver unless the
Administrator finds the dumping will result in "unacceptably adverse impacts
on...shellfish beds, wildlife, fisheries, or recreational areas".

B. Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments)

The Act and its implementation by EPA and the Corps of Engineers regulates the
discharge of all pollutants, including those resulting from dredging and the disposal
of dredged material, into the navigable waters of the United States within three
miles of the coastline (within New York's territorial limits). The purpose of the Act
is to protect water quality by regulating the discharge of pollutants into the Nation's
navigable waters, including wetlands. The dredging and disposal of dredged
material requires a permit from the Corps.

The Act also requires certification from the State (in New York this is the
Department of Environmental Conservation) in which the dredging and/or disposal
occurs that the discharges from dredging and dumping and its effects will meet the
State's water quality standards, prior to the issuance of a Corps permit.

The Act also authorizes the Corps to issue permits for the discharge of dredged
material at specified disposal sites within the State's territorial limits, such as the
proposed borrow pits off Staten Island and Coney Island. EPA may deny or
restrict the use of the disposal sites whenever it determines that the use of the
sites would result in adverse effects to water quality.

C. Coastal Zone Management Act (and 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendment)

The Act requires federal direct, funding, and regulatory approval activities within a
state's coastal area to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the state's
federally approved Coastal Management Program. The 1990 amendments to the
Act require federal activities occuring outside of the State's coastal area to be
undertaken in a manner consistent with the state program.

As part of the Corps permit application, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey is required to certify that the proposed dredging and dredged material
disposal will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the New York State
Coastal Management Program. The Department of * State must review the
application for the proposed project, determine whether the federally permitted
activity would be, or would not be consistent with the policies of the CMP, and
concur with, or object to, the Port Authority's consistency certification. If DOS
concurs with the consistency certification, the Corps may approve the project. If
DOS objects to the certification on the grounds that the project is inconsistent with
the CMP, the Corps is prohibited from approving the project. If DOS objects to the
Port Authority's consistency certification, the State's objection may be appealed to
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

III. Chronology of Events

A. Harborwide Since 1970

Since 1914, dredged material from the Port of New York and New Jersey marine
facilities has been deposited at an underwater site known as the Mud Dump Site.

The material deposited at the Mud Dump Site has included by-products of
industrial processes. Contamination of harbor sediments peaked in the 1970s,
before passage of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972. Since then sediment

quality has improved somewhat, but the ability to detect contamination has
increased greatly. Historically, of the 6 to 7 million cubic yards of material that was
dredged in the Port each year, only about 5 percent needed special treatment. it
is estimated that under new testing protocols, over 60 percent - 3 to 4 million
cubic yards will need treatment.

The Port Authority's attempt to obtain a dredging permit for its Port Newark/Port
Elizabeth facilities provides insight into the difficulties of dredging marine facilities.
On April 11, 1990, the Port Authority submitted an application to the Corps of
Engineers to dredge facilities in New Jersey. Over the course of the next three
years, the permits became a test case over the handling of dioxin (in this case a
by-product of the defoliant Agent Orange) in dredged spoil.

In the winter of 1993, the Port Authority received approval to dredge from the
Corps of Engineers, but the permits were blocked by the Environmental Protection
Agency pending further tests. In the Spring of 1994, after the costs of the project
rose from $3 million to $17 million, dredging was eventually approved at 29 of the
62 sites in the original permit. In the course of the protracted review, it is not
known how much ship traffic was diverted to other ports, but the Port Authority
estimates losses were substantial.

B. Howland Hook Terminal

The 187 acre Howland Hook facility was purchased by the City of New York in the
1970s as part of its effort to maintain maritime facilities in New York City. Since the
container revolution - packing freight into 20 or 40 foot shipping containers -
began in earnest in the 1960s, New York has steadily lost business to New Jersey
facilities. Howland Hook was operated by the U.S. flag shippers, the United States
Line until 1986, when the business fell into bankruptcy.

