Long Island Sound studies dredged material containment facilities

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

Long Island Sound Studies
Feasibility Report

Public Review Draft

Dredged Material
Contain ent

TC
4233
L66
19
85

JUNE 1985
-A@iJ

US Army Corps
of Engineers
New England Division

LONG ISLAND SOUND STUDIES

DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITIES

Feasibility Report

New England Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waltham, MA

June 1985

SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The coastal resources and their accessibility have shaped the development
patterns of the Long Island Sound (LIS) region and have contributed sig-
nificantly to its economic well-being and recreational enjoyment. The
ports and harbors and waterfront facilities which serve the shipping and
boating industries have historically played a major role throughout the
region's development. Currently, the extent and nature of today's
shipping have evolved to the point where heavy reliance is placed on safe
and unimpeded access to port facilities. In most cases, this level of
service is contingent on dredging. The States of Connecticut and New York
have taken the position that dredging must continue as needed if the ports
and.harbors are to retain their prominence in handling waterborne commerce
and recreational boating traffic. However, this is not to imply that
dredging and accompanying disposal is being permitted at any cost - either
economically or environmentally.

Over the years, the dredging and disposal of dredged material have evolved
into carefully planned and monitored procedures under the ever increasing
watchfulness of Federal and State agencies and the public. Nevertheless,-
even after 100 years of management-of this program in LIS, it remains a
very controversial issue. In this period, dredging interests have seen-
disposal options narrow to a closely regulated situation today which has
directed the majority of dredged material-disposal to four open-water
sites in Long Island Sound. Historical records from 1961 to 1979 i-ndicate
70 percent of disposal was at open-water sites, with the remaining 30
percent at land disposal areas.

It was because of the continuing evaluation of disposal policy and the
persistent controversy over both open water and land disposal that the LIS
congressional interests requested the Corps to study the feasibility of
dredged material containment facilities in the Sound. Accordingly, the
Corps initiated the study in FY78 and during its course has:

1. Examined the past and future dredging and disposal needs in the
region and estimated that 60 million cubic yards of dredged material from
LIS harbors must be dealt with over the next 50 years.

2. Developed procedures and criteria for identifying and screening
potential sites. Identified factors considered to be most important,
include:

Site Bathymetry/available containment volume
Shoreline ownership
Significant wetlands and ecological areas
Major public beaches
Wave energy
Land ownership compatibility/reuse potential.

3. Examined the coastal and offshore areas of LIS for potential.
containment facilities. This process alone identified and evaluated over
300 potential sites for containment facilities.

4. Addressed many potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts
that are related to containment.

5. Performed detailed engineering, economic and environmental
studies on selected prototype sites to test the feasibility of
constructing a containment facility in the LIS environment.

6. Initiated a public involvement effort through a program of
brochures, workshops, media appearances, public appearances and maximum
availability and exposure to the public.

7. Examined policy issues related to containment.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF CONTAINMENT FACILITIES

Whereas the concept of containment facilities for dredged material
disposal has been widely accepted in other parts of the United States and
other parts of the world it has not seen widespread use in the'LIS
region. In other parts of the nation, especially at mid-and southern
Atlantic ports and in the Great Lakes, containment facilities have been
used for economical and environmentally acceptable disposal of dredged
material. Facilities such as Craney Island in Norfolk Harbor, Virginia;
Dickinson Island on Lake St. Claire and the Pt. Mouille facility in
Michigan; and the Hart and Miller Island site in Maryland are a few, of the
many sites where joint federal and local interests have built successful
containment facilities. Consequently, the LIS coastal community initially
greeted the concept of dredged material containment with enthusiasm,
viewing it as a potential supplement to open water disposal in specific
situations where environmentally and/or economically advantageous and to
gain productive use of material.

The disposal of dredged material in LIS, at both land or open water sites,
remains environmentally controversial. NED is presently achieving a high
level of success in minimizing environmental impacts from open-water
disposal, but along with other agencies and environmental interests.,
continues to press for further evidence of the effectiveness of disposal
operations as well as the potential long range impacts. As absolute
answers are not available, these are topics of significant study by the
Corps. Although containment is not able to offer assurances of no impact,
under certain conditions it may provide a more acceptable means of
disposal.

It is Corps policy to seek maximum practicable benefits through productive
use of the materials dredged from the nation's ports and harbors, provided
such use is in the public interest. Potential uses may include creation
of wetlands, nourishment of beaches, erosion control and land reclamation.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Planning Division
Basin Management Branch July 3, 1985

To Interested Parties:

Enclosed for your review are the draft feasibility report for
the Long Island Sound Dredged Material Containment Study and accompany-
ing public announcement.

Any comments that you may have pertaining to the report should be
sent within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter to:

Division Engineer
New England Division
U. S. Army Corps of.Engineers,'
Attn: NEDPL-BC
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254

Sincerely,

se 1. 1 10
hie Pl-anni Div@sion

Enclosures
Ise 1 10
i
_jh e +ianniDiva@@

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149

REPLY TO
AT-rENTION OF
NEDPL-BC. July 3, 1985

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
COMPLETION OF STUDY OF
DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAINMENT
FOR LONG ISLAND SOUND

The Corps of Engineers has completed a study which examined
the feasibility of constructing containment facilities for the
disposal of dredged materials in Long Island Sound. The results
of the study are presented in a draft feasibility report which is
currently available for review by Federal, State and local
interests.

The study was conducted in response to a Congressional
Resolution adopted on 10 May 1977 by the House Committee on
Public Works and Transportation'. The study of containment
facilities, considered to be a possible alternative disposal
method, received widespread support from Long Island Sound
environmental groups and marine transportation interests.

Over 300 potential containment sites in the New York and
Connecticut waters of Long-Island Sound were identified during
the study. These sites were screened for technical, environmental
and social criteria to indicate*t'he most promising sites. Public
participation played an important role in evaluating the sites
and adapting plans to meet local conditions, desires and
concerns. The study verified that the public and resource
agencies feel very strongly toward protecting environmental
resources that are present along the Long Island Sound coastline.
In many cases, siting of a containment facility was rejected
because of environmental resources -especially shellfish areas.

The plan formulation process, which included site
identification, site screening, economic and environmental
considerations and public review, identified five potential
containment sites which were evaluated in more detail as
prototype sites. The five sites were :

1. Clinton Harbor - Marsh creation site.

2. Black Ledge - Island Creation site for use as a
regional disposal area.

3. Milford Harbor - Shoreline extension site for use by
local harbor.

4. Penfield Reef - Shoreline extension site for use as
a regional disposal area.

5. Sherwood "Role" - Aqueous borrow pit.

The findings of the detailed studies indicated that filling
at the Sherwood site and at the other aqueous borrow areas could
be advantageous. However, at the other diked containment- areas,
the study concluded that under present conditions containment was
not a feasible alternative.

Of the sites studied in detail,"Clinton Harbor initially
exhibited the highest degree of positive results. The project
competed favorably economically, could provide environmental
benefits, and generated public support. However, the project
would conflict with Federal barrier beach legislation, local
aquaculture plans, and the state designated natural area at
Hammonassett State Park-and is not being recommended.

While the general finding of this study indicates a lack of
feasibility of containment on a Long Island Sound-wide basis and
no visible role for the Federal government, it does conclude that
local interests may determine that construction of containment
facilities may be feasible on a case-by-case basis. Also, the
data and reports generated by.this study will provide useful
guidance and information for future considerations.

For the interim, disposal of the bulk of dredged material in
LIS will continue at four designated open water sites. These
regional disposal areas are the Central Long Island Sound site
off New Haven, The Cornfield Shoals site off the Connecticut
River, the New London site off the Thames River, and the newly
designated (1982.) Western MIS III) site off South Norwalk. All
four sites are being closely monitored by the New England
Division, Corps of Engineers through its Disposal Area Monitoring
System, commonly known as DAMOS. Monitoring of these carefully
controlled open-water disposal areas as well as any land disposal
activities have to date revealed insignificant or acceptable
impacts. Because of this, there is general institutional and
private support for their use.

Written communication related to this announcement should be
mailed within 30 days of the date of this announcement to:

Division Engineer
ATTN: NEDPL-BC
New England Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149

If you know of any other persons who may be interested in
this subject, please give them the foregoing information.

Carl B. Sciple
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Division Engineer

In specific cases, disposal of dredged material at containment facilities
may offer economic advantages to the Federal Government and local
interests when compared to disposal at one of the currently designated
open-water sites. In LIS where the number of open water disposal areas
has been reduced from 19 to 4 and the use of land disposal restricted, the
costs ass ociated with increased transportation distances has placed
considerable economic pressure on private marina owners and small dredging
companies. Faced with increased cost, these interests are not able to
achieve the economies of scale available to the Federal Government and
other large operations.

STUDY FINDINGS

The containment study identified over 300 potential containment sites in
the New York and Connecticut waters of LIS. From this large number of
sites, five were identified as being deserving of more detailed
investigation and represent the basis of this report. The five sites
include: Clinton Harbor, Black Ledge, Penfield Reef, Milford Harbor and
Sherwood Hole. Many other sites exhibiting still higher rankings-for
technical feasibility were the subjects of intense local opposition for
social or environmental reasons which eliminated them from further
consideration.

CLINTON HARBOR

The Clinton Harbor containment proposal was formulated as a marsh creation
site adjacent to the Clinton Harbor federal navigation channel and local
boating facilities. The $2 million containment site could store up to one
million cubic yards of dredged material and meet the local disposal needs
for up to 25 years. Under these conditions dredged material could be
pumped directly into the containment facility with a-low-cost hydraulic
dredging operation which makes this site economically competitive with
other disposal options despite the costs to construct the containment
dikes.

The proposed facility abuts Hammonasset State Park and the Cedar Island
spit area which is a designated coastal barrier beach. As such this
designation restricts federal participation and limits development
activity in general. However, environmental benefits could be realized as
the marsh is filled and planted with wetland vegetation, which would add
to the existing Hammonasset wetland areas.

BLACK LEDGE

The Black Ledge site was formulated as a large offshore island which could
accommodate the dredged material disposal needs for the eastern Connect-
icut coastal area, from Niantic Harbor eastward, for up to 50 years. With
a capacity of 7.5 million cubic yards, the facility would require about
9200 feet of dike constructed in 5 to 35 feet of water at an estimated
cost of $40 million. This cost level makes the facility economically
infeasible.

It would be possible to create wetland areas as the facility is filled.
However, the Black Ledge site is presently a productive habitat area
supporting a diversity of species with dense concentration of blue
mussels. The environmental impacts and unfavorable economics currently
make this site infeasible.

PENFIELD REEF

The Penfield Reef containment facility was considered at two
configurations at the site of an eroded peninsula off the town of Fair-
field coast. The original was an $8 million facility holding about: one
million cubic yards of dredged material. As such the facility could
accommodate the disposal needs for the Bridgeport area through hydraulic
dredging operations with the help of booster pumps for distances beyond a
mile. Alternatively, the*outer portion of the peninsula could be widened
to accommodate up to 4 million cubic yards for $8.6 million. This larger
facility could serve regional disposal needs. Because of the first cost
neither alternative is economically feasible.

The major drawbacks of a site here center around environmental concerns.
The Penfield Reef area is considered an environmentally productive habitat
area supporting a large, diverse population of species. While the
containment facility would have habitat value of its own and could be
sited to avoid the highest value existing habitat, the overall impact
would be negative.

The town of Fairfield is interested in a containment facility at this
location, not primarily as a disposal area, but as a structure which could
provide protection from waves and beach erosion.

MILFORD HARBOR

The Milford Harbor containment proposal was sited at the mouth of Milford
Harbor adjacent to the federal navigation channel. A one quarter million
cubic yard facility could be constructed for about $2.6 million and could
handle disposal needs for Milford Harbor for up to 50 years. Considerable
savings could be realized from possible use of a hydraulic dredging
operation but not enough to offset the costs of the containment facility.
Other drawbacks include the close proximity of the town's Gulf Beach
facility. Environmental sampling at nearby areas indicate that this area
is not particularly productive and major environmental impacts would not
be expected.

SHERWOOD ROLE

Sherwood Hole is representative of aqueous borrow pits that exist along
the coast of LIS. Unlike the other containment sites examined by this
study these areas already exist and would entail no construction costs.
The isolated nature of these borrow pits has generally resulted in an
anoxic environment which supports only reduced numbers and species of

life. If these areas were to be filled, the environment would more
resemble that of the surrounding area. Future use as a disposal area is a
worth-while consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is controversy surrounding disposal of dredged material there
is an overriding general acceptance of current disposal options-namely
open water disposal at four designated sites and land disposal whenever
possible. Findings of this study reveal that under present conditions
containment does not offer a feasible alternative for the disposal of
dredged material in Long Island Sound and, in general, containment does
not compete favorably with other disposal options. However, such a
finding does not rule out the need or desirability for others to continue
consideration of containment on a case-by-case basis. This study has
concluded that evaluation factors of economics, environment, and public
support rule out widespread reliance on containment for the disposal of
dredged material in LIS.

In retrospect, the findings of this study provide insight into long
standing questions concerning the feasibility and applicability of dredged
material containment studies in LIS. Directly it provides the response to
the 1977 Congressional Resolution which authorized this study to determine
the feasibility of containment. The study also responds to long standing,
open ended questions raised by two earlier publications: namely the
Interim Plan for Disposal of Dredged Material in LIS (NERBC, 1980) and the
Programmatic EIS for Disposal of Dredged Material in the LIS Region (Corps
of Engineers, .1982). Both documents gave approval to open water disposal
and deferred questions regarding the feasibility of containment to
completion of this study.

While the general finding of this study indicates a lack of feasibility of
containment on an LIS-wide basis and no visible role for the federal
government, as stated above, it does conclude that local interests may
determine that it may be feasible on a case-by-case basis. This report
and the following supplemental data reports generated by this study will
provide useful guidance and information for future considerations.

Reconnaissance Report (1979)
Site Screening Report Interim (July 1980)
Site Screening Report Addendum (January 1981)
Workshop Digest - (1981)
Market User Survey - (August 1981)
Social and Economic Impacts - (September 1981)
Geology and Design Considerations (April 1982, October
1982, November 1982,
April 1984 and August
1984)
Environmental Assessment October 1982
Island Shoal Screening February 1983

Progress Report (February 1983)
Environmental Baseline Data for Clinton Harbor (March 1982)
Environmental Baseline Data for Black Ledge (March 1982)
Benthic Algae and Fauna of Clinton, CT. (June 1982)
Ecological Surveys of Penfield Reef and
Milford Harbor (Movember 1982)
Wave Energy Analysis and Sediment
Transport Study at Clinton Harbor (February 1983)
Analysis and Site Evaluation at Black Ledge,
Penfield Reef and Sherwood Borrow Pit (May 1984)
Benthic Sampling from Mamaroneck Harbor (July 1984)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Planning Aid Letters (1980, 1982, 1984, 1985)

Each of these reports either has been provided or is available for public
use.

In addition to the above sources of data and analysis, the study process
gave to the LIS coastal community the opportunity to discuss the pros and
cons of containment facilities and an opportunity to choose an alternative
to current disposal practices.

CONTENTS

11ae

Summary
Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
I. Introduction
Background
Current Disposal Plan
Purpose and Scope
Study Authority
Study Area

II. Related Reports and Programs 7
Prior Reports
Dredged Material Containment Study
Supplemental Data Reports

III. The Role of the Public During the Study 15
Public Involvement Program
-Agency Coordination
Participation in Plan Formulation

IV. Historical and Projected Dredging Activity 19
(Needs And Opportunities)
Historical Dredging
Projections of Dredged Material Quantity
Characteristics of Materials Dredged in LIS Waterways

V. Regulations and Policy Pertaining to Dredging and Disposal 27
The Regulatory Process
Dredged Material Disposal

VI. Plan Formulation 31
Objectives
Site Identification
Selection of Sites for Further Investigation

VII. Detailed Analysis of Prototype Sites 45
Clinton Harbor 45
Black Ledge 55
Penfield Reef 62
Milford Harbor 69
Sherwood Borrow Pit 75

VIII.Conclusions and Recommendations 78
Conclusions
Recommendations

LIST OF TABLES

Table. Description 2&e

I Federal Projects on Long Island Sound 20

2 Disposal Methods in Long Island Sound 21

3 Summary of Projected Dredged Material Quantities 23

4 Environmental Statutes 28

5 Sites Considered in Reconnaissance Study 33

6 Site Identification and Screening Procedure 35

7 Dredged Material Disposal Needs - Clinton Harbor 47

8 Construction Materials - Clinton 50

9 Clinton Harbor Containment Facility - Costs 51

10 Dredged Disposal Needs - Eastern Connecticut 57

11 Construction Materials - Black Ledge 58

12 Black Ledge - Cost by Alternative 59

13 Distance to Alternative Disposal Sites - Penfield 63

14 Penfield - Potential Contributors and Volumes 65

15 Penfield - Costs by Disposal Alternative 66

16 Milford Harbor - Dredged Material Disposal Needs 70

17 Construction Materials - Milford 72

18 Milford Harbor - Costs by Disposal Alternative 74

19 Sherwood Borrow Pit Dredged Material Disposal Needs 75

20 Sites Selected for Individual Investigation 80

21 Prototype sites selected for Detailed Analysis 83

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

I Conceptual Diagram of a Containment Area 3

2 LIS Map 5

3 Sites Selected for Individual Investigation 44

4 Clinton Harbor 48

5 Black Ledge 56

6 Pentield Shoals 64

7 Milford Harbor 71

8 Sherwood Island Borrow Pit 77

ATTACHMENT

I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report
(Review of Draft Feasibility Report)

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Long Island Sound has been used for the disposal of dredged material and
other urban-industrial wastes for more than 100 years. The management of
these disposal activities in the sound began in 1888 when the Port
Supervisors Act prohibited disposal outside of designated areas. Since
then, 20 open water sites as well as many more land sites have been used
for dredged material disposal.

While dredging and disposal of dredged material in the sound continue to
be closely scrutinized and in some cases curtailed completely, the need
for such disposal has not diminished. Dredging is critical to the
maintenance of the region's commercial and recreational harbors, partic-
ularly if they are to retain their prominence in handling waterborne
commerce and an ever increasing recreational boating need. The disposal
of dredged material is being managed to reflect a combination of
environmental, social and economic factors.

CURRENT DISPOSAL PLAN

The issues surrounding the disposal of dredged material continue to
receive considerable attention from navigation interests and federal,
State and local governments. A plan has been implemented that established
use of four open-water disposal areas to handle thebulk of dredged
material. These regional dredged material disposal areas are the Central
Long Island Sound site off New Haven,-the Cornfield Shoals site off the
Connecticut River, the New London site off the Thames River and the
Western Long Island Sound (WLIS) III site off South Norwalk. All four.
sites are being closely monitored by the New England Division of the Corps
of Engineers (NED) through its Disposal Area Monitoring System commonly
known as DAMOS, Monitoring.of these carefully controlled open-water
disposal areas as well as any land disposal activities have to date
revealed insignificant or acceptable impacts. Because of this, there is
general institutional and private support for their use.

Environmental Concerns. The process of developing projects and assessing
their merits is being continuously evaluated for environmental reasons.
The Corps follows procedures that are in line with Federal and State
regulations which call for consideration of alternatives. Therefore, a
full array of alternatives is considered and analyzed for each project so
as to minimize and avoid environmental impacts while giving consideration
to economic and technical feasibility. Each alternative brings with it
advantages and disadvantages.

Economic Considerations. In the past, as a general practice and for
economic reasons, approved disposal sites were not far removed from
harbors to be dredged. However, when open-water sites were reduced from
19 to three (and then increased to four) sites and as land disposal sites
became filled or unavailable, many dredgers began to feel the impacts of

increased cost. With the regional sites concept, the distance from some
harbors to disposal areas increased significantly. In the case of larger
operations some of these increased costs can be absorbed or reduced
through economies of scale, but such opportunities are not available for
the smaller dredgers*

Alternatives. Available alternatives for meeting future disposal needs
while responding to present issues and problems include:

Open-Water Disposal - Continued use of existing or new open-water
sites but subject to carefully controlled and monitored
operations.

Land Disposal - Although available on a limited project specific
basis, stringent water pollution regulations, coastal wetlands
restrictions and shore front development continue to curtail this
option as an.available alternative.

Containment Facilities - Used successfully in other regions of
the United States but not in Long Island Sound.

Beach Nourishment - Feasible on a project specific basis
particularly if a nearby beach is available and the dredged
material is compatible.