The facility remained idle until 1991, when the Port Authority, lessee of the
property, submitted an application to the Corps of Engineers to dredge at this site.
The Port Authority put its dredging plans on hold pending the outcome of its Port
Elizabeth/Port Newark permit applications.

To allow the terminal to accomodate deep draft vessels about 150,000 cubic yards
of mud must be removed. Sediments at the terminal were tested for contaminants
in 1988 and 1991 and passed. The most recent tests, conducted late in 1994
under a new protocol involving marine organisms known as amphipods,
determined that the sediments were actually above toxicity levels suitable for ocean
dumping.

The Port Authority has investigated near-shore borrow pits off Staten Island and
Coney Island as potential disposal sites, but is presently focusing on the existing

borrow pits (CAC Pit) in New York Harbor south of Staten Island. The Port
Authority and Corps of Engineers argue that these pits can provide a secure
depository for the sediments. While there is support for opening the terminal, the
public and elected officials in Brooklyn and Staten Island have remained adamant
in their opposition to placing contaminated dredge spoil in the borrow pits.

IV. Dregging Options and Ramifleations

A. Involved Interagency Organizations

In addition to the agencies and their legal responsibilities described above, the
followinginter-agency groups are also involved in this issue:

1. Harbor Estuary Prognwn Manaagement Conference

Under the general direction of the federal Environmental Protection Agency
a plan for conservation and management of the New York Bight has been
evolving. The plan, called the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP), is in its draft stages. The Department of State
as well as the Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Department of Environmental Protection in New Jersey have been involved
in its development. One chapter of the plan deals with dredging and
dredged material disposal in New York Harbor. The material on dredging
and its disposal was crafted by selected members of the Dredged Material
Management Forum, a group of federal agencies - notably EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - state agencies from New York and New
Jersey, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and other
commercial interests in the Port, environmental groups, and fishing
associations brought together in June 1993 to develop solutions to the
dredging and disposal problems in the Harbor. The Forum has been folded
into the organizational structure of the Harbor Estuary Program (HEP)
Management Conference, that is dealing with several water quality related
issues in New York Harbor and Bight. The Department of State's Coastal
Management Program has representatives on the Forum, and on three of
its six workgroups, carrying out the tasks being addressed by the Forum,
and on the HEP management committee.

2. New Jersey Dredging Task Force

Governor Whitman of New Jersey created a task force on dredging issues.
The task force report is to be released at the beginning of February 1995.
The report's principal recommendation will be construction of a fourteen

million cubic yard subaqueous disposal pit and confined disposal facility in
Newark Bay next to the Port Authority's Port Newark piers. There appears
to be considerable support - from City of Newark officials, the State of New
Jersey, the Port Authority, as well as various environmental and fishing
interests, for such a disposal option in that location. The idea of such a
large disposal facility has blossomed from a suggestion in the Fall of 1993
to try such disposal in a smaller 60,000 cubic yard Newark Bay pilot
subaqueous pit. The support for a disposal pit in Newark Bay seems to
stem from the belief that the contaminated material would be contained
close to where it would be dredged, would be at an easily identifiable site,
and would be retrievable at a future date when improved technology would
allow it to be decontaminated in some way.

The question arises as to whether or not material to be dredged in the
future on the New York side of the Harbor would be eligible to be placed
in such a pit wholly within New Jersey waters. Informal communication with
the Port Authority indicates New Jersey would not be receptive to this
option.

3. Interagency Committee

In New York State, Governor Cuomo created an Interagency Committee On
Dredging to coordinate with New Jersey, and federal legislators, and with
key New York State constituents and interest groups on this matter. The
Committee, composed of representatives from the Governor's office and the
following state agencies (DOS, DED, DOT, DEC, OGS, and Labor) met only
once, on September 27, 1994. Discussion at that meeting included the
recommendation that the Committee's mission should include the
formulation of policy relative to the Port's future and dredging and disposal
activities in the Harbor.

4. Bi-State Committee

Through concurrent legislation, the States of New York and New Jersey
created a bi-state group known as the Clean Ocean and Shore Trust
(COAST). COAST is co-chaired by state legislators from each state. The
New York chair is held by Senator Marchi. Its purpose is to address issues
in the waters shared by New York and New Jersey. The group, which has
only met once, on December 12, 1994, designated four committees:
Science & Technology; Water Quality; Fishing & Aquaculture, and;
Dredging. Members of the Dredging Committee from New York are:
Senator Marchi; George Stafford of DOS; Roberta Weisbrod of DEC, and;
Lou Nage.

B. Howland Hook Terminal

1. Borrow Pit Disposal

The Port Authority has submitted a permit application to the Corps of
Engineers, NYS DEC, and NYS DOS to dredge 150,000 cubic yards of
material at the Howland Hook Terminal on Staten Island with disposal to
take place at an existing borrow pit, (the CAC pit) about three miles
southeast of Staten Island. The proposal is to deposit 75,000 cubic yards
of contaminated material in the southern part of the pit. The remaining
75,000 cubic yards of contaminated material to be dredged would be placed
in geotextile bags and deposited at the same site. All of the dredged
material would be capped with cleaner material. The theory is that the
borrow pit sides would in conjunction with the capping material contain the
contaminated material indefinitely. A court decision in the 1980s enjoined
the Port Authority from using the CAC pit for depositing dredged material.
The DEC water quality certificate which had been granted was rescinded.
There is considerable opposition to the use of the CAC pit from
environmentalists, who see the plan as having serious negative impacts on
the fish resource, and by political leaders in NYC, particularly in Staten
Island, who feel that the CAC pit is much too close to the Staten Island
shoreline.

2. On-Site Upland Disposal

The 187 acre Howland Hook Terminal site is large enough to accomodate
the placement of 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material on its upland
side. If properly dewatered and contained upland,the material proposed to
be dredged could be safely stored. However, there is some question as to
whether or not the material would be considered a hazardous material or
solid waste and if placing it upland would necessitate permits from the
federal government under provisions of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and/or Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as well as permits from DEC.

3. Off-Site Upland Disposal

The contaminated dredge material could be exported overland or by sea to
another state. A plan had been set forth in the past to send dredged
materials to Pennsylvania, but the governor of that state vetoed the
proposal. No out of state disposal sites have been identified. Transportation
of such contaminated or hazardous material over long distances, particularly
overland, would be expensive.

4. Contained Disposal at Piers

Disposing dredged material behind barriers, for instance sheet piling,
around and between abandoned piers was set forth in a December 1989
publication of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York District entitled
Managing Dredged Material. This means contaminated dredge material
disposal would have the advantage of providing additional land, perhaps
even buildable land, and might avoid the necessity of having to procure
numerous federal and state permits. It might also offer the advantage of a
short-term solution for relatively modest amounts of dredge material. The
disadvantage would be that such inter-pier space would be lost for the
purposes for which the pier complexes were constructed, maritime
commerce.

5. Ocean Disposal

The Mud Dump Site in the Atlantic Ocean, may only be used for the
disposal of relatively clean material (Category I and 11). The approximately
two (2) square mile area site and a surrounding area of approximately
twenty (20) square miles, referred to as the historical dumping area has
been the most commonly used area for disposal of Category I and
Category 11 dredged material. Category III (the most contaminated material
which is found at Howland Hook) cannot be dumped at the Mud Dump Site.
The standards and criteria for designating the three categories will be
revised by the Dredged Material Management Forum and EPA. The new
standards and criteria will be more stringent. Higher proportions of the
materials to be dredged in New York Harbor will be designated as Category
11 and Category 111.