In as mu ch as disposal methods are determined on a project specific basis
the approach of selecting the least cost alternative which results in the
least'environmental harm generally favors open water disposal.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This study considered the feasibility of locating containment facilities
for dredged material disposal in Long Island -Sound. The study area
covered the entire Long Island Sound region in Connecticut and New York.
Containment, as considered in this report, generally involves disposal of
dredged material in a diked area as conceptually shown in Figure 1. The
study objective was to determine containment feasibility by identifying
potential sites; develop screening criteria; discuss the future dredging
and disposal needs, obtain public participation and reaction to the
concept of containment; identify the issues associated with containment;
develop detailed engineering, environmental and economic analysis of
selected potential containment facilities; and explore the potential of
constructing one or more of these facilities as a "prototype site".

STUDY AUTHORITY

The authority to conduct this study is contained in a resolution of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of
Representatives adopted 10 t4ay 1977 which reads as follows:

4.OUNDED COARSE-GRAMED
DREDGED MATERIAL

C7
. . ..........

WEIR

INFLUENT AREA FOR SEDIMENTATION
EFFLUENT

DEAD ZONE

PLAN

INFLUENT
PONDING DEPTH FREEBOARD

AREA FOR SEDimENrA rioN

WEI

COARSE-GRA114ED AREA FOR FINE-GRAINED EFFt.UENT
DREDGED MA TERM L DREDGED MATERIAL STORAGE

CROSS SECTION

FIGURE CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF A DREDGED MATERIAL
CONTA INMENT AREA
21 -.8-1

Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of
the House of Representative, United States, that the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review
the reports on the Land and Water Resources of the New England-
New York Region, published as Senate Document Numbered 14,
Eighty-fifth Congress, First Session, and other pertinent
reports, with a view to determining the feasibility and impacts
of the treatment and use of the dredged materials to result from
the continued maintenance and anticipated improvements of Long
Island Sound harbors, as well as from any newly created Federal
harbors, to build artificial islands in Long Island Sound for
recreation, conservation, marsh building, development, and other
purposes. The study should also consider the utilization of
dredged materials from projects other than Federal (i.e., State,
community, and private), and the feasibility and acceptability of
utilizing solid wastes other than dredged materials for island
building.

Since no waste disposal activities other than for dredged material are
permitted in the sound, the study did not consider disposal of solid
wastes.

STUDY AREA

Long Island Sound is one of the nation's unique and irreplaceable natural
resources. The study limits include the area within Long Island Sound and
Fishers Island Sound extending from Throgs Neck Bridge in New York
eastward to the Connecticut-Rhode Island State line. Its 1300-square mile
water surface area is an almost fully enclosed arm of the ocean bordered
by nearly 600 miles of coastline (see Figure 2). The sound is 113 miles
long and 21 miles wide and contains about 125 islands. About seventy-five
rivers and streams of various length including the.Connecticut, Housatonic
and Thames Rivers, drain a 16,000-square mile area surrounding Long Island
Sound. Long Island Sound exhibits estuarine characteristics in its
western and central parts and embayment characteristics in its eastern
third. Depths vary greatly throughout the sound, averaging 80 feet with a
maximum depth of 320 feet. Due to the effects of tides and freshwater
inflow conditions, movement of water within a major estuary such as Long
Island Sound is complex.

CONN I CTICUT
NEW LONDO

NEW HAVEN

BRIDGEPORT El

NORWALK
STAMFORD Flo
GINWICH
0

Ln
ORT JEFFERSON

HUNTINGTO

GLEN COVE
S

c:
STATUTE "is

rn I

S"T.CAL "is

i RELATED REPORTS

AND PROGRAMS

RELATED REPORTS AND PROGRAMS

This study is related to other LIS studies concerning dredged
material management. Recently completed study efforts are described as
Prior Reports. There is also a section on Related Programs which
describes monitoring and research programs for dredged material
management. Similarly, this report is the culmination of a comprehensive
study effort for which many supplemental data reports have been
prepared. A synopsis of these reports is included here.

PRIOR REPORTS

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (June 1982)

The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) by NED for the
disposal of dredged material in the Long Island Sound Region assesses
several potential open water disposal sites throughout the region and
generically discusses other disposal alternatives; specifically, upland,
containment, beach restoration, incineration and resource reclamation.
This document provides an informational basis upon which supplemental
statements or assessments can be developed for individual projects. *

The following appendices were prepared as part of the HIS document:

Appendix A - Environmental Report for Open-Water
Disposal

Appendix B - Long-Term Impacts of Open-Water
Disposal

Appendix C - Economic Analysis of Future Dredged
Material Disposal

Appendix D - Federal Institutional Requirements

Appendix E - Public Participation.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of a Disposal Site
for Dredged Material in Western Long-Mand Sound - WLIS III (Feb 1982)

The EIS for WLIS III is tiered to the PEIS. It specifically
addresses the need and the impacts of using the proposed site drawing upon
information from the PEIS as well as more specific data generated via the
Corps' Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) and the Disposal Area
Monitoring System (DAMOS). The final EIS was published in February 1982
and use of the site began in March 1982.

Interim Plan for the_Disposal of-Dredged_Material from Long Island, Sound
(August 1980)

The Interim Plan is the culmination of discussion and negotiation
among New York, Connecticut, Federal and interstate agencies responsible
for regulating dredging and disposal in Long Island Sound. The New
England River Basins Commission served as a forum. The result was a
concensus to continue open water disposal at three designated areas on an
interim basis until a thorough evaluation of alternative courses of action
(such as upland disposal, island building and marsh creation) would be
completed and a-long-term management plan formulated. Currently, disposal
continues in a carefully controlled and monitored manner at disposal areas
near New London, Cornfield Shoals, New Haven, and more recently at the
Western LIS III site.

New Haven Harbor Coastal Development for Navigation-(1981)

The New England Division prepared this feasibility report for
improving New Haven Harbor which is the largest port.in Connecticut, and
also the largest source of dredged material with some 12.million cubic
yards of Federal dredging projected for the 1985 to 2035 time frame. The
report recommends removal of an estimated 4.4 million cubic yards of
dredged material to improve the harbor.

Bucket dredges are proposed for dredging. All material would be
transferred into dump scows and transported to two open-water sites.
Disposal operations would take place in the harbor about 1 mile east of
the ship channel at Morris Cove by filling a manmade hole, left by earlier
mining operations, with about 900,000 cubic yards of suitable materials
including 27,200 cubic yards of rock. The remaining volume, some 3.5
million cubic'yards, would be deposited at the Central Long Island Sound
Disposal site located about 6 nautical miles south of the entrance to New
Haven Harbor. The Morris Cove-site, one of the containment sites being
evaluated by this study, was also studied under the DAMOS program but was
found unsuitable for disposal of fine material because of strong currents
and circulation patterns*

DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAINMENT STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REPORTS

Reconnaissance Report (January 1979)

This initial effort outlined the purpose and scope of the study and
provided preliminary information on dredged material volume and previous
and existing disposal locations. Plan formulation efforts centered around
locating and evaluating large volume regional sites. The Reconnaissance
Report compared rock dikes with sheet pile structures and concluded that
rock dikes were less expensive and more appropriate for most containment
facilities in LIS except where space was at a premium.

Dredged Material Containment in Long Island Sound Site Screening
(Interim) Report (July 1980)

This status report presents an overview of the feasibility of
containing dredged material along Long Island Sound and addresses several
major points including:

1. Evaluated historical dredging quantities.
2. Projected future dredging requirements for a 50-year period
1985 to 2035.
3. Identified engineering and design considerations.
4. Developed the methodology for site identification and
screening.
5. Applied the methodology to Long Island Sound, resulting in
the'identification of 133 potential containment sites which in all cases
were located adjacent to publicly owned shoreline.
6. Of the 133 identified sites, 24 sites were ranked as the
highest based on screening criteria.

Dredged Material Containment in Long Island Sound - Site Screening
(Addendum) Report @J-anuary 1981)

The interim report described above, located and evaluated 133 public
shorefront sites. This Addendum expanded the screening process to include
121 other sites located adjacent to private or other public shorefront.
This effort used a screening process similar to the previous report but
went further by performing sensitivity analyses of screening and weighting
factors. Of the 121 sites so identified, about 50 were ranked superior to
the rest.

18-21 May 1981 Workshop Digest (1981)

The Workshop Digest documented for those attendees and other
interested individuals, a summary of the topics discussed as well as the
issues and questions raised at the four workshops held in May 1981. The
digest includes an outline and explanation of the workshop format, the
purpose of these meetings, a summary of each session, and the issues,
concerns, and questions of the participants. The public information
program is explained. Samples of all the press releases, announcements
and articles publicizing the workshops are also exhibited followed by
samples of the media coverage generated by the workshops. Written
communication received from State officials, local leaders and concerned
citizens, together with a list of workshop attendees, are included.

Market User Survey (August 1981)

This report summarizes the navigation activities at the 50 ports and
harbors located on or adjacent to Long Island Sound. Projections of port

activities included in this market user survey are based on recent trends,
planned port development, and anticipated changes in shoreline activities,*
including possible conversion of electrical generating plants from oil to
coal. Survey findings conclude that harbors can expect continued high
demand from commercial shippers and recreational boaters for continued
dredging, along with continued concern over the availability and costs of
disposal options.

Social and Economic Impacts of Prototype Dredged Material Containment
=ities in Long Island.Sound (Sep`E`emb-e-r-Tq81)

This study analyzed social and economic impacts associated with the
construction of dredged material containment facilities at six potential
locations along the Connecticut shoreline; namely Fayerweather Island in
Black Rock Harbor, Yellow Mill Channel in Bridgeport Harbor, Morris Cove
in New Haven Harbor, Clinton Harbor, Twotree Island off Waterford, and
Black Ledge at the mouth of New London Harbor. The study examines the
short-term impacts during construction of dikes, filling with dredged
material, dewatering, final capping, contouring and planting; as well as
long-term impacts involving final use.

Dredged Material Containment Study - Prototype Report - Clinton Harbor and.
Black Ledge (April 1982)

This New England Division report documents regional geology of the
LIS Region and site geology at two prototype containment facilities:
Clinton Harbor and Black Ledge. The report also discusses design
considerations and develops construction cost estimates for the
facilities. Site conditions were studied employing field reconnaissance,
subsurface explorations and survey.

Environmental Assessment of Prototype Marsh Creation and Containment
Facility_Sites (October 1982)

This report describes the existing'physical and biological conditions
at two prototype sites: Clinton Harbor and Black Ledge. Study findings
are based on literature review, coordination with resource agencies, and
limited on-site biological surveys. This information provided the basis
for determining the most effective configuration of the facilit*y, the
potential for habitat creation versus commercial/industrial development,
and the potential impact upon the adjacent environment. The report also
addresses the resource value of the new habitat.

Dredged Material Containment Study - Site Screening Report (November 1982)

This report is similar to the geology and design report discussed
above but deals with five other potential containment facilities. These
are Milford Harbor, Yellow Mill Channel, Thames River, Penfield Reef and
Mamaroneck Harbor. Site conditions are less detailed as no detailed field
investigations were obtained.

Island Shoal Screening (February 1983)

Thisreport reflects a preliminary screening effort to assess the
feasibility of nine Connecticut off-shore coastal areas for use as
containment facility sites.

DreUed Material Containment Feasibilit.y Study Progress Report (February
1983)

This document reports on study progress and represents a reference
source which presents in detail all aspects of the study including
background, problems and needs, plan formulation process, public
coordination effort and detailed site reports.

Dredged Material Containment_Study-Penfield Shoal Site, CTO (April 1984)

This study represents a detailed geotechnical and engineering
evaluation for the Penfield Reef site in Fairfield, Connecticut. The
detail is similar to the analyses completed for Clinton and Black Ledge in
the Prototype Report.

Dredged Material Containment Study-Milford Harbor Site, CT9_(August 1984)

This report presents a detailed geologic and engineering evaluation
for the Milford Harbor site in comparable detail to the Clinton, Black
Ledge and Penfield sites.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND SITE EVALUATIONS

Environmental Data for Clinton Harbor (March 1982)

This site specific report presents the following subjects:

1. Tidal Hydrodynamic Simulation
2. Sediment Profile Photogrammetry
3. Biotic Survey
4. Marsh Creation Feasibility and Design.

Environmental Data for Black Ledge (March 1982)

This study provides data on existing biotic communities at Black
Ledge and compared the potential habitat of a containment facility with
the present habitat.

Benthic Algae and Fauna of Clinton, CT (June 1982)

This document presents the results of a biological survey of soft and
hard bottom benthic communities at Clinton.

Ecological Surveys of Penfield Reef and Milford Harbor (November 1982)

This report summarizes the results of biological surveys at Penfield
Reef and the Burns Point Jetty site at Milford Harbor.

Wave Energy Analysis and Sediment Transport Study at Clinton Harbor
(February 1983)

This report presents probable sediment transport effects, wave energy
conditions and possible changes associated with the placement of a
containment facility in Clinton Harbor.

Analysis and-Site Evaluation at Black Ledge, Penfield Reef and Sherwood
Borrow Pit (May 1984)

This report includes:

1. A discussion of wave modeling methodology and the wave
climate for Long Island Sound.

2. A description of the physical and biological environment at
Black Ledge and the impacts of a containment facility on waves, and
physical, chemical and biological characteristics.

3. A description of the existing marine biological resources at
Penfield Reef and Sherwood Borrow Pit and the potential impacts of a
containment facility.

Results of Benthic Sampling from the Mamaroneck Harbor, NY (July 1984)

This is a report on a benthic survey conducted at three sites in
outer Mamaroneck Harbor: Hen Island, Black Tom and Scotch Cape.

RELATED CORPS OF ENGINEERS' PROGRAMS

Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS)

The Corps of Engineers (NED), as part of its mission of regulating
open water disposal, initiated DAKOS which is a program of scientific
inquiry into environmental effects of that activity. DAMOS addresses
siting considerations, the relation of site recovery processes to
biological succession, how much disturbance to permit at any one time,
quantification of effects, and capping of contaminated material. There

are 10 major sites monitored in New England, in two tidal systems, and in
ocean depths ranging from 60 to in excess of 200 feet and reaching
distances of up to more than 10 miles offshore.

The DAMOS program uses oceangraphic surveys including state of the
art navigation and electronic instrumentation, underwater photography,
diver observations and biological analysis. The findings of the program
provide guidance for disposal and site management policies.

Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP)

Congress recognized a need for a comprehensive nationwide research
program on the effects of dredged material disposal; accordingly, it
authorized the Corps of Engineers to accomplish the Dredged Material
Research Program (DMRP) between 1973 and 1978. In contrast to previous,
largely site-specific, project investigations, these studies were generic
.in mature with the intent of developing methods of predicting effects
before a project is carried out. Results of conceptual and laboratory
studies were tested in the field under actual project conditions so as to
improve predictive capability.

Specific goals of the DMRP were to define the water quality and
biological effects of open-water, upland, and wetland disposal; improve
the effectiveness and acceptance of confined land disposal where it is
considered a desirable alternative; test and evaluate concepts of wetland
and upland habitat development using dredged material; and develop and
test concepts of using dredged material as a productive natural.resource.

A significant conclusion drawn from the DMRP is that no single
disposal alternative (e.g., open-water disposal, confined upland disposal)
is presumptively suitable for a geographic region or group of projects.
What may be desirable for one project may be completely undesirable for
another. Consequently, each-project must be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. Additionally, each project evaluation must be made'in full
consideration of long-term as well as short-term disposal needs and
possible interactions among projects.

Regarding the effects of open-water disposal, studies conclude that,
unless the dredged material is highly contaminated, physical impacts are
likely to be of greater potential consequence than their chemical or
biological impacts. Serious short-term water quality effects are not
likely unless the disposal site is geochemically dissimilar to the
dredging site. Biological effects of an adverse nature are similarly
unlikely due to the resiliency of most organisms (except in larval stages)
and the demonstrated ability of many organisms to rapidly recolonize
disposal sites. Over a longer term, certain aquatic organisms will uptake
chemical contaminants; however, the patterns of uptake still remain
unpredictable. Except in coral areas and during times of fish migrations

and spawning activities, turbidity is much more likely to be only an
aesthetic problem rather than a biological problem. Irrespective of this,
certain turbidity control measures are feasible under certain.
circumstances as indicated by field tests.

Confining dredged material on land can offer increased environmental
protection, but is not without problems and is not always beneficial.
Soil geochemical conditions in diked containment areas sometimes can
enhance rather than retard contaminant release; thus effluents and
leachates must be carefully evaluated as to their potential effects. As a
result of DMRP research results where confined sites are desirable, they
can be improved greatly over present practice in terms of design,
construction, operation, and management. Particular areas of improvement
include effluent regulation, storage capacity, dike design, and internal
environmental conditions and aesthetics.

Several major DMRP field test and demonstration projects have proven
the viability of using dredged material to develop both wetland and upland
wildlife habitats in a variety of environmental situations. As a result
of specific studies, guidance is now available as to what species to plant
for a desired habitat, how and when to plant them, how to place and
protect the dredged material, and what subsequent site management may be
necessary. Additional information was generated on the relative
productivity of various marsh plant species (data important in determining
relative wetland-area values), the recovery of species buried by disposal,
factors involved in ecological successi*on, and methods of predicting the
possible uptake of chemical contaminants by marsh plants.

FIELD VERIFICATION PROGRAM (FVP)

The joint Corps and EPA Field Verification Program (FVP) is a
cooperative effort to field verify dredged material testing procedures for
predicting the impact of open-water disposal, upland disposal and wetland
creation.

In the spring of 1983, approximately 77,000 cubic yards of dredged
material from Black Rock Harbor were placed in the northeast corner of the
Central Long Island Sound disposal area. A joint Corps/EPA monitoring
effort was conducted at the site prior to, during, and after disposal.
Scientists at the EPA lab in Narragansett, RI, are currently conducting
experiments to validate on-site evaluation. Also, a test site has been
leased on United Illuminating (UI) property in Bridgeport for evaluation
of the upland and wetland portions of the FVP. In the fall of 1983
approximately 6,500 cubic yards of material dredged from Black Rock Harbor
were used at the U1 site to construct 1.1 acres of upland and wetland to
enable the effects of dredged material to be studied in these different
settings. This study is expected to be completed by the end of 1987.

III

THE ROLE

OF THE PUBLIC

THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC DURING THE STUDY

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

Objective

Having had experience in dredging through its navigation and reg-
ulatory programs, the Corps was well aware of the high level and intensity
of public interest regarding dredging and disposal. Cognizant of this
interest, the Corps developed a comprehensive program to effectively merge
public interest into the study. The program was outlined to accomplish
the following:

1. Educate the public on the technology of containment.

2. Inform the public on study status and findings.

3. Seek out feedback on various concepts and proposals.

4. Encourage active participation of all interests.
Some of the public involvement tools are described below.

Brochures

Spring 1981 Information. The public involvement program essentially
began with the dissemination of a public information brochure to
approximately 2,500 State and local officials, newspapers, radio and
television stations, commercial and industrial interests, public interest
groups and individuals. The brochure entitied, "Long Island Sound
Dredging and Disposal: The Search for a Solution" was designed to
increase the public's awareness and understanding of thd containment
concept, one of several dredged material disposal alternatives. The
nature of the study, the issues and problems associated with containment,
the unique Long Island Sound ecosystem, the characteristics of dredged
material, the site selection criteria and the planning process were also
explained in the brochure.. The brochure is reprinted in the Progress
Report.

October 181 Update. This public information update, distributed to
approximately 2000 people and groups, was intended to serve as a follow-up
to the brochure and the workshop meetings held in May. This update
included a brief summary of the work items recently completed or underway,
various analysis and screenings being conducted, and the reports which
were completed or being written.

Autumn '82 Update. The Update was similar to the 181 Update
reporting briefly on the reports and activities which had been completed
in the interim.

Workshops

A series of four extensively publicized workshops were held 18-21 May
1981 to supplement and expand upon the information supplied in the
brochure. All four meetings; (held in New London, CT; New Haven, CT;
Stamford, CT; and Great Neck, NY) were well attended with approximately 60
people at each, representing a wide range of interests and knowledge. The
Long Island Sound Taskforce, which is the regional chapter of the Oceanic
Society, served as moderator at each of the workshops. The workshops
served as an excellent medium to transfer information to the public
concerning the study. Likewise, the sessions provided a chance to hear
the following primary concerns of the public regarding containment

1. The potential for release of toxic and other polluting substances
into the marine environment

2. The ecological impact centering on the effects of construction

3. The costs of containment versus other disposal options including
the responsibilities of cost sharing

4. The process of site consideration and selection including the
availability of baseline data and involvement of the public

The exchange of information and discussion of issues provided a
valuable study input. The Taskforce prepared a Workshop Digest, which is
a summary of the proceedings and open discussion sessions.
Local Meetings and Media Releases'

The high level of interest in-this study, and in dredging and
disposal in Long Island Sound, was evidenced by the number of requests for
information from the media and local interests. Therefore, Corps
personnel responded with many public appearances and presentations at
meeting of local officials, civic and resource groups, and planning
boards. Information was similarly made available to media through
releases and interviews.