C. Harborwide

1 . Disposal at the Mud Dump Site

In the long run disposal of dredged material (Category I and 11) at the Mud
Dump Site or at the expanded Mud Dump Site (the existing site plus the
approximately twenty (20) square mile contiguous area) may prove to be a
partial solution to the problem. EPA is embarking on the development of a
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement on future use of the
Mud Dump Site which it plans on completing in mid-1996. The
approximately twenty-two (22) square mile area has a finfte and not overly
large capacity to take additional dredge material, given all the material that
has been placed there over the years and the need to maintain a
reasonable depth over the material to allow the safe passage of ever larger
ocean-going ships. Commercial and recreational fishing interests are

opposed to future dumping at the site and are in favor of remediation or
even restoration of the site. Environmental groups are opposed to further
dumping in the ocean. Governor Whitman also appears opposed to
continued ocean dumping.

2. Disposal at Alternative Ocean Sites

Another alternative for the disposal of dredged materials is dumping the
material twenty (20) or more miles at sea. This would be approximately
fourteen (14) miles farther from shore than the Mud Dump Site and, given
the large width of the continental shelf off the east coast of the U.S., would
be in relatively shallow water. This site, if designated by the EPA - no such
designation has taken place - would be far from New York's and New
Jersey's heavily populated coast. However, many environmental groups,
committed to cleaning up the oceans, would likely be opposed. Fishing
associations might or might not be opposed. Deeper water with greater
wave energy would present the transporting scows with additional operating
problems. Also, there would be greater likelihood of the dispersion of the
dumped material, and, therefore, the probability of more widespread
environmental damage. In addition, the costs of transporting the dredged
material over greater distances would increase the costs.

3. Disposal at Existing Borrow Pits

The Corps of Engineers New York District is seeking New York State's
approval for use of one of the many existing borrow pits (pits scooped out
of the bed of the Harbor for sandmining) for disposing of contaminated
dredged material, including the most contaminated Category III material.
The Corps applied to DEC for a water quality certificate for the use of
borrow pit #6, located less than two miles off Coney Island. The Corps
claims that disposing of contaminated harbor sediments in borrow pits
within the Harbor would have the following advantages: reduction of
transport costs; lessen the dispersion of contained material while being
dropped through the -water column; lower wave energy resulting in more
secure containment in the pits, and; use natural depressions which in
conjunction with capping could contain the material. The disadvantages of
this proposal by the COE revolve around the proximity of most of the pits
to the heavily populated shores of the metropolitan area. The use of
borrow pit #6 off Coney Island and the CAC pit off Staten Island has been
opposed by local and state officials, civic organizations, and private citizens
in the' New York metropolitan area. Fishing interests as well as
environmental interests are opposed on the grounds that the pits harbor
rich marine life.

4. Disposal at Containment Islands

Placement of dredged materials in specifically constructed containment
areas attached to the shoreline (similar to but much larger than the disposal
between piers) or in containment islands built offshore has been advanced
as a long-range option. Such a facility, particularly if built some distance
offshore, would be removed from the heavily populated coastal area. Once
filled, the facility could serve other uses (e.g. cargo transfer or power
generation). Dispersion of contaminated material through the water column
would not take place, because the material would be placed behind
constructed walls or dikes. Similarly, transport of contaminated material
across the floor of the Harbor or the ocean would not take place because
the walls or dikes would prevent such migration. Support from local officials
and the various environmental and fishing interests could be expected.
However, the costs of constructing such containment islands would be
significant as would be the time of construction, especially if the islands
were to be of large size.

Recommended Action

A. Howland Hook

1. On-site Upland Disposal

Given the opposition to the use of borrow pits by local and state elected officials,
New York State could press for the most expeditious solution to dispose of
150,000 cubic yards of dredged material, on-site upland disposal. This must be
considered as a one-time solution to the terminal's dredging needs. New York
State needs to determine if this alternative is feasible. To accomplish this quickly,
the following steps need to be taken:

a. DOS legal and coastal program staff will review the federal and state
technical and procedural requirements that govern the placement of
contaminated dredged material at the site. Staff will determine if these
requirements would seriously delay the proposed dredging activity.

b. DOS staff could meet with elected officials from Staten Island to
explore the issues of on-site containment of dredged material. Staff
will determine if there are any issues that would seriously delay the
proposed dredging activity.