Progess Report - February 1983

This progress report takes a comprehensive look at the study as of
that time frame. Its purpose was two fold:

1. To inform the public of study status.

2. To disseminate the available information and technical analysis
generated by the study to enable the public to participate in
further planning activities. It remains a valuable reference
source because of its detail and completeness.

AGENCY COORDINATION

We have coordinated our planning efforts with all pertinent local,
regional, county and State agencies. Representatives of many of the .
various agencies attended the May 1981 workshop meetings. In addition to
telephone contacts and letters, communications have been maintained
through the Public Information Brochure and updates. Coordination with
the State of Connecticut has been through their Department of Enviromental
Protection and Department of Transportation. Regional planning agencies
which have been kept informed of our activities are: Southeastern
Connecticut, Connecticut River Estuary, Greater Bridgeport and South-
western. Cooperation of local waterfront and harbor groups would be
extremely important in implementing a containment project.

In the State of New York, coordination has been through the
Department of Environmental Conservation. Also in New York we have
contacted the Nassau County Department of Public Works (DPW), the Suffolk
County DPW, and the New York City Ports and Terminals. We have also met
with the Long Island Regional Planning Board to discuss the containment
study and its applicability to Long Island.

PARTICIPATION IN PLAN FORMULATION

The public involvement in the plan formulation process included the
identification of potential containment sites as well as review of the
sites identified in the site screening process. This was valuable input
since local interests had a good understanding of their harbors in terms
of dredging and disposal operations and potential interest in containment
facilities. This containment study was the catalyst to start community
action and the potential avenue to move a project forward. The sites that
were advanced to the detailed study phase were initially suggested or
endorsed by the public.

~qU~C~A~q7~q7~0~,~v
~6qO~6qC~-~8qeA ~qC~O~qN~qS~qE~qR~V~A~qT~7~0~P~4
~6q0 ~2qC~q7~.~0qT ~0qA~4qT~-~4qT ~qE~qX~qEC~qU~qT~qI~qV~qS ~qO~qF~qF~qIC~,
~CS
Dear Coastal Star" "a e~e Avenue
~f~o~l~d~qgC~l~, 06902
C~q'~qC~ql~Zen: (~q2~q03) 327~-978~q6
You are ~qtn~v~qlt_
e~"~'~a~m~qIn~qing
areas a,,_ the ~qtn a ~qfeas~qtb~qi~qlt
Mate~,~q- ~qty Study
~'~8q0 ~q@~Z~qtng ~qts~qland~s and shoal
~qLG for ~u~se as dred~q&ed
~6qt~2qs~-~q'\~q1~q1 ~'~qt~4q@c~q' lie ~qocean~qt
~-~q%\~4qO ~C S~O~C~qtet~0qy ~qt
~2~ct~: to the U.S. ~.4 s
~q'~q\~.~q\~4qO~8q? ~0qC~. ~6qN ~f
OIL ~8q@~0q@~2qV ~2qV~8qO ~4qJ~6qJ~-~.~*~4q3 on. ~r~m~0qy
~*\ ~q"~8q" \~-~,~'~q3 ~q60~(\ ~q\A~2qP
~qP~,~0~0~\~(\ ~0\\e~qge
~q60~0 ~'~0~0
~0qv~o~(\
RD ~0qS~2qo~0qM
~4~e~(\
~qI~0qs~8qi~6qx
to ~qA~qL
~2q1~q11~q9 ~qD~qI~qS~qP~qO~qS
DREDGING OR
US A~0qM~4qW C~2qa~qr~2qP ~q1~2qJE ~qS~4qU~qR~qC~2qH FOR ~qk
Of ~2qm~q1~qf~6qo~4qe~8qm ~6qC~6qG~6q%~2q1A~qI~2q%~6qME~2q%~4qT
~O~@~q6 Mew Er~6qd~a~qnd ~6qD~V~2qW~8qW MATERIAL
~q13R~qIE~q1~6q3GED
.............. ~@~.. , I
~.
~q%~qAe~'~1~4 so Oat\

For more ~i~afo~r~-~-~t~i~o~n Contact~:

Richard ~Qu~i~on~. project manager
Corps of ~Z~n~8~i~n~e~e~r~s
~N~qw England Division
~3u~i~ldin~g 112 North
~424 T~r~a~pe~l~o Road
Waltham, ~mA 02254
(617) 647-8~216

4
Of "LYE ~q10#6 ~0qI~24qS~28q1~28q4~36q#
~6qA~6qb~6qW~0q4 ~q'~24qOS~28qO
~52qr~48qo~56qo~28q'~44qc~52qD ~56qo~52qc~q-~56qro~q'~48qs~60qe~4ql~0q? ~52q9~q,~52q9~0q1
~0;148qP
~44qJ~72qS~68qL~8q'C ~8q1A~2qf~52qP~60q0 ~84q@~24q4~44q1~q-4~60q1~q. ~q-
~;156q1 ~60qC ~60qON ~68qr~q-4
~o~r mots
~84qFR~i~ch~q"d
Corp of
~N~q. ~1
~a~u~i~l~2q@
n~g

~64qr~8q1~64q0~4qJ~8qV ~0qI~48qJ~48qP~64q04
~60qr~68qe

DREDGING ACTIVITY -

HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED DREDGING ACTIVITY

Planning for the location and sizing of potential dredged material
containment facilities required developing projections of dredging
activities in the LIS region. As part of this process, historical data
and information were listed and analyzed.

HISTORICAL DREDGING

Dredging activity, which is evident throughout the LIS region, can be
categorized into two classes.

1. improvement and maintenance dredging done by the Corps of
Engineers. There are 45 Federal projects in the LIS area, 19 in
New York and 26 in Connecticut. These are listed in Table 1.

2. Dredging done by other government agencies and the general public
under Federal permits issued by the Corps. Most, but not all, of
these areas are concentrated near Federal projects.

The incidence of improvement dredging, both Federal and non-Federal,
has varied considerably in the past, but in general, it is declining.
This can be attributed to several reasons including a slowdown in new
waterfront-development and activity due, in part, to existing extensive
development, consolidation of port facilities, increased costs and issues
concerning economic, environmental and social problems.

Maintenance dredging, though variable, has been much more con-
sistent. Dredgi-ng is necessary to remove the sediment and silt that
gradually accumulate in existing navigation channels. The sediments are
derived from both marine and upland sources and the rates remain
relatively constant over time. While the need for such dredging is based
upon surveys and consideration of navigation difficulties, execution of
individual projects depends on funding and regulatory approvals.

Examination of dredging records gives some indication of dredging
quantities and where disposal was accomplished in the past. Generally,
for Federal projects, over 80 percent of the dredged material has been
disposed of in open water. Private permitted dredging was about equally
divided between land and open-water disposal. Data for these assessments
are given in Table 2, which presents data through 1979. In the past 5
years the trend has been away from land disposal. Two other observations
have been made regarding historical trends. First, costs for upland
disposal have averaged 30 to 50 percent of the costs for open water
disposal. Second, the costs of open water disposal have more than doubled
since the mid-1960's. These two trends provide the basis for under-
standing the concerns of small private dredgers over the cost of disposal
since the closing of local dumping grounds and the increasing unavail-
ability of land disposal sites.

Table I

FEDERAL PROJECTS ON LONG ISLAND SOUND

NEW YORK CONNECTICUT

Westchester County Western Coastal Area

1. Port Chester Harbor 1. Greenwich Harbor
2. Milton Harbor 2. Mianus River
3. Mamaroneck Harbor 3. Stamford Harbor
4. Echo Harbor 4. Westcott Cove
5. New Rochelle Harbor 5. Fivemile River Harbor
6. Wilson Point Harbor
7. Norwalk Harbor
Nassau County 8. Westport Harbor and
Saugatuck River
6. Hempstead Harbor 9. Southport Harbor
7. Glen Cove Harbor 10. Bridgeport Harbor
11. Housatonic River

Suffolk County

8. Huntington Harbor Central Coastal Area
9. Northport Harbor 12. Milford Harbor
10. Port Jefferson Harbor 13. New Haven Harbor
11. Mattituck Harbor 14. Branford Harbor
12. Greenport Harbor 15. Stony Creek
16. Guilford Harbor
New York City 17. Clinton Harbor
18. Duck Island Harbor
13. Eastchester Creek 19. Patchogue River
14. Little Neck Bay 20. Connecticut River below
15. Westchester Creek Hartford
16. Bronx River
17. Flushing Bay and Creek
18. Harlem River Eastern Coastal Area
19. East River 21. Niantic Bay and Harbor
22. New London Harbor
23. Thames River
24. Mystic River
25. Stonington Harbor
26. Pawcatuck River

Table 2
Disposal Methods in Long Island Sound
(1961 to 1979 unless noted)
Volumes in thousands of cubic yards)

Total Land Disposal Open Water Disposal
Area Volume Volume Percent Volume Percent

FEDERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CT 5,535 1,026 29 3,909 71
NY 650 50 8 600 92
FEDERAL IMPROVEMENT I/
CT 2,872 814 28 2,058 72
NY 4,503 41 1 4,462 99
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECTS 1/
CT Totals 8,408 2,440 29 5,968 71
NY Totals 5,153 91 2 5,062 98
Totals 13,561 2,531 19 11,030 81

PERM@TTED DREDGING
NY 2 1959-1979 11,015 6,079 55 4,936 45
3/ 1968-1977 1:95 '4/ 2,259 56 1,759 44
CT 1968-1977 4 018

Notes:
I/ Source: Progress'Report, Table III-I, FEDERAL refers to Corps-of
Engineers.
2/ Source: Interim Report, Table 2-8 and 2-10
3/ Source: Reconnaissance Report, Table 2-9
4/ Excludes 1974 New London Improvement Project by U.S. Navy
(2,880,000cy)

PROJECTIONS OF DREDGED MATERIAL QUANTITY

Future dredging requirements at Long Island Sound ports depend
largely on the level of future port activity. Changing conditions in type
and level of activity determine the need for channel improvements, as well
as for Federal maintenance dredging by the Corps of Engineers. A large
amount of dredging by non-Federal sources is also common at dockside and
between the dock and Federal Channel, at private marinas and yacht clubs,
and beyond the limits of Federal channels and anchorages. Projections of
future quantities to be dredged from these harbors are expressed in ranges
corresponding to the Minimum Growth/Minimum Change, the Most Probable
Future, and the Maximum Growth/Maximum Change Scenarios. Total quantities
at Federal projects are calculated and based on historical dredging trends

of individual ports and anticipated future trends. Projected non-Corps
dredging is more difficult, if not impossible, to establish on a port-by-
port basis and projections are.made on a regional basis.

Minimum Growth/Minimum Change Scenario. For Federal maintenance work,
minimum growth assumes that funding would be limited over the 50-year
period and that most ports would be dredged only when navigation in the
channels was actually impeded. In the same vein, Federal improvement
would include future work that is currently proposed plus an additional
amount of dredging estimated at 200,000 cubic yards (cy) in each coastal
area.

For non-Corps projects, future dredging is estimated to be at a rate
20 percent below current levels. This level is predicated on the
assumption of a lagging recreational boating industry, postponement of
Federal improvement projects, disposal areas were not available and the
outmoding of waterborne commerce due to changes in New England require-
mentso

Most Probable Future Scenarioo The projections for this scenario
generally assume a continTa-tion of present program levels-for Federal and
permitted dredgingo For Federal operation and maintenance, funds would be
allocated for individual port maintenance at approximately the same
intervals as in the past with an emphasis on regular maintenance of large
commercial ports. Improvement projects would include projects presently
proposed plus an additional 300,000 cubic yard allowance.

Maximum Growth/Maximum Change Scenario. Under this scenario, it is
assumed that funds would actually be available to maintain all ports At
regular intervals to their optimum conditions. Federal improvement
projects would include those currently proposed plus a 500,000 cubic yard
allowance for unproposed projectso For the private sector, the assumption
of future dredging is 20 percent greater than current levelso This
accounts for a future scenario that would include implementation of future
Federal improvement projects, rapid growth of the recreational boating
industry, continued expansion of the commercial fishing industry, and
increased emphasis of waterborne transportation.

Total anticipated quantities of dredged materials resulting from.all
categories of dredging activity over the study period for each possible
future scenario defined are summarized in Table 3. Although the total
range from minimum to maximum quantities is broad, approximately 39
million cubic yards of material compared with 73 million cubic yards
respectively, the estimates reflect the need for flexible planning over a
period of 50 years. The transitional nature of port activity in the Long
Island Sound region and the unpredictable nature of the primary channel
use in major commercial ports also dictates a flexible posture in
estimated dredged material quantitieso

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DREDGED MATERIAL QUANTITIES (C.Y.)
1985-2035

Federal Non- Federal
Coastal Maintenance Federal Improvement
Scenario Area Dredging Dredging Dredging Total

Connecticut:
Minimum Western 4,290,000 2,992,000 350,000 7,632,000
Growth Central 9,520,000 7,856,000 460,000 17,836,000
Eastern 940,000 -3,696,000 200,000 4,836,000
Total 14,750,000 14,544,0 1,010,000 30,304,000

Most Western 5,615,000 3,740,000 2,950,000 12,305,000
Probable Central 12,330,000 9,820,000 7,760,000 29,910,000
Future Eastern 1,630,000 4,620,000 1,900,000 8,150,000
Total 19,575,000 18,180,000 12,610,000 50,365,000

Maximum Western 7,255,000 4,488,000 3,150,000 14,893,000
Growth Central 14,135,000 11,784,000 7,960,000 33,879,000
Eastern 2,360,000 5,544,000 2,100,000 10,004,000
Total 23,750,000 21,816,000 13,210,000 58,776,000

New York:
Minimum Westchester County 310,000 640,000 100,000 1,050,000
Growth Nassau County 120,000 556,000 100,000 776,000
Suffolk County 187,000 3,228,000 100,000 3,515,000
New York City 1,930,000 1.,128,000 200,000 3,358,000
Total 2,547,000 5,552,000 500,000 8,5999-000

Most Westchester County 410,000 800,000 400,000 1,610,000
Probable Nassau County 180,000 695,000 150,000 1,025,000
Future Suffolk County 327,000 4,035,000 150,000 4,512,000
New York City 2,465,000 1,410,000 300,000 4,175,000
Total 3,382,000 6,940,000 1,000,000 11,322,000

Maximum Westchester County 530,000 960,000 600,000 2,090,000
Growth Nassau County 220,000 834,000 400,000 1,454,000
Suffolk County 409,000 4,842,000 400,000 5,651,000
New York City 2,935,000 1,692,000 500,000 5,127,000
Total 4,094,000 8,328,000 1,900,000 14,322,000

Total
Minimum Growth 17,297,000 20,096,000 1,510,000 38,903,000
Most Probable Future 22,957,000 25,120,000 13,610,000 61,687,000
Maximum Growth 27,844,000 30,144,000 15,110,000 73,098,000

Source; Progress Report. Table IV - 8.
23

CHARACTERISTICS OF KATERIALS DREDGED IN LIS WATERWAYS

The observed physical and chemical characteristics of sediments
dredged within the harbors bordering LIS vary widely. Harbor sediments
receive contamination from treated and untreated sewage discharges.,
industrial discharges, oil spills, urban runoff, and river discharges,
depending on location. Within any given year, runoff from spring snowmelt
or isolated precipitation events can drastically alter the sediment
picture. Normal or low flows might be capable of moving only fine-grained
particles, but the high discharges during floods can scour a river or
estuary bed and transport even coarse-grained material long distances.
Chemical/organic characteristics also will vary, but on a more predictable
seasonal basis. Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, for example, will
be introduced into the sediments via runoff from agricultural areas.

The mean concentrations of trace metals in Connecticut are
consistently much higher than those observed in New York sediments. This
is probably due to more intense industrial activity and to the greater
annual runoff and sediment loads which occur in Connecticut Harbors as
opposed to New York Harbors, especially those on the north shore of Long
Island where drainage basin size is relatively small.

In the absence of more definitive knowledge on the pollution effects
of dredged material, or the effects of specific pollutants found in
dredged sediments at the disposal sites, physical and chemical parameters
are used to provide guidance for biological testing of sediments and
placing conditions on the disposal of the dredged material. Dredged
material sediment as Uassified by NERBC in the Interim Plan is as
follows:

Class I Class II Class III

Percent oil and grease <0.2 0.2-:-7.5 >.75
(hexane extract)

Percent volatile solids <5 5-10 >10
(NED method)

Percent water <40 40-60 >60

Percent silt-clay <60 60-90 >90

Relative to the subjective probability for adverse environmental
impact these parameters are ranked in descending order of significance:
oil and grease > volatile solids > percent water > percent silt-clay.

Class I sediments are often relatively coarse-grained with high
solids content. Volatile solids, oil and grease, heavy metals, and

potential pollutant concentrations are low. Class I materials include
non-recent and recent sediments which are suitable for capping materials
at open-water dump sites, for habitat creation projects, or rehandling for
productive uses which include beach nourishment and landfill cover.

Class II sediments are often relatively fine-grained with moderate
solids content. Class II materials may contain a moderate amount of
potential pollutants, volatile solids, oil and grease, and metals, at
levels often sufficient to be a cause for concern. A subjective
evaluation of the dredge site and metals is needed to designate such
materials as either "non-degrading" or "potentially degrading".
Potentially degrading Class 11 material will be treated as Class III
material. On the other hand, evaluation may show that some Class II
material is suitable for habitat creation projects, capping Class III
material, or landfill cover.

Class III sediments are usually fine-grained with low solids con-
tent. These materials often contain high levels of potential pollutants,
volatile solids, oil and grease, and metals. Class III sediments may be
judged "potentially degrading" or "potentially hazardous" based on the
relative concentrations of pollutant constituents. The probability for
Class III sediments being "toxic" to marine bottom fauna may be high.
Subjective evaluation of metals and other pollutants, and objective review
of bioassay and/or bioaccumulation test results, may be required to
determine the suitability of Class III material for open water disposal at
Long Island Sound regional disposal areas.

As a general policy, Class III material is not dumped at regional
disposal sites unless it is capped with suitable Class I or Class II
material. Therefore, the conditions under which Class III material may be
disposed of may include both temporal and seasonal restrictions relating
to the availability of suitable material for capping, or alternative
management techniques directed towards the goal of maximum environmental
protection. In addition, there may be,certain circumstances under which
open water disposal may be prohibited.

REGULATIONS

AND

POLICY

REGULATIONS AND POLICY PERTAINING TO
DREDGING AND DISPOSAL
THE REGULATORY PROCESS

The construction and operation of dredged material containment
facilities in Long Island Sound are regulated at the Federal and State-
level. Federal participants include the Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Coordination is also required with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US F&WS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). At the State level in New York and Connecticut,
environmental protection agencies participate directly in permit
issuance. Local zoning and/or public health and safety ordinances may
also apply for those cases where shoreline extension projects are planned.

Federal Regulations

Four major Federal statutes directly affect all dredging and disposal
actions:

1. Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899 provides that
the construction or alteration of any ptructure in any navigable waters is
prohibited without the authorization of the Corps of Engineers.

2. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 requires the
issurance of a water quality certification by the State prior to any
dredging. Certification involves consideration of water quality impacts
at the dredging site and the disposal site if located within State waters.

3. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps to
issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S.
waters. The selection and use of disposal sites will be in accordance
with guidelines developed and administered by EPA.

4. Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act (Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972) pertains to the transport of dredged
material for ocean disposal at selected and approved disposal sites.

Other Federal and State acts which may directly influence dredging
and disposal decisions are listed in table 4.

State Approvals

The States of New York and Connecticut have participated in
developing the interim disposal plan for Long Island Sound. Their role is
continuous since one of the first steps in the dredging and disposal
process is to obtain the necessary State permits and State water quality
certification. Lead agencies for the States are the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) in Connecticut and the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) in New York.