2. Consistency Review

In the event that on-site upland disposal cannot be achieved, DOS would
coordinate its consistency review of borrow pit disposal with DEC (for water
quality purposes), so that a consistency decision could be reached as early
as possible in the project review period.

B. Harborwide Dredging Solutions

1. Near Term

DOS could request Governor Pataki to establish a New York Harbor
dredging task force and charge it with the responsibility for recommending
short term and intermediate term (up to 10 years) options for disposal of
contaminated dredged material.

a. Composition: DOS, DEC, OGS, DOT, DED

b. Study Duration: 6 months.

C. Study design: include cost estimates and funding sources; siting
considerations; regulatory bottlenecks and identify an entity
responsible for site management.

2. Long Term

New York's marine facilities at Howland Hook in Staten Island and Red
Hook in Brooklyn represent alternatives to the present port configuration.
New York State could conduct a needs analysis for New York Harbor to
explore how dredging can be avoided or minimized through reconfiguring
marine facilities. Specifically, the proposed study will target the maritime
industry in New York Harbor and examine dredging and containment
strategy, rail (intermodal) connections and warehouse development.

Addendum
Howland Hook Work Program

WORK DESCRIPTION
HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL

The applicant, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
proposes to maintenance-dredge the Howland Hook Marine Terminal by clamshell
bucket with barge overflow. Approximately 150,000 cubic yards of material
would be dredged from the facility on the Arthur Kill in the Borough of
Staten Island, Richmond County, New York, to maximum depths of 35 and 40 feet
below the plane of mean low water (MLW), with-two feet of allowable over-
depth, as shown on the attached drawings. The two contiguous dredge areas
have a total length of approximately 2,500 feet and a width of approximately
145 feet. The stated purpose of the proposed project is to re-establish
prior water depths to allow for the revitalization of the Howland Hook Marine
Terminal as a major container terminal in New York State with an annual
capacity of 300,000 containers, providing approximately 250 direct jobs,
indirectly supporting another 1,450 jobs while generating $230 million in
total economic activity.

The applicant proposes to dispose of the dredged material in a
subaqueous borrow pit in lower New York Bay, Richmond County, New York, in a
location on the west side of Chapel Hill Channel, approximately 6,000 feet
south of the West Bank Light and 3.5 nautical miles seaward of the nearest
shore point on Staten Island, New York (see attached Drawing No. 2 of 3).
This pit is commonly known as the CAC Pit. Subaqueous borrow pits are
irregularly shaped, sea floor depressions caused by sand and gravel mining,
typically for construction material and beach nourishment. The use of
subaqueous borrow pits for dredged material disposal has been the subject of
extensive study by the New York District Corps of Engineers, culminating in a
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision
wherein the Corps of Engineers, with a U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service), The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (National Marine Fisheries Service), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency concluded that use of subaqueous borrow pits
for disposal of dredged material is the environmentally preferred
alternative.

As part of this project, the applicant proposes to demonstrate the
operational utility of geotextile bags as a method for minimizing sea floor
spread of dredged material which would thereby reduce the amount of clean
material needed to cap the dredged material because of its reduced lateral
movement. An additional benefit to be demonstrated by the use of geotextile
bags is the diminution of water column loss of dredged material as it moves
from the bottom of the barge to the bottom of the pit. The final aspect of
this demonstration project is to provide the opportunity for an evaluation of
the precision with which geotextile bags can be placed on the bottom so that
consideration can be given to the future use of geotextile bags for the
construction of subaqueous berms, as a cover material, and as structural
elements in large fill projects.