Table 4

Environmental Statutes Applicable to Dredging and Disposal
in Connecticut and New York

Federal

National Environmental Policy Act, as amended 42 U.S.C. 4321, et
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.
Endangered Species Act, as-amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seg.
Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, 16 UOSOCO
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 UoS.C. 401 et sego
National Historic Preservation Act of 1962, 167U.S.Co 4321 et sego
i-07
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 2 U S.C 1401,
et seg.
C Water Act of 1977 as amended, 33 UoSoC. 1251, et seq.
Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 MoC. 6901 et sego
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.SoCo ss 1421 et seq-
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.Ce 7401, et seq.
Protection of Wetlands (E.00, 11990)

States

Connecticut Coastal Management Act of 1978 (Sections 22a-90 through 22a-
112, Connecticut.General Statutes)
Tidal Wetlands Statutes (Sections 22a-28 through 22a-35, Connecticut
General Statutes and Regulations thereunder)
Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act (Sections 22a-36 through 22a-45,
.Connecticut General Statutes and Regulations thereunder)
Structures and Dredging in Tidal, Coastal and Navigable Waters
(Section 22a-359 through 22a-363 Connecticut General Statutes)
Mining of Sand and Gravel in Tidal and Coastal Waters (Section 22a-383
through 22a-390, Connecticut General Statutes)
Stream Channel Encroachment Lines (Sections 22a-342 through 22a-349,
Connecticut General Statutes)
Water Discharge Permits (Section 22a-416 et seq., Connecticut General
Statutes and Regulations therein)
Solid Waste Permit (Sections 22a-207 et seq., Connecticut General
Statutes and Regulations thereunder)
Air Compliance Permits (Sections 22a-174 et seqo, Connecticut
General Statutes and Regulations thereunder)
Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (Sections 22a-1 through 22a-1f,
Connecticut General Statutes)
Harbor Management Act (Sections 113K-113t, Connecticut General Statutes)
Tidal Wetlands Protection Law of 1973 (Codified Laws of N.Y., Art. 24
SS 0101-0602)
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act of 1975 (Codified Laws of N.Y., Art. 24
SS 0101-1303)
Stream Protection Law of 1966 (Codified Laws of NoY., Art. 15
SS 0501-0505)
Environmental Quality Review Law of 1976 (Codified Laws of N.Y.,*
SS 0101-0115)
Local Land Use Authority of 1926 (Codified Laws of N.Y., Art. 16
SS 260-284)

In Connecticut, the State coastal management plan provides a common
basis for the review of impacts of uses on both coastal resources and
future water dependent development. The Coastal Management Act of 1972
(Public Act 78-152) provides the legal authority for insuring the State
and local agencies review coastal impacts by means of unified goals and
policies.

The Coastal Area Management (CAM) Unit within the Department of
Environmental Protection, coordinates, supervises and assists the
activities of existing State and local agencies in implementing coastal
management requirements. The CAM Unit is responsible for reviewing the
consistency of all Federal and private activities and development
projects, which might significantly affect the coastal area. These
activities and projects must be consistent with the management program to
the "maximum extent practicable" (capable of being done to the fullest
degree permitted by existing Federal law).

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

In planning Federal navigation projects, the general policy of the
Corps is to require local interests to provide without cost to the United
States all suitable areas required for initial and subsequent disposal
with dredged,material and all necessary retaining dikes, bulkheads and-
embankments. This requirement applies specifically to disposal on land or
behind bulkheads. Likewise, if a containment facility were identified as
the designAted site, the costs of the dikes and other containment features
would become a local responsibility. However, for disposal at one of the
four open water sites there are generally no separate local costs for the
interim unless a more economical disposal option existed.

Maintenance of Navigation Projects

It has been past policy that maintenance and operation of Federal
navigation projects shall be Federal responsibility accomplished at
Federal cost. The provision and preparation of disposal areas is the
responsibility of local interests unless authorizing legislation provides
otherwise. However, Policy Issue No. 79-19 states that retaining
structures (dikes) will be provided by the Corps unless the authorizing
documentation indicates explicitly that such structures are a local
responsibility. Should retaining structures become a new requirement for
maintenance of the project for environmental reasons, the Corps would
recommend that the local cooperation requirements be modified to include
retaining structures unless an exception is justified based on special
circumstances. The Corps will provide the necessary retaining structures
until Congress modifies the local cooperation requirements.

Maximizing Use of Dredged Material
Section 148 of Public Law 94-587.

This legislation calls for encouraging the use of management
practices to extend the capacity and-useful life of dredged material
disposal areas so that the need for new disposal areas is kept to a
minimum. The management practices, which may include construction of
dikes, consolidation and dewatering of dredged material and construction
of drainage and outflow facilities, may be implemented at Federal expense.

Section 150 of Public Law 94-587

This law authorizes the Corps of Engineers to expend up to $400,000
to establish wetland areas using dredged material as part of an authorized
water resources development project. For Section 150 to be applicable the
following provisions must be met:
1. The environmental, economic and social benefits justify the
increased costs.

2. The increased cost should not exceed $400,000

3. The wetland will not be altered or destroyed by natural or
manmade causes.

This law also requires that when a report on water resources
development project is submitted to Congress the establishment of wetland
areas shall be considered in the report. In the economic computations,
the benefits of establishing a wetland shall be at least equal to the
cost, which shall be borne by the United States.

The money expended under this authority must result in a complete,
functioning wetland. The program is not designed to supplement the cost
of a containment dike with the expectation of creating a wetland 30 years
into the future. Shorter term results are sought and can be obtained
through incremental, or phased construction. Non-Federal interests would
normally retain ownership, be responsible for-operation and maintenance,
and provide assurances that the beneficial values of the wetland would be
maintained.

PLAN

FORMULATION

PLAN FOWULATION

OBJECTIVES

The goal of the plan formulation process was to develop the informa-
tion and procedures which could lead to conclusions concerning the overall
study objective and determine the feasibility of dredged material
containment facilities in Long Island Sound. To accomplish this, the
process was directed at addressing the following planning objectives.

1. Identify potential containment facility sites for the disposal of
dredged material which may be generated from Federal and non-
Federal dredging activities in Long Island Sound.

2. Develop containment designs for Long Island Sound which are
feasible from an engineering, construction and operational
aspect.

3. Minimize the economic costs to potential users of containment
facilities.

4. Minimize the environmental and social impacts of containment
facilities.

5. Maximize the long and short term use potential of both dredged
material and containment facilities.

6. Explore the legal, institutional and financial arrangements
associated with containment of dredged material in Long Island
Sound.

Disposal of dredged material at containment facilities is a new
concept for Long Island Sound except for instances where shoreline or land
disposal areas have been diked. There was also an earlier study and
report, "Artificial Island and Platforms in Long Island Sound", prepared
in 1974 by John McAleer as a consultant for the New England River Basins
Commission. Approximately 60 possible sites, mostly islands and shoals,
were identified but no recommendations were presented.

SITE IDENTIFICATION

The site identification and screening process evolved through several
different studies and methods of analysis. In total, screening identified
nearly 300 potential sites distributed throughout the sound. The multi-
step screening process arrayed the sites into the following categories.

1.Large regional sites constructed either as shoreline extension
or offshore islands.

2.Smaller shoreline extensions and nearshore sites further dis-
aggregated into:

a. Sites adjacent to publicly owned shoreline
b. Sites adjacent to private or other public shoreline.

The identification and screening process for each group is described
in more detail below.

Large Volume Regional Sites

During preparation of the Reconnaissance Report (January 1979)
initial planning efforts concentrated on identifying large regional
sites. Planning centered on finding either A) a single facility to
receive all dredged material for the study area for the study period 1985
to 2035, or B) three facilities to receive all the dredged material with
one facility to be located in each coastal area. Investigations were
completed for capacities of 12, 30, 37, and 59 million cubic yards.

Considerations included three types of projects and siting zones:
shoreline extension, nearshore-islands, or offshore islands. Design
details included using a circular configuration and containment by either-
rock dikes or steel sheet pilings.

Siting analyses, performed by a multidiscipline study team, included
consideration of water depths, ecological factors, land use on adjacent
shoreline,.and wave and current energy regimes. Sites located and
screened are listed in Table 5. The findings indicate that these large
regional sites are costly to construct singularly (about $150,000,000 to
contain all material). Further, they would induce major impacts because
of their structural magnitude. Further consideration was therefore
deferred pending analysis of smaller sites. Subsequently, the more
promising of these sites and areas were reevaluated for the Island/Shoal
Screening Report.

Shoreline Extension/Nearshore Sites

Initial planning efforts described earlier evidenced that -
considerable potential existed for smaller local, and/or regional
containment facilities, constructed as shoreline extension or nearshore
sites. This next phase of the site screening process was carried forward
for two groups namely publicly owned and privately owned shoreline.

Table 5

Sites Considered In Reconnaissance Study

Groton-Fisher Island
New London - Open Water Dump
Bartlett Reef - Offshore Waterford
Hatchett Reef - Offshore Old Lyme
Cornfield Shoals - Open Water Dump
Clinton - Six Mile Reef to Cornfield Shoals
Clinton - Six Mile Reef
Long Sand Shoal
Duck Island Lighthouse & Breakwater Offshore-Westbrook
Guilford Falkner Island
New Haven Tidal Flat E. Side of Hbr. Adjacent to E.
Shore Park
New Haven - Tidal Flat W. Side of Harbor Near Wharf
New Haven - Tidal Flat Breakwater Mouth of Old Field Creek &
Sandy Point Breakwater
New Haven - 20 Square Miles Near Historic Dump Site
Welches Point - West Haven
Charles Island - Offshore Milford
Milford Point - Milford
Point-No-Point - Stratford
Bridgeport Breakwater, W. Breakwater & Tongue Point
Pine Creek Point Fairfield
Cockenoe Island Norwalk Islands
Greens Ledge - Offshore Norwalk
Cable and Anchor Reef
Georges Rock
Stamford - Breakwaters to the Cows
Stamford - R32A Shoals
Goose Island - Offshore Greenwich
Little Captain Island - Offshore Greenwich
Area Outside Calf Island - Offshore Greenwich

Siting Method. The plan formulation presented in the Interim Report (July
1980) and the Addendum (January 1981) represents a preliminary siting
analysis for shoreline extension containment opportunities for all of Long
Island Sound. The four-step preliminary siting method includes:

1. Identify and rank primary screening criteria for selecting
alternative sites.
2. Apply the criteria to Long Island Sound to obtain specific
site alternatives.
3. Preliminarily rank the alternative sites in relative order
of desirability.
4. Investigate the use of sites individually or in combinations
to determine the potential of using more than one site.

Steps I and 2, by identifying the coastal areas of Long Island Sound
showing the most promise for containment facility siting, served to
greatly reduce the number of sites needing detailed investigation. Step 3
applied additional, but more specific, criteria. Step 4 formulated
preliminary design of projects considering site specific issues,
construction feasibility, operation, and other site specific factors.
This site identification and screening process is outlined in more detail
in table 6.

Publicly-Owned Shoreline Sites. The shoreline was screened for potential
sites that were adjacent to publicly held shoreline at locations such as
parks, beaches, transportation corridors and military and institutional
sites. The incentive for these sites is that there are potentially fewer
adverse impacts on residential and other private property, minimal land
aquisition costs, and possibly less social/political opposition. The
disadvantage is that, compared to privately owned shoreliqe on LIS, the
public shoreline is severely limited in extent such that potential
alternatives for consideration are in fact limited.

This primary screening siting process identified 133 public shoreline
and existing disposal areas sited along the coast of LIS in New York and
Connecticut. Of the 133 sites, 24 survived the initial screening (17 in"
NY and 7 in CT). Through the secondary screening process the number of
sites was narrowed to eight (five in NY, three in CT). These are ranked
in order as follows:

New York Sites

I. State Maritime Academy Throgs Point
2. Fort Totten/Little Bay Park Willets Point
3. Garvies Point Hampstead Harbor
4. US Military Reservation Hart Island
5. Ferry Point Park Upper East River

Connecticut Sites

1 Bayview Park New Haven Harbor
2: Seaside Park Bridgeport
3. East Shore Park New Haven

After coordination of the findings with State officials, the top
ranked sites were deemed to have unacceptable impacts.

Privately Owned (and other Public) Sites. Site screening was expanded to
include potential containment sites--ad3-acent to the private shoreline.
The publicly owned shoreline as mentioned above was found to be too
restrictive and bypassed opportunities for facility siting. This expan-
sion offered advantages including: 1) it opened up a larger proportion of
the shoreline for consideration, and 2) it allowed for more consideration

TABLE 6

SITE IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING PROCEDURE

Step 1. Identify and rank primary screening criteria
1) Bathymetry
2) Shoreline Ownership
3) Significant ecological areas
4) Wetlands
5) Major Public Beaches
6) Wave Energy
7) Land Use Compatibility/Reuse Potential

Step 2. Apply the criteria to LIS. Working maps of LIS were first
prepared. An overlay system was used to apply the various
screening considerations.

Step 3. Preliminary ranking of alternative sites to characterize the
desirability of each site (Secondary screening). Step 3
used two distinct sets of numerical values: weighting
factors and criteria points. Weighting factors are assigned
according to the perceived importance of each factor. The
criteria points represented the physical and geographic
characteristics of alternative sites. See table 6 for work
sheet. Criteria points were assigned based on site specific
conditions. For instance if a: site is located within 3
miles from shellfish beds (assigned 2 criteria points), it
would have a lesser impact *than if it were within 1 mile
(zero points). These criteria points were multiplied by the
weighting factors to establish an overall score. The
greater the score, the lower the environmental impact.

(criteria points) x (weighting factor) = overall points.

Step 4. Investigate the use of sites individually or in combinations
to determine the potential of using more than one site.
Step 4 entailed preliminary design of projects considering
site-specific issues, construction feasibility, and
operational factors. The siting method was designed to
produce a collection of potential sites for detailed review
and evaluation. Reiteration of the first two or three steps
was often necessary before the siting was completed.

SITE-SPECIFIC SEC~qO~qM~qbARY SCREENING CRITERIA

S~it~in~o Criteria

Name: county: map

~q1. Sh~orefront, Ownership and Shorefront Disposal Was 7. Volume and Types of Dredged Mater~qi~qa
a. Site Ownership; (Federal, State, County, Town~, Private) A. Present Disposal Method: % ~qW~qa
2. Proximity of Site to Significant Ecological Areas ~b~. Volume of Dredged Material Pr
a. Shellfish Beds; miles d. Waterfowl Areas: miles Within ~qQu~adran~g~a~l: ____ C~qy/y
b~. Lobster Locations: miles a. Wet~ql~and Areas: miles Within Surrounding Quads:
~C. F~infish Concentrations: miles ~C~. General Characteristics of
Material (P~hy~s-chem):
f. Water Quality Conditions: p~oor/fa~ir/good
3. Bathymetry ~S. Compatability with Adjacent Land/Re
~Hearshore Slope: ft/m~il~e c. Available Volume Below ~K~SL: A. Site Land use: (Res/Rec/comm/
Available Surface Area: acres cu. yards b. AdJ~acent Land Use: (Res/Rec/C
C. Types of Industr~i~a~l~q/C~ommerc~qi~qa
~LJ 4. Exposure Considerations (within I mile either side of site) Petroleum, etc.)
ON
a. Wave Energy: (high, moderate, low) d. Access by Water: (channels, d
~b. Critical Erosion Areas: % ~a. Access by Land: (r~oads/br~id~qge
c. Flood Zone Area: % f. Area-wide Plan:~-(~i~ndustr~i~al/c
d. Endangered Structures: (~buildin~es, homes. ~ietties, etc.) (need for rec
a. Cost of Flood Damages: (hi~gh/med~ium/~low~q) (market for r

~6. Soil/Foundation Characteristics ~q9. Proximity to Cultural Resources
a. Soil/Sediment Physical Characteristics: ~2 sand, % clay, ~1~1 silt &. Cultural; ~qJc~losest) miles
or USCS Classification: b. Types: (historical, ar~chaeolo

b.~- Permeability:

10~. Existing and Historical Spoil Dis
~q6. Existing and Projected Land Use (within I mile radius of site) a. Existence of Containment Stru
a. Residential: ~1~1 ~1~1 f~. Public: ~1~1 ~% (condition, dimensions)
b. Recreational: % % ~q0. Open Space: ~1~1 ~1~1 ~b. Use of Material Previously Di
c. Commercial: % % h~. Agricultural: % % beach nourishment, etc.
d. Industrial: % ~1~1 c. Volume of Material Previously
~a. Wetlands:- % %

of reuseable containment facilities. This phase of the site screening is
reported in an Addendum (January 1981) to the Interim Report mentioned
above.

In this second group, an additional 121 sites were located and were
grouped into the following categories:

18 Shallow Water Sites
31 Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plants
14 Power Generating Sites
21 Corps Navigation Projects, Jetties and Breakwaters
11 Industrial Wastewater Discharge
20 Petroleum Facilities
4 Sand and Gravel Pits
2 Other Sites
121 Total Sites

Of the 121 sites, nearly one half of the sites (54) were ruled out
due to the lack of adequate.construction space while eight were eliminated
because of close proximity to public beaches. The remaining 59 sites that
showed the most potential were subjected to secondary screening.

Results of the Site Indentification and Screening Process.

The intent of the site identification and screening process was to
locate where containment facilities using available resource informa-
tion. Therefore, the process used various coastal resource maps, county
maps, planning board maps, published reports and coordination with State
and local officials.

This phase of the plan formulation process located 283 potential
containment sites based on available resource information. A breakdown by
type is as follows:

Total Number of
Category Number of Sites High Rankins
Large volume regional sites 29 10
Public shoreline 133 24
Private and other public shoreline 121 59
283 93

Based on criteria used, the screening process indicated that public
sites and industrial sites generally offered the most potential whereas
shallow water sites had the lowest overall ranking.

The screening analysis pointed to 83 shoreline and 10 offshore sites
as scoring the highest in overall ranking. This list of sites,
supplemented by public input, formed the basis from which sites were
selected for further investigation.

SELECTION OF SITES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

The site identification and screening process developed information
and rankings on nearly 300 potential sites identifying the most promising
sites as well as the least promising. The study moved on to actively
involve the public in the identification of sites for further invest-
igation. The three planning tools of coordination to select sites for
further investigation were:

1. Review and coordination with State and federal officials
2. Review at public workshops
3. Coordination with local interests.

This was an important part of the plan formulation process inasmuch
as it was through this coordination that public support or criticism of
the sites was identified. This process also resulted in shifting the
location of sites, or identifying entirely new sites which reflected local
needs and knowledge of shoreline conditions. The public also expressed
its opinion as to the value of impacted resources and the local need, or
desire, for containment facilities.

State Coordination. The top ranked site groups were coordinated in
each State with appropriate State officials. In New York, officials
determined that all of the sites presented environmental conflicts,
primarily because of the presence of shellfish stocks and tidal
wetlands. In Connecticut, State officials also noted problems with some
of the sites. However, while environmentally significant areas abound, it
was acknowledged that not every foot of shoreline was critical in
ecological significance. Based on this coordination and review, the sites
.located in New Haven Harbor were felt to result in unacceptable impacts to
shellfish areas and were removed from further consideration.

Federal Coordination. The Corps has coordinated with other 'federal
agencies through a serie;of meetings, workshops and distribution of
reports. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has played a particularly
active role preparing reports under authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. They have contributed planning aid letters in 1980,
1982 and 1984 and also a 1985 fish and wildlife report which is reprinted
and attached to this report.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has been active in their support of the
concept of containment for Long Island Sound, looking specifically for
ways that dredged material can be used to benefit the environment.

Public Coordination. The public involvement pro ceeded along
different avenues including correspondence, workshops, and numerous local
meetings with towns, business and trade organizations. This process
succeeded in a further screening of sites and identification of additional
sites. A general observation of this process indicated that, with local

interest and support, potential containment facilities could be sited
throughout the sound. Conversely, without local interest, it is
improbable that any site could be advanced beyond general consideration.

Selected Sites

The coordination process resulted in 22 sites that were selected for
individual investigation. These are described below and shown on figure
3. The sites were evaluated for technical feasibility and environmental,
economic and social considerations. Information was obtained from
previously prepared reports and imput from individuals and agencies having
knowledge of the area(s).

1. Captain Harbor, Greenwich,CT. Captain Harbor was the best site
in western Long Island Sound of those proposed for review in this study.
This site consists of an area of open water and islands about 1.25 miles
offshore near Byram, Greenwich, and Cos Cob Harbors. This site is
technically feasible, however, a lack of local support and opposition from
coastal residents presently reduces the the incentive to pursue this site
as a potential containment facility.

2. Norwalk Island, Norwalk and Westport, CT. is an area of open
water'and islands at the entrance to Norwalk harbor. Biological pro-
ductivity, high concentrations of shellfish and finfish, along with the
recreational land use patterns prompt rejection of this site for further
consideration. 'In addition, navigational hazards could be increased by a
containment facility in this busy boating area. Further, recently enacted
barrier island protection legislation may bar construction of a
containment facility in much of this archipelago.

3. Milford Point, Milford, CT. consists of a barrier beach and
adjacent mudflat area located at the mouth of the Housatonic River on the
eastern shore'. The study area considered is located in a triangular
shaped area between Milford Point on the northwest, the outer breakwater
flasher to the south, and Laurel Beach to the east. This site is ruled
out from further consideration by biological productivity, importance of
wildlife habitat, and barrier island legislation recently enacted by
Congress.

4. Thimble Islands, Branford, CT. is an open water and rocky island
archipelago located to the east of Branford Harbor and west of Sachem
Head. More than a dozen sizable islands make up "The Thimbles." Although
technically feasible, public comment received reflects strong community
opposition which renders utilization of this area impractical as a
containment facility site. Biological productivity, shellfish concen-
tration, finfish concentrations, surrounding land use patterns and
navigational hazards are among the factors supporting elimination of this
location from further consideration.

5. Falkner Island, off Guilford, CT. is an area located approx-
imately 3 nautical miles south of the entrance to Guilford Harbor. The
site consists of.two major islands, Falkner and Goose Island and several
rock outcroppings This site, although technically feasible, has several
environmental issues including the loss of rock and bottom habitat and the
need for undisturbed shorebird nesting, especially for the tern. The site
is located in a high energy zone which would entail a large and costly
containment structure. In 1984, the Falkner Islands were designated as a
National Wildlife Refuge area. On this basis the site was eliminated from
further consideration.

6. Sixmile_Reef,_off Clinton, CT. is a shoal area located approx-
imately I -nautical miles south of Hammonasset Point. This site was
rejected from consideration due to high biological productivity, the
potential for creating a navigational hazard, and high costs related to
construction in deep water.

7. Duck Island Roads, Clinton and Westbrook, CT.- is a harbor of
refuge formed by 3 breakwaters consEructed in 1917 by the Corps of
Engineers. A containment proposal here could be located on the western
edge of the harbor and not impact on it. This site is designated as
warranting further investigation with future studies addressing environ-
mental impacts, shoreline erosion and design considerations. However,
because of concerns of nearby residents and the lack of local support,
further consideration was deferrd.

8. Menunketesuck Island, Westbrook,-CTO lying due east of Duck
Island Roads, is a slender island with associated sand flats extending
southwest from the entrance of the Patchogue River. Limitation on size
and capacity combined with disruption of habitat utilized by shorebirds
rule out further consideration of this site. High biological produc-
tivity, significant shellfish concentrations, and proximity to municipal
beaches further support its elimination.

9. Bartlett Reef, off Waterford, CT. represents an area of shoals
located south of Seaside Point, east of Niantic Bay and west of New London
Harbor. A few rock outcroppings.of the reef are visible at low tide
though the majority of the reef lies 2-12 feet below low tide. High
biological productivity, potential for creating navigational hazards,
strong currents and a significant potential for erosion combine to make
this location undesirable for further consideration.

10. Stratford Shoals, off Stratford, CT. is a shoal area located
midway between Stratford Point and Crane Neck on Long Island. Initial
analysis indicates that this site is an important lobstering area and a
popular fishing area. It also a high wave energy zone requiring costly
containment dikes, with adverse environmental impacts and no public
sponsorship, this site was not advanced for further study.

11. BlackLedge, Groton/New London, CT. is located about I mile
outside the entrance to New London Harbor. The site, originally
considered by the U.S. Navy, was recommended for further consideration by
the city of Groton Conservation Commission and Harbor Study Commission.
With a capacity of 7.5 million cubic yards the site could serve as a
regional disposal area and was advanced for detailed investigation. Site
conditions established during detailed studies included high wave energy
and water depths to 35 feet. The resultant $40 million cost make the
facility economically infeasible.

12. The Clinton Harbor, CT. site is located in Clinton and Madison
in the outer -harbor area. The facility is planned as a marsh creation
site adjacent to the present wetland area on Hammonasset State Park. The
site has support from town and business interests in Clinton and was
advanced for detailed investigation.

Subsequent detailed studies indicated that the site showed economic
feasibility, but three events impacted on the feasibility of the project:

1. the town of Madison surfaced aquaculture plans that they had
prepared f or the area.

2. the state of Connecticut raised several environment issues
regarding the proposal, and

3. the containment site was in an area designated as coastal barrier
beach.

13. Faye@weathers Island, Bridgeport, CTi is located between
Bridgeport Harbor and Black Rock Harbor. The facility would have a
capacity of 1.4 million cubic yards. The site would result in significant
impacts to a seed oyster cultivation area. Opposition to the site was
very strong from abutters west of Black Rock Harbor, and the site was
eliminated from further consideration.

14. Yellow Mill Channel, Bridgeport, CT is a 16.5 acre site on the
upper reaches of the channel with a capacity of 136,000 cubic yards. The
proposed site would be filled in I to 2 years, and, after capping with
clean fill could be turned into a recreation area. Plans were underway to
expand the wharf of Jacob Brothers Scrap Iron further upstream, signif-
icantly reducing the area which could be used as a containment facility.
Also, city officials indicated that they prefered to use the channel as a
spoil site for refuse. Following these discussions with city officials,
this site was ruled out.

15. Two Tree Island is a submerged rock outcropping located about 1
mile off Millstone Point in Westbrook, CT. An 80-acre containment
facility could provide capacity for 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged
material. Local conservationists envisioned this as a future wildlife
area. However, use of the site was strongly opposed by the Millstone

nuclear powerplant owners who felt that the facility may interfere with
the intake of cooling water needed for the plant's operation. Also it was
felt that nearby Black Ledge was a better site so further study at this
site was deferred.

16. Borrow Pits in LIS (Sherwood Island, Morris-Cove, and Prospect
Beach). These sites were recommended by the Connecticut Division of
Aquaculture which proposed the filling of these aqueous borrow Pits. The
Sherwood Island site was studied in detail as the representative of this
type of disposal area.

17. Mamaroneck Harbor, NY There are actually three alternative
sites in this harbor area that were recommended for consideration by local
interests. A facility at the primary location could hold about 500,000
cubic yards of dredged material. All are located in a-highly sensitive
shoal area in an area of extensively developed shoreline. All three were
rejected for environmental and social reasons.

18. Gold Star Bridge, New London, CT This site is located on the
Thames River immediately upstream of the Gold Star Bridge at 1-95. The
site, recommended by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, is
located adjacent to dredging operations, is protected from high waves, and
adjoins State-owned land. However, the site was rejected following
geological screening which indicated very poor foundation conditions.

19. Penfield Reef, Fairfield, CT. This potential site for a con-
tainment facility was recommended as a shoreline extension facility with a
capacity ranging from I to 4 million cubic yards. At the smaller size,
the facility would receive dredged 'material from Black Rock Harbor* if
developed as a larger facility, it could function as a regional
containment facility. Accordingly this site was advanced for further
study.

During detailed studies, the site drew considerable support from the
town of Fairfield Conservation Commission, in part because of its
potential to reduce tidal flooding and wave damage and to reverse shore-
line erosion processes. However, the site is not cost effective and could
impact negatively on this environmentally sensitive area.

20. Mianus River, Greenwich, CT. This site, located on the Mianus
RiverV was viewed as a local disposal site. However, because of
infrequent dredging and limited dredging material volume, it was
eliminated from further consideration.

21. Milford Harbor, Milford, 'CT. The site would be located just
outside Milford Harbor adjacent to the Federal channel. The facility,
with a capacity up to-400,000 cubic yards, was recommended by the Milford
Harbor Commission and received further detail study. A facility at
Milford would fit into the town's harbor plans, impede erosion along the

town beach and meet their disposal needs for up to 50 years. However
cost estimates indicate that the $2.6 million structure would not be Cost
effective.

22. Flushing Bay, New York, NY. This site was recommended by the
New York-New Jersey Port Authority and is actually located out of the
study area on the East River. The New York District of the Corps of
Enginee@s is continuing investigation of the potential for creating a
small marsh restoration project at this location. Therefore, no further
consideration was given to the site in this study.

C 0 M H I C T I C U T
NEW LONDO

NEW HAVEN

4 12 7

BRIDGEPORT 4
3
ji
NORWALK 13 0

STAMFORD
2
ENWICH a
0

ORT JEFFERSON

LEN COVE

sl
12 IN

-n

G STATUTE MAE$
c:
:0 1
rn

11AUTIM MILES

-4-r'@-

Dredging operations are an essential part of keeping LIS harbors, such
as at Guilford, CT shown here, open to boating traffic.

-TM

TWO

Land disposal containment sites such as this Guilford, CT site are
becoming less available because existing sites are filling up or
because of regulatory controls.

I'so

...........

The majority of dredged material from LIS harbors is disposed of at
open water sites. Short and long-range impacts are closely
monitored by the DAMOS program conducted by the New England Division.

W. . . .....

The Corps is continuing research into the effects of alternative
disposal techniques. Here the Corps constructed a wetland
containment facility for field testing.

-.4

vu@

While the use of containment is not common in LIS it has seen widespread
use in other parts of the country as evidenced by this dredge mooring
and rehandling facility at Dickinson Island in the Great Lakes.

--- -------

41
7- @ fti, it &1t,

In the Great Lakes, the use of containment has been mandated in the short
term to prevent further dumping of contaminated materials in open water.
Shown here is a containment facility at Point Mouillee.

T",

Over 300 potential containment sites were identified in LIS
such as this site in Yellow Mill Creek in Bridgeport, CT.
Very few sites received local support.

Many potential sites, such as this one at Scotch Caps in
Mamaroneck, NY were sited adjacent to harbors. In this
instance, as well as many others, local interest cited
unacceptable environmental impacts.

"Kiw in "I
TP",

Clinton Harbor interests were supportive of constructing a
containment facility in the outer harbor area adjacent to
the federal channel and private marinas.

44P
77-774@-@

The facility at Clinton would be vegetated and function as a wetland
similar to this area in the Great Lakes.

A containment facility at Penfield Reef (in background) in
Fairfield, CT was considered as a potential disposal area
for Black Rock and other harbors.

__Jr

N.
P, :V@

Much of the LIS coastline is developed and many areas such as
this residential area adjacent to Penfield Reef would be
directly impacted by a shoreline extension containment facility.

Town interest led to consideration of a containment facility
at the Milford Harbor entrance. A facility here could be
incorporated into the town's recreation area and prevent
erosion to Gulf Beach.

The Milford site, as well as others, were planned as shoreline extension
sites. Containment dikes would be constructed of rock and gravel from
material hauled by trucks as seen here at Point Mouillee.

Vil

I
PROTOTYPE

SITES

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PROTOTYPE SITES

Detailed analysis were designed to generate the information needed to
assist in making the determination of the feasibility of containment
facilities in Long Island Sound.

Public participation played an important role in adapting plans to meet
local conditions and desires as well as gaging the level of local
interest.

The plan formulation process, which included site identification, site
screening, and public review and recommendations, produced five potential
containment sites, which represented different categories of sites, had
public interest and support and warranted further analysis. The five
sites which were advanced for more detail analysis to test the feasibility
of these individual prototype sites are:

Clinton Harbor - Marsh creation site.

Black Ledge - Island creation site for use as a
regional disposal area.

Milford Harbor - Shoreline extension site for use by local
harbor.

Penfield Reef - Shoreline extension site for use as a
regional disposal area.

Sherwood "Hole".. - Aqueous borrow pit.

Methodology. The detailed analysis allowed a closer look at the engineer-
ing design, environmental resources and impacts, project economics, wave
energy and sediment transport, and socio-economic considerations.

Engineering studies for individual sites included site ge ology,
foundation conditions (determined by field investigations and laboratory
analysis), hydrographic surveys, construction considerations and tidal
hydraulics.

Environmental considerations were based on LIS resource reports and
field surveys including benthic sampling, diver observations and
laboratory analysis. In addition, oceanographic observations and computer
modeling for wave energy analysis and sediment transport were undertaken
at the Clinton, Black Ledge and Penfield sites.

Economic analysis were aimed at comparing the costs of disposal at
each containment site with open water in LIS and open water ocean disposal
at The Race (located at the eastern end of the sound). The major factors
affecting dredging and disposal costs were assumed to be transport
distance, type of dredging operation and project size. These added

dredging costs were added to mobilization costs and, in the case of
containment, the cost of the facility. First costs were amortized at 8-
3/8 percent Federal discount rate for the expected time to fill the
facility - generally 25 years.

Social considerations of the acceptability and possible impacts
associated with containment facilities were based on literature research,
site visits, the public workshop and research interviews.

CLINTON HARBOR DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITY

Background

Clinton Harbor, located in the Connecticut towns of Clinton and
Madison, is formed between Hammonasset and Kelsey Points by two headlands
projecting into Long Island Sound (LIS). The Cedar Island Peninsula
divides the harbor into "inner" and "outer segments. The harbor is one of
the main recreational boating harbors on LIS, accommodating 15 marinas and
town docking facilities. It is served by a Federal navigation project
consisting-of a channel.8 feet deep at mean low water (mlw), 100 feet wide
and 1.1 miles in length, and an 8-foot deep anchorage area. The Corps of
Engineers completed the project in January 1951 and performed maintenance
dredging in 1958, 1965, 1973, 1976, 1981, 1982 and 1984.

Recent changes in dredge material disposal options have affected
Clinton Harbor. Historical disposal locations included wetlands in the
harbor area and use as construction material in Hammonasset State Park.
Because site capacities.ha.ve been reached or wetland policies have
curtailed use, neither of these options presently exist in this area. The
historic dumping ground located about 2 miles offshore is also closed. -
Disposal options now include open water sites at Cornfield Shoals (8 miles
away) or New Haven (25 miles away) as identified in the Interim Plan for
the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound. Most material
dredged from Clinton is taken to Cornfield Shoals, which limits disposal
to "clean" material. There are, however, inner harbor sediments that
would not meet the criteria and would have to go to New Haven disposal
area - a costly alternative. This could directly affect consideration of
any further navigationimprovements which may be desired by the town.

Small private marinas and dredgers are the group most severly
impacted by the changes in disposal patterns. They are unable to rely on
the economies of scale that would be needed to offset increased hauling
costs. Faced with these recently increased costs and the potential for
further restrictions and cost increases, harbor interests have identified
the potential for a dredged material containment site which would be
located in the outer harbor area adjacent to Hammonasset State Park, and
immediately west of the Federal channel.

Site Description

The containment facility site is located in the outer harbor area as
shown in Figure 4. The topography of the area is generally flat and
located adjacent to extensive wetland areas which are part of Hammonasset
State Park. Offshore, the area is generally flat with boulders providing
some relief. Minimum offshore elevation at the site is about -8 feet NGVD
(-6 MLW). Glacial deposits are dominant in the offshore area with
overburden thickness of about 50 feet over igneous bedrock. The surficial
deposits consist of granular soil overlying very soft organic silt.

Project Formulation

The containment facility is being considered as a disposal area only
for dredged material that would come from Clinton Harbor. The facility is
adjacent to present and prospective future dredging areas. As such,
hydraulic dredging operations with direct pipeline to the disposal area
will be possible. Material from other harbors is not being considered for
disposal at Clinton.

The containment facility is sized with a capacity to store up to I
million cubic yards of dredged material (see Table 7). Under the Most
Probable Future scenario, the facility would have a useful life in excess
of 25 years. Alternatively, a smaller facility with a capacity of 500,000
cubic yards was also considered and would be appropriate for minimum
growth or other possible scenarios that might consider the use of the
containment facilitly and Cornfield Shoals for future disposal areas.

Table 7

Dredged Material Disposal Needs - Clinton Harbor
(Cubic Yards)

Most Probable
Type of Dredging Future Min. Growth

105,000 90,000
Federal O&M (4200/yr) (3600/yr)

500,000 250,000
Permit (20,000/yr) (10,000/yr)

Improvement 150,000 150,000
Dredgingi

Total 755,000 490,0000

Assumes modification/extension of existing Federal project.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

C 0

499
CENTRAL e.g.

MADISON
I T N-_
Sg.A
LON6

TOWN LAND1014@
UPSTReLUhIlly
FED RAL PROJEC

"AAMGM.-SIT STUE FAST

N r 0 N

. ............

....... ifAm MIT FT.
KEL
L V

$Take

A
S

DREDGED MATERIAL'.' Lima..
CONTAINMENT FACILITY- 009
(PROPOSED LOCATION)
................ .. ... ...
CLIP
C

.... ..... ...
..... ..... .....
.91sav of.
m

The Clinton project, although referred to as a containment facility,
is being planned as a marsh creation project. As such, tidal circulation
over the marsh and dredged material is necessary for the facility to
function as a wetland area. Planning and design reflect attempts to
contain the material in a facility that will blend favorably with the
existing wetland area on Hammonasset Park. Retaining dikes would be built
to help protect the existing and newly created marsh. Their final
elevation would be +6 mean low water, or an eliavation which corresponds to
the various naturally occuring rock formations along the shoreline at the
site where the facility would tie into high ground. In addition, there
are numerous boulders located in the water which form a relatively
straight alignment (out towards Wheeler Rock). They, too are in the +4 to
+6 mean low water range and could easily blend.in as part of the retaining
dike system.

Design Consideration

Facility designs were based on project formulation concepts, founda-
tion soils and hydrologic conditions. Foundation soils, as determined by
subsurface exploration and laboratory analyses, are highly compressible
and limit the elevation of the dike to approximately 6 feet above mean low
water (+6 MLW). The top of the dike elevation coincides with the
elevation of natural rock features in the area where the facility iies
into high ground. At this elevation, tides and waves would frequently
overtop the dike and flood the containment area.

The proposed dike would be constructed of rock and gravel in zero to
8 feet of water. These water depths are too shallow to allow any
significant placement by barge. The most economical construction method
would be to truck the material from local land sources and spread the
material from the shore outward using bulldozers.

The dike would be approximately 4800 feet long with a maximum height
of 12 feet at the point of maximum water depth. The dike core would
consist of quarry spalls sized up to 400 pounds, a size that would be
strong enough to support construction equipment and be heavy enough to
resist erosion during construction. Armor stone - slope protection is
required on the ocean side of the dike to protect the structure from
design wave heights of 4 to 6 feet. This rock slope protection would
extend over the top of the dike and would require stone sizes up to 1,500
pounds. A gravel blanket, and, if found necessary, a filter fabric would
be placed on the inside of the dike to retain dredged mateiral-fines
within the facility. Based on preliminary estimates the following
quantities of material are needed, which are expected to be available from
commercial sources within 30 miles of the site.

Table 8

Construction Materials Clinton

Material Quantity., cy

1,000 - 1,500 lb. Armor Stone 13,100

200 - 400 lb. Armor Stone 4,900

1 - 150 lb. Quarry Chips 44,750

Gravel (Bank Run) 3,000

A weir structure approximately 50 feet wide would be required to
control circulation in and out of the 100-acre containment facility.

Dredging would be a hydraulic operation with the material pumped
directly into the facility. As the dredged material is deposited within
the retaining dikes, the elevations of the "mounds" would be carefully
observed. The high points would be approximately +7 mean low water while
the low points would be submerged at mean low water. This would produce a
landscape similar in appearance to the adjacent existing marsh. The marsh
creation project would not interfere with the bxisting marsh, reduce its
present size, nor create any undue stress upon it. Rather it would help
protect portions (the westernmost area) which are presently subject to
slight erosion. When filled to capacity, about 55 acres of Spartina
alterniflora marsh would be created on fine gravel materials at elevations
between 4 and 5 feet mean low water. Thirteen acres of S. alterniflora
would be developed in the predominantly sand structures adjacent to the
retaining dikes at elevations between 2.5 and 5 feet mean low water.