The applicant proposes to bottom dump the initial 75,000 cubic
yards into the southernmost portion of the pit using conventional bottom
dumping without geotextile bags followed by disposal of the balance of the
material in geotextile bags in an array which optimizes consolidation and
immobilization of the underlying material. The material will be placed in a
portion of the pit which is delineated by the southern wall of the CAC pit
and a 500-feet wide berm which creates a small pocket at the end of the pit
rising from the 40 feet below MLW contour (see Drawing No. 3 of 3).

a N

0, ae-
RZA

-0-t-AMO 1400K

,aq,oc
Ex
, Z
7.r
ol I
CZJ(. ceorrr :100 0 X)o
1z,
sc-l-C. 1. Tos.
VICItqlrrY MAP : .
F!Rc@ c.a ;.s. . /rV7

ESTIMATED OUANTITIES
tAAjNTLNAHr_c DREDC"NO
Z.,
Vo i.:@o.ooo ai-yoz-OF ZEDIMENT
0 TO RE 0fZ?0_'!ED
0 ATTI-E CAC PIT
PURPOSE
wA*am4,mcc ce eacnvma Aj%--A To

r
NOTE: 0 500
REMOVE MUD 70 PROVIDE A STABLE SIDE SLOPE.
CALE 04 FeE I

a. rvqlm@ 4

TO e@fv(_)40 _Z
Corlo"
CLcy: _.@;j
CLcy -0

SECTION A-A

OATUM:. ML.L-W-

37.5 TYPICAL SOUNDING THE PORT AUTHORITY
MAINTENANCE DREDGE AREA OF
SHOWN AS (-)40-+?- NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY
MAINTENANCE DREDGE TO HOWLAND HOOK-MARINE TERMINAL
H 35'+ Z AS SHOWN
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
ADJ: PROPERTY OVINERS W: AR n 4 .A KiLL
AT: 300 AE3T0:L-4 AVE. iTArO-l
NORTH' CoWry: Rf04-0e-Q JrATE: tkFW YO,-,,
7_!@A

SOUTH:
SHEET 1 OF 3. DATE: 1-10-95.

f4'JE11scy Upper
11 It say A-

B rook I yvi

Staten Illy
Is I a lid
'A Den i c t t
Field
Gly
47

Coney

lo 0 n.L.

A T L A H T I C

AC PIT 0 C C A u
Point

r
DispbsAL
Sim

@001
ch

Point 20 37-
Cca(ort
N 19
22

0 20
01,
ri 17,. 'S.
Sindy Book 7
40
03y 6
47 18 1
32 4
c1ford .f 20 @)
NEWJE SEY 454 G
17 32 o"Sn C
19 (17 ff ... P)
Borrow R
11 52' N
/41 Areo -
11 2, '3
20 37 G 2)

20 25
u
THE PORT AUTHORITY
LH: Nqn@" KILL
AT 340-0 %@,3TERS AVE. 3TATEN 1=_-0 OF
COL,n-: P.,C.-0@0 3TArc: -EW ycw4x
NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY
LOCATION PLAN HOWLAND HOOK-MARINE TERMINAL
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
s= 2 OF 3. DATE: 1-10-95.

C#3 3
(GO 17,.

eER&j PLACE
D B y
co-,P!: (GEE.1981)

MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
0
'A

Cu I I

PLAN VIEW OF BORROW PIT Af

SCALE: 1"=1500' !;A

BERM PLACED ElY
CORPS IDEC.1981). 3' Sand Cap

_10- E,
-20-
-:3 0 BottoM
40
-So
77
60
DREDGED MA=IAL: 6' High llo@ndlof Dredge
HCkqLAND HOOK APPX. 150,000 Cy. Materiai.

vAw IFA
CROSS SECTION 'A' 'A'

SC.kLE: 1 "=200'

THE PORT AUJ'T@@RITY
OF 1 Fwasting.
7- .@O@ttolu

PIAN AND SECTION NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY
HOWLAND HOOK-MARINE TERMINAL
IMAINTENANCE DREDGING
DATUM: M. L. W. SHEEr 3 Or 3. DATE: 1-10-95.

I 40AA COA6TAL ERVICES CTII L113RAIIY
3 6668 14111882 0