Economic Analysis

The economic analysis for Clinton Harbor considered dredging and
disposal costs for four alternatives disposal sites: the containment
facility, Cornfield Shoals, New Haven and The Race. Two levels of
dredging activity, which corresponds to most Probable Future and Minimum
Growth scenarios were evaluated. Factors used to evaluate the economics
included first costs (containment facility), mobilization and demobili-
zation costs, and dredging costs which are specifically affected by type
of dredged plant to be used, project size and transport distance.
Hydraulic dredging was assumed for disposal at the -containment facility,
while a bucket/scow operation was assumed for other disposal
alternatives. The costs for each alternative are shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Clinton Harbor Containment Facility
Costs by Alternative

Dredged Material Quantity.
Disposal Site I MCY 0.5 MCY

Containment Facility
First Cost-L/
Dike $1,347,000 $ 700,000
Wetland Planting 80,000 60,000
Contingency (25%) 357,000 190,000
Subtotal $1,784,000 $ 950,000
Engineering & Design' 71,000 38,000
Supervisions & Administration 107,000 57,000
Total $1,962,000 @1,045,000

2
Annual Cost-=/
Facility $ 190,000 $ 101,000
Mobilization & Demobilization 69,000 69,000
Dredging 284,000 139,000
Total 543,000 $ 309,000

New Haven Dump Site

First Cost - --
Mobilization & Demobilization $ 93,000 $ 93,000
Dredging 487,000 238,000
Total $ 580,000 331,000

The Race Dump Site

First Cost -- --
Mobilization & Demobilization $ 93,000 $ 93,000
Dredging 528,000 257,000
Total $ 621,000 $ 350,000

Cornfield Shoals

First Cost -- --
Mobilization & Demobilization $ 93,000 $ 93,000
Dredging 406,000 203,000
Total $ 499,000 $ 296,000
.L/1984 Costs
I/Amortized at 8-3/8% for 25 years.

Results. The economic analysis indicates that disposal at the containment
facility would be about 9 percent more costly than disposal at Cornfield
Shoals; but 7 percent less costly than disposal at New Haven. In effect,
the containment facility option is economically competitive with open
water disposal because of substantial cost savings associated with
hydraulic dredging techniques which offset the first costs of containment.

Socioeconomic ImEacts

The socioeconomic impacts of the marsh creation project are
summarized below:

- Creation of additional new marsh using dredged material
adjacent to an existing but eroding marsh is viewed as a net benefit to
the area. This conclusion is based on expressed desires to protect the
existing marsh and to add to wildlife habitat in the area.

- The site is relatively distant from residential areas so that
potential aesthetic impacts, such as odors and noise, would be small.

- There is potential for increasing existing vector problems.
Mitigation measures should be considered if found necessary.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations for Clinton Harbor are based upon
information contained in the report entitled, "Environmental Baseline Data
Collections and Site Evaluations - Long Island Sound Container Disposal
Study Clinton Harbor, Connecticut" prepared in March, 1983 as part of this
study. The inshore area, where the proposed containment area would be is
located, is subject to chronic physical disturbance, therefore the benthic
community is reduced in terms of low richness and density. A September
and October sampling program in 1981 indicates that the area is occupied
by a community different from that found offshore; species which were
common at the inshore location tended to be absent from offshore. The
community that occupied this area was closely related to that seen in the
shallow subtidal zone, but also contained species generally seen further
offshore.

No shellfish were found in any of the subtidal samples. But,
Mercenaria mercenaria (hard-shell clam) and Aeguipecten irradians (bay
scallop) do exist in the area. A local population of Crassostrea
virginica. (oyster) exists in the intertidal zone at Hammonasset State
Park. An insignificant population of Mya arenaria (softshell-clam) is
present intertidally.

Only fifteen finfish species were collected during this study with
Pseudopleuronects americanus (winter flounder) I Paralicthys dentatus
7-summer flounder), and Menidia meniolia (silverside) the dominant three
species. No algae species wer@ -found, the soft bottom habitat at the
proposed containment area is unsuitable for algae colonization.

In addition to the summer migrations of Pomatomus saltatrix
(bluefish) and those collected during the September an ctober sampling
periods, the following marine species are common to the Clinton Harbor.
area: Morone saxatillis (striped bass'), M americans (white perch),
Stenotomus chrysops (porgy), Brevoortia,tryannus (menhaden), Callinectes
sapinus (blue crab), and Mytilus edulis (mussel). (Deleuw et al. 1981).

The proposed containment area has a high potential for biological
enhancement of the existing intertidal shores. The proposed dredge
disposal areas could be designed and managed to provide for expanded areas
of saltmarsh habitat. Both high and low saltmash habitat could be created
with protected shallow water areas for fish nursery areas. In addition,
the containment would be designed to confine any pollutants present in the
dredged material.

Limited mathematical modeling has indicated that placement of a
containment facility may restrict tidal flows more toward the eastern
portion of the Midddle Harbor as well as modify wave refraction/-
diffraction and increase peak velocities (2 to 3 times) in that area.
These flow modifications may change bo'ttom and shore topography which
could'alter the benthic communities. The sediment profile photogrammetry
shows rippled bottom generated by undirectional tidal flow. Net average
velocities were from 36 to 63 cm/sec.

The potential impacts of locating a containment area in western
Clinton Harbor would consist of the following: loss of approximately 100
acres of existing benthic habitat (approximately 145 species and 5,000 to
13,000 individuals per square meter); changes in water circulation
patterns, changes in topography due to displacement of currents; and
visual aesthetics would change from open water to salt marsh and
breakwater.

For the purpose of shellfish control, the containment area is under
the jurisdiction of the town of Madison. The Madison Shellfish
Commission, which opposes the containment ifacility, has developed a
management plan for aquaculture, shellfish transplanting and cultivation
and recreational shellfishing.

As presently considered, the marsh development should be pre-
dominately planted with Spartina alterniflora and S pattens marsh. High
elevations should be planted with Panicum virgatum and Ammorphilia
breviligulata. The dike would present a rocky habitat suitable for
colonization by attachment organisms.

The Hammonasset State Park on the western boundary of the proposed
site is a significant recreational and biological area. The creation of
additional marsh, should mitigate physical impacts of the proposed
facility. The existing biological resources are considered important and
may require relocation (e.g. clam habitat and fishery spawning areas).
Final design should include features to minimize changes in circulation

patterns and existing topography. To assure containment the facility
would have to confine all pollutants, and monitoring of organisms, sedi-
ments, and the water column would be required. Analysis of ' productivity
and ecological interrelationships would have to be undertaken if the
project were to go forward. Additional site-specific investigations would
determine the potential for the containment facility to improve the
biological habitat value as mitigation. Monitoring would be required to
assess mitigiation success and assure pollutant containment.

Inasmuch as portion of the Cedar Island spit has been designated as a
barrier beach under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 certain
restrictions apply. The provisions of this legislation, restricts Federal
activities in such areas and would be addressed prior to further consid-
eration of a containment facility in this coastal reach.

BLACK LEDGE

Background

The concept of a dredged material containment facility (DMCF) at
-Black Ledge was originally considered by the Navy in their final EIS
(1976) concerning dredging in the Thames River. It was stated in that
report that a "steel pile containment structure approximately 1.5 miles in
perimeter" would be required along with the "deposition of between 60,000
and 100,000 cubic yards of riprap material." The riprap, "would be placed
on both sides of the piles." While no precise cost estimates were
attempted, this disposal alternative was rejected "not economically
feasible" and creating "an additional navigation hazard." However, the
city of Groton Conservation Commission and Harbor Study Commission (by
letter 21 Nov 1977 and 12 April 1979) recommended further consideration of
the site as a possible containment facility location.

Site Description

The identified DMCF site at Grotoa-New London, shown in Figure 5, is
located approximately I mile outside of.the entrance to New London harbor
to the east of the harbor entrance channel. The site comprises a rocky
shoal area known as Black Ledge where water depths rise rapidly from the
surrounding 20- to 30- foot depths (MLW) to less than 10 feit (MLW) over
much of the shoal. A small pile of rocks approximately lom near the
western limit of the ledge is exposed at most tidal elevations. The total
area of the shoal (depths within the 18-foot isobath) is approximately
320,OOOm2, or about 0.1 square mile.

The topography of the area is primarily controlled by bedrock,
although glaciation has extensively modified the original topography.
Maximum land elevations in the area are about 50 feet NGVD. The offshore
area is generally flat, with numerous areas of resistant bedrock, such as
Black Ledge, providing relief. Minimum offshore elevation at the site is
approximately -14 feet NGVD.

Based on the borings and probes performed at Black Ledge, the thick-
ness and nature of the overburden is quite variable. Thicknesses ranged
from exposed bedrock to over 40 feet of cover. Up to 8 feet of recent
organic, silty sand was recovered. Underlying this material was a
sequence of compact gravel, sand, silt and varved clay, which may be
glacial in origin. Refusals encountered by the probes were assumed to be
bedrock and two of the five borings recovered apparent bedrock samples.

Project Formulation

Black Ledge was considered as a regional containment facility with
the primary source of dredged material to come from the Thames River-
Groton-New London area. This regional facility could accept material from
surrounding harbor such as Niantic Bay and Harbor Mystic River, Stonington

Eastern Pt
Jupiter
Point

Q@ Back Rock

Avery Pt

PINE 1.

Lodge
channel

/ape /V
Lodg,
12-
4%
Is

London
Ledge

000,

GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 1000 FT. 30
a IL

LOCATION MAP, BLACK LEDGE, GROTON, CONNECTICUT
56 FIGURE 5

Harbor and the Pawcatuck River, or largely, the Eastern Connecticut
section of the sound.

The Black Ledge containment facility could meet the disposal needs of
the eastern coastal area for a 50-year period. As seen in Table 10 the
needs for the region vary from 4.7 million to 9.5 million cubic yards
depending on the scenario and future dredging activity. The containment
facility could hold about 7.5 million cubic yards of material.

Table 10
DREDGED DISPOSAL NEEDS - EASTERN CONNECTICUT (1985-2035)

Volume of Material, cubic yards

Minimum Most Probable Maximum
Harbor Growth Future Growth

FEDERAL MAINTENANCE

Niantic 80,000 120,000 160,000
Thames 600,000 800,000 1,000,000
New London 500,000 500,000
Mystic 25,000 50,000 75,000
Stonington -- -- --
Pawcatuck 75,000 100,000 125,000
Subtotal 780,000 1,570,000 1,860,000

FEDERAL IMPROVEMENT

New London 1,600,000 1,600,000
Others 200,000 300,000 500,000
Subtotal 200,000 1,900,000 2,100,000

PERMIT DREDGING
3,696,000 4,620,000 5,544,000
Total 47
,676,000 8,090,000 9,504,000

Source: Long Island Sound Dredged Material Containment Study - Progress
Report. Feb 1983

The Black Ledge site would probably be established as a marine
wildlife sanctuary. After completion of the outside retaining dikes,
filling would be accomplished within interior containment cells which
would allow wetlands to be established soon after project completion. The
'plan for ultimate use would require that approximately 2 feet of fill be
placed on top to properly isolate any contaminated material.

Design Consideration

The proposed dike would be constructed of rock and gravel in. 5 to 35
feet of water. The dike would be approximately 9250 feet long, extending
completely around Black Ledge and creating a 125-acre containment
facility. Soil conditions in the foundation area consist of up to 6 feet
of surficial deposits of very loose silty sand with shell fragments and
plant matter. Original alignments were modified to avoid greater depths
(up to 12 feet) of soft compressible soil. The change in alignment also
placed the facility 1000 feet more distant from the navigation channel,
thereby reducing the potential navigation hazard.

The elevation of the structure would be about +13.5 MLW (+14.5 NGVD).
Since the maximum depth of water at the site is up to 35 feet, the dike
would rise as much as 50 feet above the floor of Long Island Sound.
Design wave heights in the area of the facility are expected to be up to 6
feet high. Overtopping of the dike might occur with waves of this
magnitude. Therefore, slope protection would be placed on the ocean side
of the dike and over the top of the crest and down the inside slope.

Since Black Ledge is located about 3000 feet-offshore, all materials
would be transported to the site by barge. Placement of the core material
would be by bottom dump barges to about -10 feet MLW. Above this
elevation, placement would be by cranes operating from floating barges.
Over 1.2 million cubic yards of material would go into building the
containment facility, exclusive of two interior dikes which would create
the three interior cells.

Table 11
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, BLACK LEDGE SITE

MATERIAL QUANTITY

1,000 - 2,000 lb. Armor Stone 88,800 cy
300 - 600 lb. Armor Stone 27,000 cy
100 - 200 lb. Underlayer Stone 162,000 cy
30 - 60 lb. Underlayer Stone 42,000 cy
Quarry spalls to 50 lb. 883,800 cy
TOTAL 1,204,200 cy

Quarried rock material of suitable quality and sufficient resistance
to weathering and disintegration is available from commercial suppliers
within a 40-mile radius of the study site. It may be necessary to obtain
the desired quantity of quarry spalls from a combination of suppliers.

The Black Ledge containment facility is located far enough offshore
to mandate a conventional bucket/scow operation rather than the much more
economical hydraulic dredging. The use of barges necessitates a
rehandling facility, thereby adding to the cost of the structure and
normal dredging operations.

Economic Analysis

The cost of the Black Ledge containment facility is estimated at
$40,385,000, exclusive of a weir structure, compartment-dikes and a
possible rehandling system. Representing an annual cost of nearly 5
million dollars, disposal at the containment facility is more than 4 times
more costly than open-water disposal. With the site of the containment
facility near the New London open water disposal site, there are no
transportation savings and no operational savings since hydraulic dredging
would not be used. A summary of the economic analysis is shown below.

Table 12
Black Ledge
Estimated Cost by Disposal Alternatives

Containment Facility

First Cost
Dike $30,595,000
Contingency 20% 6,119,000
36,714,000
E&D 4% 1,468,000
S&A 6% 2,203,000
Total First Cost 40,385,000
Annual Cost
Int & Amort (.08395) 3,390,000
Mob & Demob 135,000
Dredging 1,287,000,

Total Annual Cost $4,812,000

New Haven Dump Site

First Cost
Mob & Demob $ 93,000
Dredging 1,188,000.

Total Cost $ 1,281,000

The Race Dump Site

First Cost
Mob & Demob $ 93,000
Dredging 1,188,000
Total Cost $ 1,281,000

Socio Economic Issues

The socio-economic impacts as summarized below include:

- The large volume of dike material required could result in
significant traffic congestion and construction hazards particularly
during the short term construction period.

- Because of the large volume of recreational and commercial boat
traffic at the entrance of New London Harbor, boating hazards associated
with vessel movements to and from the DMCF during development and
operation could result. The long operating life of the facility could
extend these concerns over a long period of time.

- The island creation project would displace marine life.

- Although the site is some distance offshore, its size would reduce
the panoramic view from shoreline. The DMCF island, however, would be
similar in appearance to other nearby islands.

- The issue of jurisdiction of the created lands would need
resolution.

- Local authorities are concerned that the DMCF could become an
attractive nuisance to area boaters and would be difficult to supervise.

- The placement of a containment 'facility at Black Ledge would act as
a barrier and reduce wave heights in the Avery Point area, thereby
reducing tidal flood damages.

Environmental Considerations

Black.Ledae: The following environmental summary discussion of Black
12d'ge is based on the report entitled "Environmental Baseline Data
Collections and Site Evaluations, Long Island Sound Container Disposal
Study-Black Ledge, Groton-Mew London Harbor, Connecticut". The bottom
substrate is composed of three areas consisting of rock (including large
angular boulders), sand/gravel (including muddy sand; 0.23 mm average
diameter), and silts and clay. The benthic sampling showed 184 taxa
representing over five major groups. The dominant groups were polychaetes
(41.3%) crrtaceans (26.1%), and molluscs (25.0%). The density ranged
from 4,6;7/M to 65,250/H 2, in the study area. The species diversity
ranged from 0.6973 to 4.4363 and the species evenness ranged from 0.1301
to 0.8006, in the study area. The silt/clay substrate stations had the
greatest densities (36,672/M2 ) followed by the rock stations (9,907M 2) and
the sand/gravel stations (7,311/M ). Species diversity at the shallow
rock substratum stations was higher than at the silt/clay stations despite
lower species richness and densities. Intermediate depth sand/gravel
stations had highest diversities with least faunal densities. The
patterns appear to be related to bottom stability.

There'appear to be four community types in the study area
corresponding to the four sedimentary types. The deposit-feeding community
in the muddy area west of the ledge corresponds to the Nucula-Nephtys
(bivalve-polychaete) assemblage described by Sanders (1960). The anphipod
dominated community was found on the muddy sands with surface particle
feeding mode. A mixed community of surface particle and filter feeders
with low dominance is found on the gravel. A hard-bottom community
dominated by Mytilus edulis is found on the ledge.

Fifty-two species of algae were recorded from subtidal stations.
Rhodophyta species (Red Algae) comprised between 64 and 70 percent of the
total species recorded at each station. Species richness and dominance
was not related to depth or location. Chondria tenuissima (red algae) was
the dominant species. The dominance patterns were strongly influenced by
the dense concentrations.of 'Mytilus edulus (blue mussel). Epiphytic and
ephemeral species were dominant because of the substrate provided by M
edulus and competition for hard substrate.

The Black Ledge area is a heterogeneous benthic habitat supporting a
diversity of species. The high abundance of organisms suggests that the
area provides food and habitat for large invertebrates and fish. The area
experiences strong and periodic scouring. The placement of uncontained
material would experience rapid dispersal.

The proposed facility would affect directly about 150 acres of
productive benthic resources and remove approximately 75 percent of the
.existing Mytilus edulus community from the area. The facility would cause
accumulation of finer grained sediments on the leeward side which may
affect the surrounding benthic habitat.

The construction of the containment breakwater would replace some
rocky habitat for 'Mytilus edulis and associated orgainism. A saltmarsh
could be planted within ti@e -containment facility to provide a high value
habitat. The proposed containment facility would impact on approximately
150 acres of significant biological resources. With proper design and
alignment, impacts could be reduced and mitigated by new marsh creation.

If this project were to proceed, site specific studies would have to
be undertaken to determine the kind and extent of mitigation required to
compensate for the biological and other impacts. These studies would
include existing natural resources, commercial and recreational fisheries,
biological productivity, visual changes, odor, noise, aesthetic affects,
land use, and archaeological resources.

PENFIELD REEF

The Fairfield Conservation Commission recommended consideration of
this site, which is located offshore of the town's beach area. The
primary use would be to provide a containment facility for dredged
material disposal and at the same time provide a secondary use as a.tidal
flood and shoreline protection structure.

Background

Extensive shoreline changes have occured in the Fairfield coastal
and Penfield Reef areas. At the time Fairfield was settled in 1639, a 2-
mile barrier beach and system of sand dunes existed on the coastline.
Historical records show that a peninsula and island extended well over a
mile from Shoal Point. Early accounts describe a 100-200 acre peninsula
used by early colonial farmers to pasture sheep and cows. In addition to
grazing, the peninsula was also used'as a source for ballast stones by
early shipping interests. The overgrazing and removal of stones left the
island without protection from natures forces. Wind and waves began to
erode the soil and the peninsula soon became an island, then a hammock,
then a bar, and today a reef of constantly decreasing elevation. The
material from the reef first moved to extend the barrier beach. After
removal of the material from the peninsula that served to replenish the
beach, the beach began to erode,.much to the concern of shoreline
residents who moved onto the beach. Therefore, the town of Fairfield,
through construction of the containment facility, hopes to meet not only
navigation related needs as well as recreating a shoreline configuration
that existed 300 years agoo

Site Description

Penfield Reef now consists of a small offshore island and a cobble
covered submerged ridge extending about 1 mile from the shoreline at Shoal
Point. The ridge elevations vary from -2.7 NGVD (+0.2 MLW) at the west
end shoreline -13.7 (-10.8 MLW) at the east end. The eastern one-fourth
is submerged at mean low water. The mean tide range at the site is 6.9
feet with a spring tide range of 7.9 feet. The 100-year stillwater tide
elevation is 10.4 feet NGVD. Design wave heights are 6.5 feet from the
north and 5.0 feet from the south.

Soils in the area vary from sand and silt to sand and gravel.
Although borings and probes were carried to depths of up to 40 feet
bedrock was not encountered.

Project Description

Project formulation considered two configurations for a containment
facility at Penfield Reef (see Figure 6). The initial plan, envisioned a
long narrow peninsula extending more than 1 mile from shoreline closely
duplicating the original peninsula which was eroded away. The site would

contain about one million cubic yards of material at a cost of about $8
million. Alternatively, if the outer portion of the peninsula were
widened into a containment island, up to 4.3 million cubic yards could be
contained. Even with a.higher cost of $8.6 million, the result would be a
significantly more efficient structure. This facility would contain the
4.3 million cubic yards with a dike about 16,000 feet long in an area of
about 300 acres.

The dike would be constructed of rock and gravel in zero to 15 feet
of water. The most economical construction method would be to truck
material obtained from local land sources spreading it from shore outward
using bulldozers. Water depths are shallow so as to preclude use of
barges. The dike would be designed with a crest elevation of 10.6 feet
NGVD. This crest could be overtopped if the 6.5-foot design wave were to
occur. Armor stone of up to 2750 pounds each would be placed on the,ocean
side and extended over the top to provide slope protection.

An optional feature of the containment facility as proposed by
Fairfield was to provide a reservoir of clean sand outside of the diked
area. This would serve as a sacrificial sandbar varying in size depending
on current scouring action and rate of replacement. Littoral drift would
sweep this sand westerly to replenish the Fairfield coastal beaches which
are rapidly eroding and receding. This process would duplicate the
process of the last 200 years which saw the gradual deterioration of the
peninsula. To verify the effectiveness of this concept, along with the
design of the near-shore area, requires more study.

Dredging Operations

The Penfield containment facility could meet the disposal needs of
several surrounding harbors for at least a 25-year period. These harbors,
including Westport Harbor/Saugatuck River, Southport, Bridgeport/Dlack
Rock Harbor and the Housatonic River, are from 2 to 8 miles distant from
Penfield. Actual distances and comparable distances to open-water
disposal areas are shown below.

Table 13
Distance to Alternative Disposal Site (Miles) - Penfield

Harbor New Haven WLIS III Penfield

Westport/Saugatuck River 25 10 7

Southport 20 14 3

Bridgeport 15 19 4

Black Rock 18 19 2

Housatonic 11 23 8

@T @7111
--4L
SO
to

of Vk In 20
T 114-41h&M'W

16
a;- 22

............
2 4
19 IS
17
al

20 23
Is%
CA a 13 23

21
I'm a A- 20ft

I "s at

"84
.!too.*
"s 3 13 0; 32 1
"go,
No
a
s it 3
14
s 12-L
93 is
14 Is
a a 13 I-v
j4- 1 '36
... ... ... . . ...
30 all Is,
Is 1" -,33
to ALT RNATE to
.. .. .. ... ... ... ... ...
at n
at 11 41
PENFIELD SHOAL 3@'
24
..... ... . ..... . as ov
Q PROPOSED DREDGE CONTAINMENT SITE 45 0- ov
WITH ALTERNATE
rn ------ cm ov
511 GEOTEC
SK.NO

The volume of material that could be expected from the above
mentioned harbors has been estimated for the 50-year period 1985-2035.
Table 13 summarizes these volumes for the Minimum Growth and Most Probable
Future conditions for both Federal and non-Federal dredging operations.
Based on these volumes and the 4.3 million-cubic yard capacity, the
containment facility would meet disposal needs for these harbors from 24
to 41 years depending on level of activity.

Table 14
Penfield Reef Containment Facility
Potential Contributors and Volume of Dredged Material (1985-2035)

Volume of Material (cubic yards)

FEDERAL MAINTENANCE

Harbor Min. Growth Most Probable Future

Westport/Saugatuck 20,000 70,000
Southport 100,000 150,000
Bridgeport 1,925,000 2,475,000
Housatonic 800.000 1,000,000
Sub Total 2,895,000 T,695,000

FEDERAL IMPROVEMENT

Bridgeport 0 2,500,00
Black Rock 150,000 150,000
Others 200,000 300,000
Sub Total 350,000 2,950,000

NON-FEDERAL

Subtotal 1,996,000 2,495,000
Total 5,241,000 9,140,000

Ave. volume per year 105,000 183,000
Years to fill a
4,300,000 cy DMCF 41 24

A hydraulic dredge could be used at Black Rock Harbor, but with
distances of from 2 to 3 miles, a booster pump would be required. For
other harbors, mechanical dredging with bucket/skow would be the most
likely method of operation. This could necessitate either a pump-out
facility or rehandling basin at the containment facility to offload the
barges.

Economics

The estimated first cost of the Penfield containment facility is $8.6
million. The annual costs are summ arized below.

Table 15
Costs by Disposal Alternative

Min Growth Most Prob.

CONTAINMENT
First Cost
Dike $ 8,596,000
Contingency 25% 2,149,000
10,745,000

E&D 4% 430,000
S&A 6% 645,000
$11,820,000

Annual Cost
Amort. 8-3/8 % $ 1,031,000 $ 1,143,000
(40 yr) (25 yr)
Mob & Demob. (2) 270,000 . 270,000
Dredging 1,365,000 2,379,000
Total $ 2,666,000 $ 3,792,000

NEW HAVEN
Mob & Demob. (2) $ 186,000 $ 186,000
Dredging 1,260,000 2,196,000
- Total $ 1,446,000 $ 2,382,000

THE RACE
Mob & Demob. (2) $ 186,000 $ 186,000
Dredging 1,575iO00 2,745,000
Total 1,761,000 $ 2,931,000

Disposal at the Penfield DMCF is about 1.5 times more costly on an
annual basis than open water disposal, reflecting primarily the cost of
the containment facility.

Environmental Considerations

The following environmental information is based on a report
entitled, "Analysis the Site Evaluation for Long Island Sound Container
Disposal Sites" (May 1984). Penfield Reef is comprised of the eroded
remants of an offshore island and a tombolo extending approximately I mile
west to the Shoal Point shoreline. The tombolo is exposed at low water
and provides shelter to Fairfield Beach and Black Rock Harbor to the
north. The seaward side of the tombolo is fronted by a terrace of hard

sand, extending roughly 2000 feet offshore to the 6-foot depth contour
OALW). The crest is armored with coarse gravel and cobble,, evidence of
the repeated agitation provided by breaking waves during high tides.
Under less extreme conditions, the shallow, mild sloping profile of the
terrace produces a wide surf zone characterized by spilling breakers.

In 1982, a summer benthic survey found the hard-bottom macrofaunal
and algal communities of the shoals to be productive. The area supported
122 benthic invertebrate taxa and 23 species of algae. The dominant forms
were the amphipods Jessa falcata, Corophium sp, and Caprella penantis.
These three taxa in equal proFo-rtions, represent approximately 80 percent
of the total number of individuals recorded. These organisms are typical
of hard-bottom northeast environments. The soft-bottom density averaged
1230 individuals per square meter for the 11 stations sampled. The
polychaetes Mediomastus sp, Spiophanes bombyx, and Streblospio benidicti
were the dominants at several stations, while the bivalve Hulinia
lateralis, the gastropod Actecina canaliculata,, and several oligochaetes
were dominant at two stations.

During summer 1983, a benthic survey of the area recorded 112
macrofaunal taxa which were represented by polychaetes (45%), crustaceans
(23%), and molluscs (20%). The density was 5516 per square meter for the
15 stations sampled. The capitellid polychaete Mediomastus; ambiseta was
the most dominant organism followed by the bivalve Tellina agilis

The variation in density and species composition is an indication of
the changing environment in the area of the proposed containment
facility. The area appears typical of this kind of habitat for the
northeast and does not appear to support any unique species or community
assemblages.

If the proposed dredged material containment facility were to
consist of a diked structure aligned with the axis of the tombolo, it
would not extensively encroach on'the terrace. Thefacility would lie
within the present limits of the surf zone and might prevent overwash to
the northern side of the reef which would minimially decrease the supply
of sediment to this area. Water quality impacts would occur during
construction of the facility. The proposed facility would eliminate
approximately 300 acres of productive benthic habitat, which includes some
hard-bottom habitat. In addition, potential impacts include: creation of
salt-marsh habitat, aesthetics change from open water to a containment
facility, noise, odor and dust increases, and confinement of pollutants.

The containment area, however, would offer potential for expanded
areas of saltmarsh habitat and would confine any pollutants present in the
dredged material.

If Penfield Reef is considered further for a containment facility,
then additional site-specific studies would have to be undertaken to
assure that the alignment impacts the least productive area and that

adequate mitigation/compensation measures are indentified. These studies
would include: biological productivity, water quality, sedimentology,
social concerns (eg noise, odor, dust, aesthetics), and archaeological
resources*

Other Impacts

The Fairfield Conservation Commission has summarized other positive
and adverse impacts. Benefits would include:

- Increased storm and hurricane wave protection to the hundreds of homes
along the shoreline.
- Increased protection for any direct beach nourishment program.
- Provision for continually resupplying sand to the nat *urally eroding
beaches through programmed depletion and resupply of sacrificial sand
around the peninsula.
- Restored protection to Black Rock Harbor from south and southwest
waves by reducing their fetch from 20 miles to 1 mile.
- A tendency to reduce the normal drift of available sand due to a lower
wave energy regime in the lee of the peninsula.
- Provision for enhanced public and private property values in Fairfield
and Bridgeport.
- Public recognition and commitment to correct a serious beach erosion
problem which will result in loss of dense residential development.
Such commitment could include establishing a shore management board,
guiding the public and private use, restoratio n and management of the
barrier beach, peninsula, shore, dunes and tidal wetlands in
Fairfieldo
- Utilization of an existing hazard to navigation thereby reducing its
threat to commercial and recreational boatingo By recreating the
peninsula above the existing reef, local mariners will be less
inclined to "jump the bar" and go around as a result.
- Provision for long-term, cost-effective maintenance and expansion of
harbors, channels and marine-oriented facilities in the Greater
Bridgeport Region.
- Provision for recycling dredge spoil currently viewed as a waste
product by most people today.
- Provision for creating new wildlife habitat.
- Expansion of existing public park and marine areas. Since the
Peninsula would be developed from the sea floor as an extension of
Fairfield, it is anticipated it would remain as a public resources
- Expansion of public recreational beach for fishing and swimming with
maintenance responsibility contingent upon the uses approved by the
towno
- Possibility of increasing shellfish production by decreasing the
opportunity for sewage effluent/suspended sediment from reaching the
beds during the critical summer spawning period. Because of this
effect, local oyster companies have indicated preliminary support for
this proposal.
- Increased protection of the sanitary sewer outfall, thereby reducing
the likelihood of pipe failure in the nearshore areao

Adverse effects of recreating Penfield Peninsula could include:

- Possible objection of beachfront property owners in close proximity to
the base of the peninsula during the construction period.
- outright loss of habitat for f 'ish, shellfish, lobsters, etc., due to
the physical covering of the reef by the "footprint" of the
peninsula. However, new sediments deposited in the area could
actually increase fish and bottom-dwelling organisms by introducing
more diversity in habitat.
- Loss of small-boat navigation over the Reef at high tide.

In general this'area currently produces excellent fishing for striped
bass, tautog, blue fish and weak fish and would be expected to continue to
do so. Public harvests of shellfish would not be affected because the
area is closed due to the proximately of the sewer outfalls from Fairfield
and Black Rock Harbor.

MILFORD HARBOR

Background

The Long Island Sound Dredged Material Containment Study identified
six potential containment sites along the Milford shoreline as part of its
site screening process. This list was supplemented by three additional
.sites which were recommended by local interests. One of these sites,
which was identified by the Milford Harbor Improvement Commission was
selected for detailed study. The site is situated in the outer harbor
.area adjacent to the Federal channel and is easily accessible to dredging
operations.

Site Description

Milford Harbor is located at the mouth of the Wepawaug River midway
between Bridgeport'and New Haven. It is used chiefly for recreational
boating. The Federal navigation project at Milford provides for two
riprap jetties at the mouth of the river, a channel into the outer harbor,
about 4000 feet of channel into the inner harbor and about 10 acres of
anchorage area. Extension of the anchorage,was investigated, but action
was deferred at the request of the city.

The coast in this area has an irregular shoreline with points and
headlands separated by coves which, at this location, is referred to as
.. the Gulf." Currents and sediment transport in this coastal reach have
created wide sandy beaches to the west while Gulf Beach on the east shore
is naturally cobbly and narrow because of erosion. A beach restoration
project here has provided for a sandy 1200-foot long public beach about
100 feet wide.

Project Formulation

In identifying a potential containment facility at Milford, local
interests were interested in providing a site to accomodate dredged
material from their harbor. This concept is set forth in the town's
Coastal Management Plan with the possibility of using such a containment
area for expanding the public lands in the coastal area. A site located
adjacent to the harbor entrance would allow public access and be within
pumping distance for hydraulic dredging operations.

The Harbor Commission originally identified a site offshore from
Burns Point and Fort Trumbull Beach (see Figure 7) on the west side of the
Federal channel. A facility about 500 feet x 1000 feet would hold about
400,000 cubic yards, which would accommodate dredging needs for nearly 50
years.

Table 16
Milford Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Needs 1985 - 2035

Dredged Material Volume, I/ cubic yards
Minimum Most Probaffy Maximum
Growth Future Growth

Federal Maintenance 120,000 240,000 240,000

Federal Improvement (None envisioned)

Permit Dredging 2/ 95,000 190,000 .190,000
215,000 430,000 430,000

I/ Source: Progress Report
T/ Based on same percent of regional total as Federal Maintenance

During early site review and coordination, the Milford City Engineer,
suggested the facility site be moved to the eastern side of the channel to
take advantage of the ocean currents and the littoral drift process. If
the containment facility were located on the westerly side of the channel
the erosion process at Gulf Beach would result in a build up of sand with-
in the harbor channel and require more frequent maintenance. If the
containment were constructed on the easterly side of the channel the sand
buildup would occur in the Gulf Beach area due to the westerly nature of
littoral drift. The sand accretion would benefit the beach area, while
the scouring action on the west side of the containment would tend to
prevent littoral sand accumulation in the harbor channel. As presently
sized, the facility would contain about 270,000 cubic yards which would
accommodate from 25 to 50 years of dredging - depending on level of
activity.

ul RD

MILFORD HARBOR
PROPOSED DREDGE CONTAINMENT SITES

14
P-3

0 13
riff VGULF 13
14
is-IS is

Is of
20 19

% to
at

go
is

go 30 al'.

aj 2%
9 13

c: a a 13 as 2*
13 0 I's 20 a3 93 as
as 30 GE
oo@
S

Design Considerations

Subsurface conditions at the eastern site appear suitable to support
a dike constructed of quarry chips protected by armor stone. Overhurden
soils, as determined by subsurface explorations, are predominantly loose
to dense granular materials. The facility would be located in water
depths from zero to 14 feet at mean high tide. The most economical. method
to construct the dike core would be to dump material obtained from local
borrow areas, and then spread the material from the shoreline outward
using bulldozers. Barge placement of the dike core would not appear
possible due to the shallow water depths.

The material selected for the dike core must be strong enough to
support construction equipment and heavy enough to resist erosion from
tidal fluctuations during construction. Quarry chips up to 150 pounds in
weight would meet the above criteria, however, they would probably be too
pervious to retain the dredged material. Therefore, an 18-inch thick
gravel blanket would be placed on the containment sideslope to retain the
dredged material.

The ocean sideslope could be impacted by up to 5.5-foot design
waves. A 4-foot layer of 750-pound to 1250-pound armor stone would be
required to protect the ocean side from erosion. The armor stone could be
placed using crane(s) situated at the crest of the dike core.

The crest (elevation 9.5) of the proposed dike would be protected
from overtopping waves by extending the armor stone over the crest of the
core. The gravel blanket thAt would be placed on the containment side
slope of the dike to retain dredged material could be damaged by the
overtopping waves. It is expected that periodic maintenance would be
required to repair the gravel blanket until the containment facility was
filled.

The following material would'be required to construct the proposed
Milford Harbor dredged material containment facility:

Table 17
Construction Materials - Milford

Materials Quantity

750 to 1250 lb. Armor Stone 20'900 CY

Quarry Chips to 150 lb. 73,700 CY

Gravel 4,200 CY

The construction materials listed above are available from developed and
undevelopeed sources within a 30-mile radius of the proposed site.

Economic Analvsis

Based on analyses to date, the cost of the Milford Harbor dredged
material containment facility is estimated at $2,612,000 (see Table 18)
exclusive of a weir structure and interior compartment dikes if
necessary. Considerable savings ($93,000 or $160,000) in dredging costs
are available from possible use of a hydraulic dredging operation instead
of transporting the material to the New Haven Disposal Area with a
bucket/scow dredging operation. However, these are not enough to offset
the costs of a containment facility, and annual costs are about 50 percent
higher than open water disposal. These increased costs would have to be
balanced against other benefits such as sand accretion in the Gulf Beach
area, possible reduced maintenance requirements in the Federal channel,
potential future public use of the containment facility and reduction of
wave heights in the harbor.

Environmental Considerations

Environmental consideration are based on a report prepared for this
study entitled, "Ecological Surveys of Penfield Reef and Milford Harbor"
(November, 1982). Benthic sampling was conducted during the summer 1982
but biologist-divers were restricted by both high wave surge and low
visibility problems during the entire survey. The Milford Harbor
represents a typical productive northeast estuarine habitat. The
qualitative visual impressions of the substrate were: few lobsters in
area, high number of flounder, many crabs: Limulus polyphemus and Pagurus
sp., several sponges, and algae cover: Laminaria sp. Frucus sp. The
subsirate appears to be predominantly reef with cobble and gravel and some
interspersed sandy areas.

The data indicated a unique assemblage of taxa on the reef-dominated
by three (3) amphipods: Caprilla penantis, Jassa falcata, and Corophium
sp. In addition, there was a high diversity of species associated with
hard substrates. The soft substrate is dominanted by polychaetes
Staeblospip Benedicti, Scoloplos sp., and Scolecolepides sp. Twelve
stations were surveyed. The number of taxa ranged from 8 to 48 with
density from 284 to 24,872 per square meter. The dry biomass was-
generally low and ranged from 0.01 to 20.59 gm. The stations appear to
have high species diversity.

Limited information is available on the biological resources of the
containment area. The Milford area supports the leading market area for
both oysters and hard-shell clams. Site specific studies would have to be
undertaken if this area is considered further for a proposed containment
facility. These studies would include: existing biological resources at
the containment site (data presented above is from a nearby area);
biological productivity; recreational and commercial fisheries; water
quality, circulation and current patterns; social concerns (eg.
aesthetics, noise, dust, odor); and existing land uses. Based on given

Table 18
Milford Harbor
Costs by Disposal Alternative

Containment Facility
First Cost
Dike $1,900,000
Contingency 25% 475,000
2,375,000

E&D 95,000
S&A 142tOOO
Subtotal $2,612,000

Annual Cost
Int & Amort (.08291) 5 216,000

Mob & Demob $ 69,000

Dredging $ 91,100

TOTAL COST $ 378,000

New Haven Dump Site

First Cost -

Mob & Demob $ 93,000

Dredging 159,600

TOTAL COST $ 252,600

The Race Dump Site

First Cost -

Mob & Demob $ 93,000

Dredging 186,200

TOTAL COST $ 279,200

information and with proper alignments of the proposed facility, it is
felt that significant biological impacts could be mitigated.

SHERWOOD ISLAND BORROW HOLE - WESTPORT

During construction of the Connecticut Turnpike, fill was obtained
from several subaqueous borrow pits along the LIS coast.- The Sherwood
Hole is one of the sites suggested as a possible dredged material disposal
area by the Aquaculture Division of the Connecticut Department of
Agriculture. As such, the Sherwood Hole is not a containment facility per
se even though the material is contained.

The Sherwood Hole is located about 1000 feet offshore of Sherwood
Island State Park (see Figure 8) and situated in an area where water
depths are normally about 20 feet. At the borrow hole, however, depths of
an additional 30 feet are present. Volumes calculated for the capacity of
the hole, based on hydrographic surveys, indicate that the about 750,000
cubic yards could be contained based on filling to an elevation of -30
.MLW. Such a capacity could handle the dredged material needs from the
Westport/Saugatuck River area, Southport Harbor, and other areas for the
next 50 years (see Table 19).

Table 19
Dredged Material Disposal Needs (1985 -2035)
Westport, Saugatuck R. and Southport_Harbor

Volume of Material

Federal Maintenance Minimum Growth Most Probable Furture Maximum Growth

Westport/Saugatuck R. 70,000 70,000 140,000

Southport 1OOPOOO 150,000 200,000

.170,000 220,000 340,000

Federal Improvement (None envisioned)

Permit Dredging.L/ 1_70,000 220,000 340,000

TOTAL 340,000 440,000 680,000

I/ Assumed same as Federal Maintenance.

The Sherwood Hole is representative of other such borrow pits along the
LIS coastline, specifically Morris Cove and Prospect Beach in New Haven and
Laurel-Beach in Milford. Three issues need to be considered regarding their
use as disposal areas.

1. Environmental conditions are generally anoxic/anaerobic with little
life. Filling the hole would serve to reclaim these areas.

2. The areas may be surrounded by environmentally sensitive areas such as
shellfish beds. Generally only clean material should be disposed of in these
areas.

3. Filling in the holes may preclude further use as a borrow-pit.

These sites could meet the disposal area needs for small harbors such as
Westport, but they do not exist in sufficient numbers to meet disposal needs
for the LIS region.

Environmental Considerations

In the summer of 1983, benthic grab samples were undertaken at 15 stations
recording 49 taxa represented by polychaetes (39%), Molluscs (33%), and
crustaceans (14%). Mulinia lateralis (filter-feeding bivalve) accounted for 55
percent of the individuals collected followed by Mediomastus ambiseta a
deposit-feeding capitellid accounting for 21 percent M lateralis is an
opportunistic bivalve requiring a stable bottom environment (Rhoads, 1974).
The second survey (also taken in summer 1983) show similar results but with a
decrease in the number of taxa and density. The most dominant species was M
lateralis, but the second was Streblospio Benedicti, an opportunistic
polychaete. The sediments within the pit appear@d_to be somewhat anoxic and,
therefore, the benthic community was greatly reduced.

The density of infauna within the pit was less than half of the density
for the entire study area. The exception to this is the number of taxa,
species diversity, and species evenness for two of the five pit stations which
were higher than the mean for the entire study. The higher number of taxa,
species diversity, and species evenness for two stations within the pit
indicates that the pit may be f illing in at those locations. If the pit were
to be filled to within several feet or the surrounding substrate, the benthic
community would resemble that of the surrounding area.

The filling and capping of this area should produce negligible changes in
wave and current charachteristics in the area. With an overlaying cover of
coarse sand, it is probable that a stable cap would not erode and disperse the
contained fill beneath. There appears to be low potential for water quality
impacts if appropriate capping procedures are followed.

The area appears not to be ecologically significant. With the filling of
the pit, the area would gradually return to an ecological environment similar
to other areas along the coast. Extensive hard clam and oyster beds lie in
close proximity to the pit. Care in handling and timing of disposal should
minimize impacts to these resources.

With the existing proposal and the low numbers of organisms, the only
additional studies required would be to assure that disposal methodologies
would contain all pollutants within the pit.

SHERWOOD ISLAND
STATE PARK

SHERWOOD PT
TRANSPONDER 5 6
0
S

CEDAR PT a 400/R/SH
TRANSPONDER -A -- --S 9 100
S S
8 S
S/S@Hw 0
S

7
0
S 12
0 14
S/SH 0
S
13

Figure 8 Station locations and sediment types at the Sherwood Island Bor
July 1983. D: detritus; G: gravel; R: rock; Sh: shell debris;

Vill

CONCLUSIONS

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

v
I-

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion of Results

This study determined that general resource maps and screening information
provide a valuable start to analyzing environmental and engineering aspects of
containment sites. However, the LIS coastline exhibits considerable variation,
so that progressively more detail is needed to test project feasibility. For
instance, a site on the Thames River in New London, Connecticut seemed
optimally situated for a containment facility. However, examination of
existing data records indicated very poor foundation conditions so as to make
any construction infeasible. In other areas such as Clinton Harbor, it was
only when subsurface explorations were completed that soft, silty sands were
discovered which required special, more costly design 'considerations.

Similar variations exist with regard to environmental resources.
Potential facility locations that were identified based on shellfish resource
maps were found to be completely unacceptable by local interests. In other
instances, environmental sampling and testing indicated that even in areas with
generally high environmental value, there are pockets of lesser biological
activity where containment facilities could be sited without major impacts.

The actual location of potential containment facilities plays an important
role in determining their economic feasibility. With sites located adjacent
to, or within 1 mile of, the dredging location, it is feasible to use a
hydraulic dredging operation at a savings over a bucket/scow operation.
Therefore, Clinton tested out marginally feasible, while other sites were far
from feasible. However, as evidenced by the analysis at Milford, assuming
hydraulic dredging does not guarantee economic feasibility.

Data obtained du*ring this study are found in a series of reports covering
major topics,such as site screening, socialeconomic, studies, environmental
studies and engineering studies. These reports are listed in this report in
the section on "Related Reports and Programs". They provide a starting point
for any future consideration of containment in LIS and more specific
information for the five sites studied in detail. Of course, updates and more
detailed studies would be necessary if any site progressed toward
implementation. For instance, no formal environmental reports or review
procedures have been conducted to date since there are no project proposals
associated with this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The containment study has generated considerable public interest, in part
because the Sound touches the lives of many people, and also because the
disposal of dredged material has been a long standing and emotional issue in
the region. Reaction to the study was generally favorable on the part of those
who were seeking alternatives to the present disposal scheme. Public
involvement continued very high during the site identification and screening
phase of the study. During this process, a considerable amount of negative
reaction evolved as people reacted to siting of facilities in their harbors.

The study process identified over 300 potential containment sites. These
were screened based on technical criteria and public input resulting in 22
sites which were given individual consideration. A summary of these sites is
shown in table 20.

This study verified that the public and resource agencies feel very
strongly toward protecting environmental resources that are present along the
LIS coastline. In our experience, more often than not, siting of a containment
facility was rejected because of environmental resources especially shellfish
areas*

There were instances where public attitudes, project economics and
environmental considerations did come-together in favorable combinations. Of
the sites studied in detail, Clinton Harbor initially exhibited the highest
degree of such positive results. The project competed favorably economically,
could provide environmental benefits, and generated public support. However,
the outlook for the project remains dim because of conflicts with federal
barrier beach legislation, aquaculture plans, and the State designated natural
area at Hammonassett State Park. The summary of findings at Clinton and at the
other sites studied in detail is shown in table 21.

It is Corps policy that local interests must provide the disposal area for
Federal projects and be responsible for associated costs which may include
dikes. The current cost-sharing policy for Federal maintenance of waterways
and harbors favor a town decision to stay with open-water disposal as it
requires no local cost-sharing nor other capital expenditures. This economic
incentive is not available to private dredging interests.

The findings of this study conclude that under present conditions
containment is not a feasible-alternative for the disposal of dredged material
in Long Island Sound. This does not rule out the need or desirability to
evaluate the use of containment on a local case-by-case basis. Nor does it
rule out possibilities where containment may be the optimal disposal solution,
for example, when dredged material does not meet ocean dumping criteria or when
it must be capped if ocean disposed.

TABLE 20
SITES SELECTED FOR INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERiA

Number Site Location Technical Environmental Economic Social

1. Captains Harbor Greenwich Conn. - 1.25 Feasible, but limited Open water and islands N/E Opposed by coastal
miles offshore size, high erosion high biological residents.
forces. productivity.

2. Norwalk Island Norwalk Harbor. Conn. Increased navigation High biological Near dredging Public concerns over
hazards. productivity and operations. environmental value and
concentrations of nearby recreation.
finflih and shellfish.
Barrier Leland
designation.

3. Milford Point Milford, Conn. at mouth No problems Identified. Important wildlife Adjacent to Housatonic Identified by local
of Housatonic River habitat and natural River dredging. officials.
area. Designated
barrier beach.

4. Thimble Islands Branford, Conn. - Limited size potential. High biological N/E Very strong opposition
Offshore Island productivity and because of environmental
shellfish concen- values and residential
trations. and recreational land
use.

5. Falkner Island Guilford, Conn. 2.5 High wave energy zone. National Wildlife Refuge Costly Away from major social
miles offshore area. Important shore- Impacts.
bird and reef habitat.

6. Six Mile Reef Clinton, Conn. 3 mites High wave energy zone. High concentration of Costly Mixed support and
offshore Increase navigation shellfish and finfish. opposition.
hazard.

7. Duck Island Roads Clinton and Westbrook, Tied to existing Undocumented oyster and Close to small Adjacent-to existing
Conn. breakwater. lobster area. recreational harbors. harbor of refuge.

8. Menunketeauck Westwood, Conn. Capacity limited by High biological pro- Close to small Concerns over loss of
shallow water depth. ductivtty and concen- recreational harbors. habitat and proximity to
tration of shellfish and town beaches.
finfish. Least tern
habitat.

TABLE 20 (Continued)
SITES SELECTED FOR INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

Number Site Location Technical , Environmental Economic Social

9. Bartlett Reef Waterford, Conn. - 850 High wave energy zone. High biological pro- Close to New London and Concerns over loss of
yards offshore ductivity and concentra- NLantic Harbors. habitat.
ttons of shellfish and
finfish.

10. Stratford Shoals At 'Middle Ground" off High Energy Zone High biological produc- Costly Concerns from
Stratford, Conn. tivity. Sizeable popula- recreational fishermen.
tions of lobster and
finfish.

11. Black Ledge Groton, Conn. I mile High energy area. Solid Productive benthic Costly. Potential for Identified by Groton
offshore foundation. habitat. regional use. Conservation and Harbor
Commission.

12. Clinton Harbor Clinton. Conn. - Soft, but adequate Potential extension of Favorable. Strongly supported by
Adjacent to Clinton foundation. the Hammonassett marsh. town of Groton and
Harbor. private marinas.

13. Fayerweather Island Bridgeport, Conn. Moderate wave exposure, Important seed oyster Located adjacent to Strong opposition from
silt and sand cultivation area. dredging. nearby residents.
foundation. Adjacent to Seaside
Park.

14. Yellow Hill Channel Bridgeport, Conn. Weak. but adequate Degraded, low fish and Change from marine to Potential for park
foundation, protected wildlife values. non-marine use. development. City
from waves. officials opted for
other-use.

15. Town Tree Island Westbrook, Conn. - I Rock outcrop. High Significant shellfish Close to New London and Nearby beach and concern
mile offshore. energy area.- Close to and finfish area. Niantic Harbors. over possible Impact on
Millstone Nuclear Power nuclear plant.
Plant.

16. Borrow Pits In LIS Along LIS coast at No construction needed. Conditions In hole are No construction cost. Not evaluated.
Sherwood Island, West- generally anaerobic.
port; Morris Cove. Now Surrounding are@
Haven; Prospect Beach, productive.
New Haven.

17. Mamaroneck Harbor Rye, N.Y. Multiple sites. High Excellent habitat for Close to dredging site. S@rpng jopposition from
energy area. shellfish and finfish. nearby residents.

TABLE 20 (Continued)
SITES SELECTED FOR INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

Number Site Location Technical Environmental Economic Social

18. Gold Star Bridge New London, Conn. on Very poor foundation. Currently supports Adjacent to Federal Identified by Conn.
Thames River Protected from waves. shellfish population and channel. Dept. of Transportation.
shoreline fishing
activity.

19. Penfield Reef Fairfield, Conn. High energy area. Rock Nearby areas are highly Costly. Local or Identified by Fairfield
outcrops. productive. regional site. Conservation Commission.
Could provide flood and
beach protection.

20. Mtanus River Greenwich. Conn. Small local disposal Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Identified by local
site - Infrequent officials.
dredging and use.

21. NiLford Harbor Milford, Conn. - In Sites constdered an east Heavy waterfowl use In Adjacent to dredging Identified by town of
outer harbor area. and wast side of Federal area. Lobster and clam area. Milford officials.
channel. Moderate wave population. Adjacent to town beach.
energy.
22. Flushing Bay New York, N.Y. (The Now York District of the Corps of Engineer; Is currently studying this site.)

TABLE 21
PROTOTYPE SITES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

Criteria Clinton Haber Black Ledge Pa"fLetd Reef Milford Harbor Sherwood Borrow Pit

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Type Marsh Creation Island Creation Shoreline Extension Shoreline Extension Aqueous Borrow Pit

Capacity (cy) 1,000,000 7,500.000 4,300,000 400,000 750,000

Years to Fill (yre) 25+ 50 24 50 50

Dike Rock Rock Rock Rock None

Size (acres) 100 125 300 11 100

Waves High Energy High Energy High Energy Moderate Energy Moderate

Foundation Granular over very soft Rock and loose silty Sand. silt. gravel. Loose to dense granular. Granular.
organic silt. send.

Opiaration Hydraulic dredging. Bucket & scow w/offload. Locals hydraulic dredge Hydraulic dredging Bucket & scow
>2 miles; bucket & scow

ECONOMICS

Initial Cost $1,962,000 $40,385,000 P11,820,000 $2,612.000 None
Annual Cost $543,000 $4,812,000 $3,792:000 $378,000 No evaluated

Annual Costs of Alt.
Open Water Cornfield - $499.000 Haw Haven - $1,28t.000 Now Haven - $2,382,000 New Haven - $253.000 Not evaluated
Now Haven - $580.000
Ocean The Race - $621.000 The Race - $1,281.000 The Race - $2.931,000 The Race - $279.000 Not evaluated

ENVIRONMENTAL Large population of Population of lobsters & Adjacent population of
Shellfish Low populations. Extensive blue musael oysters, clams, crabs. clams & oysters.
bed. lobsters, blue mussels.

FLnfLah Low population. Commercial A recreation Large population. Not evaluated. Adjacent sport fishery.
species.

Biological Medium High High Not evaluated Low
Resource Value

Significant Resources Adjacent Hammonasset Rock habitat. Large shellfish and fish No evaluated Adjacent commercial and
marsh. potential aqua- population. Heavy use by recreational fisheries.
culture area, barrier waterfowl.
beach designation.

TABLE 2t (Continued)
PROTOTYPE SITES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

Criteria Clinton Habor Black Ledge -Penfield Reef Milford Harbor Sherwood Borrow Pit

Major Impacts Lose of existing Lose of existing Lose of existing Lose of habitat, Restore habitat to that
habitat, changes in habitat, island added to habitat, changes in interruption of tidal In surrounding areas.
circulation and seascape. changes in circulation and currents and coastal
sedimentation patterns. -circulation patter, sedimentation pattern. erosion.
expansion of marsh area. potential maish habitat
creation.

SOCIAL
Adjacent marsh
Land Use Provide wave protection Nearby residential area. Nearby residential area. 1,000 feet offshore.
to shore.
Recreation Adjacent State park. Adjacent beaches. Adjacent beaches. Sherwood State Park.

Public Opinion Strong support from town Identified by Identified by Fairfield Identified by town of Suggested by State of
of Clinton and private Conservation Conservation Commis- Milford. Conn., Aquaculture
marinas. Objection by Commission. Opposed by sion. Provide wave Division.
town of Madison shoreline residents. protection and beach
Shellfish Commission. nourishment.
Concerns expressed by
State of CT.

This study has concluded that critical factors including economics,
environmental and public inputs rule out widespead reliance on containment for
the disposal of dredged material in LIS. Further, we concluded that there is
an apparent general acceptance of current disposal options - namely open-water
disposal and continued use of the closely monitored four designated sites, with
land disposal in some specific instances where possible. Economic analysis of
containment facilities reveals that it is more costly than other disposal
alternatives although substantial savings in dredging costs could be realized
if a containment facility were placed adjacent to the dredging location. In
such cases the use of hydraulic dredging operations are feasible at less
expense than the more commonly used bucket/scow operation.

Although this study was able to identify potential sites for containment
facility projects, current dredging and disposal operations are favored over
containment alternatives not only on an economic and sometimes environmental
basis but also because of public inputs and interests.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I have reviewed and evaluated the information and findings in this report
and other documents concerning dredged material disposal in Long Island Sound
(LIS). I have met with and considered the view of local officials, other
agencies and LIS interests@

Accordingly, I recommend no Federal interest at this time in the
implementation of containment facilities for the disposal of dredged material
in LIS.

I base this recommendation on the findings that containment facilities are
generally not cost effective, nor socially or environmentally acceptable. Also
they do not carry widespread local support needed to commit substantial local
financial resources that are not required for ocean disposal under current
policies. Federal policy provides that local interests supply disposal areas
for Federal and Non-Federal dredging projects. Further, local interests are
responsible for associated costs such as dikes if applicable.

ATTACHMENT

"AT or
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
P.O. BOX 1518
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301

Colonel Carl B. Sciple *y Z 3
Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

Dear Colonel Sciple:

This is our Fish and Wildlife Report on the Long Island Sound Dredged Material
Containment Study, Connecticut and New York. It has been prepared under
authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).

Your draft Feasibility Report indicates that over 300 Potential containment
sites were identified in the New York and Connecticut waters of Long Island
Sound. Screening for technical and economic feasibility, environmental
impacts and public acceptance severely reduced the number- of sites and only
five were identified for detailed invesitgation as prototype sites. The five
sites, all irr Connecticut, include: Black Ledge, Penfield Reef, Clinton
Harbor, Milford- Harbor, and Sherwood Island Borrow Hole. The findings of
these detailed investigations are presented in the draft Feasibility Report.

The Black L:edge containment facility would store about 7.5 million cubic yards
of dredged -material and would create a 125 acre offshore island. Diking. for
the project would cost an estimated $40 million. , The proposed facility would
directly affect 150 acres of productive benthic habitat supporting a diversity
of species and dense concentrations of blue mussels. Your study finds that
the adverse environmental impacts and unfavorable economics currently make
this site infeasible. We do not support development of a containment facility
at this site for environmental reasons.

The Penfield Reef containment facility would be a shoreline extension project
capable of storing about 4 million cubic yards of dredged material. Diking
for. the project would cost an estimated $8.6 million. The proposed facility
would eliminate about 300 acres of productive bottom habitat supporting a
dense and diverse benthic community. Your study finds that the project is not
economically feasible and would result in negative environmental impacts. We
regard potential environmental impacts as severe and do not support
development of a containment facility at this site.

The Clinton Harbor containment proposal, a marsh creation project, could store
up to one million cubic 'yards of dredged material and would expand . the
existing Hammonasset wetland areas., Your study finds that this containment
-facility is economically feasible and has high potential for biological

-2-

enhancement. However, the proposed facility abuts Hammonasset State Park and
a portion of the Cedar Island spit which has been designated as a barrier
beach under the Cbastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. The provisions of this
legislation which restricts Federal participation and limits development
activity. in general would have to be addressed prior to further consideration
of a containment facility at this site. We concur with your study findings.

The Milford Harbor containment facility was sited on the east side of the
entrance channel as a shoreline extension project capable of storinS about
270,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Your study finds that, based on
sampling at nearby areas, this area is rot @articularly productive and major
environmental impacts would not be expected. We believe that this containment
f4cil-ity.could be developed as a marsh creation project but that additional
site specific studies would be required in order to determine if environmental
impacts are acceptable.

The Sherwood Island Borrow Hole is a large aqueou's borrow pit that could
hold/contain about 750,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Your study finds
that the isolated nature of this area has generally resulted in an anoxic
environment which supports a relatively low number of organisms. If the pit
was filled and suitably capped the resulting environment would closely
resemble that of.the surrounding area which-supports extensive hard clam and
oyster beds. Use as a disposal area is a worthwhile corsideration in the
future. We are in general agreement with your study findings, however, we
believe this area should be proposed for a site specific study.

Your draft Feasibility Report does not propose implementation, of any project.
The report concludes that under present conditions containment is not a
feasible alternative and that critical factors including economics,
environmental and public inputs rule out widespread reliance on containment
for the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. Although the study
was able 'Iwo identify potential sites for contaihment facility projects,
current dredging and disposal operations are favored over containment
alternatives not only on an economic and sometimes environmental basis but
more specifically on cost sharing arrangements. Therefore, you have
recommended no Federal interest at this time in the implementation of
containment facilities for the disposal of dredged material in Long Island
Sound.

We disagree with the conclusions of your feasbility study regarding
containment of contaminated dredge material and beneficial uses of clear.
material in Long Island Sound. In out, opinion, the practicality of utilizing
confined disposal sites has been adequately demonstrated in the Great Lakes
since the late 1950's. The major difference between study conditions in Long
Island Sound and the Great Lakes is that people utilize the. Great Lakes as a

-3-

source of drinking water and therefore are much more concerned about waste
disposal practices in that system. We believe that Long Island Sound and the
remainder of our coastal waters deserve the same level 'of protection as the
Great Lakes since they are of major importance as food producing areas, have
high ecological values including spawning and nursery areas for nearly all of
our marine vertebrate and invertebrate species, provide migration pathways for
fish and wildlife and contribute immense recreational and aesthetic values to

man .

One of the major basic faults with the Long Island Sound study is the economic
analysis which basically compares the existing open water disposal practice
against confined and/or beneficial dt-edge material disposal practices. We
believe a more appropriate economic analysis would be to compare alternative
confined disposal sites against each other in a fashion similar to that done
under P.L. 91-611 for the Great Lakes. The present analysis is deemed
inappropriate in that it is skewed in favor of open water disposal since the
appropriate monetary values have not or cannot be accurately predicted for the
true environmental and societal costs for open water disposal of contaminated
materials.

We are confident that many environmentally acceptable sites for confined
disposal facilities exist in Long Island Sound. The proper conclusion of your-
feasibility study would be to actively pursue site specific studies for
containment facilities within reasonable distances from the major commercial
harbors in the Sound and elsewhere along the New England coast.

Sincerely yours,

Gordon E. Beckett
Supervisor
New England Area

CC: RO/HR Reading File
CT DEP, Marine Div. (Bob Sampson)
CT Dept. of Agriculture, Aquaculture Div (John Volk)
NMFS, Mike Ludwig
WO/ES/FP
ES:. FBenson:VLang:jd:5-22-85:834-4797

I1103111m[
1 3 6668 14109 3080