Supplement to the Environmental Impact
Statement on the New York Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation for the Designation
of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS)
in the New York Bight Apex
MAY 1 997
REGION 2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866
-------
Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement on
the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation for the
Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site
in the New York Bight Apex
May 1997
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2
Abstract: In accordance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) procedures for the voluntary
preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS) on significant regulatory actions, EPA has prepared a
supplement to the 1984 Final EIS for the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation (SEIS).
Specifically, the SEIS addresses the designation of a Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS). Toward this
end, the SEIS evaluates: no action; closure of the New York Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site (a.k.a. the
Mud Dump Site [MDS]) with no designation of the HARS; designation of the HARS for the purpose of
remediation; and designation of the HARS for the purpose of restoration. It identifies designation of the
HARS for the purpose of remediation as the preferred alternative. This alternative would reduce the toxicity
of area sediments to sensitive marine organisms and reduce the potential for transferring contaminants to
marine birds, mammals, and humans. It represents the most environmentally sound alternative evaluated in
the SEIS.
The proposed HARS encompasses a 15.7 square nautical mile area located approximately 3.5 nautical miles
east of titie Highlands, New Jersey, and 7.7 nautical miles south of Rockaway, New York. It includes the 2.2
square nautical mile MDS, as well as the surrounding areas that have been historically used as disposal sites
for dredged materials that require remediation. Simultaneous with the designation of the HARS, the MDS
will be closed.
The following Public Hearings have been scheduled to receive comments on the SEIS:
June 16,1997; 7:00 pm June 17,1997; 7:00 pm June 18,1997; 2:00 pm
Monmouth Beach Municipal Nassau County Social Services Port Authority of NY/NJ
Auditorium Auditorium Oval Room
22 Beach Drive County Seat Drive 1 World Trade Center
Monmouth Beach, New Jersey Mineola, New York New York, New York
Additionally, written comments will be accepted through June 30, 1997; written comments should be
addressed to:
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
Approved by: K/sJtJlt^** JJ - rfaatfVH&L.' / Date:
Jeanne M. Fc
jional Administrator
EPA Region 2
-------
Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement
on the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS)
in the New York Bight Apex
MAY 1997
Prepared by
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
With Assistance of:
Battelle
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
-------
Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement
on the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation
for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (BARS)
in the New York Bight Apex
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
New York City, New York
Comments on this administrative action should be addressed to;
Mr. Robert Hargrove, Chief
Strategic Planning & Multi-Media Programs Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Region 2
290 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York City, NY 10007-1866
Comments must be received no later than:
June 30,1997, 45 days after publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register for the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
Copies of this SEIS. Proposed Rule for MDS Closure/HARS Designation, Site Management and
Monitoring Plan. Biological Assessment for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Cultural
Resources Report are available for review at the following locations;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Steve Bergman
Region 2 Library, 16th Floor Bellmore Public Library
290 Broadway 2288 Bedford Avenue
New York City, NY 10007-1866 Bellmore, NY 11710
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2 Field Office Library 2890
Woodbridge Avenue, Building 209, MS-245—
Edison, NJ 08837 _. _
Hudson River Foundation
40 West 20th Street ..— —
Ninth Floor
New York City, NY 10011 _
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of
Marine Resources
205 Belle Meade Road
East Setauket, NY 11733
For further information contact:
Mr. Joseph Bergstein
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Strategic Planning & Multi-Media Programs Branch
290 Broadway, 25* Floor
New York City, NY 10007-1866
Voice: (212)637-3890
FAX: (212) 637-3771
E-mail: bergstein.joseph@epamail.epa.gov
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Library
401 East State Street, CN402
Trenton, NJ £8625
Monmouth Beach Public Library
18 Willow Avenue
Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 199?
Content, P^L
CONTENTS
List of Tables JX
List of Figures ^.
List of Acronyms xrw"
Ocean Dumping Regulation Reference Table for the MDS/HARS SEIS xx
Executive Summary xrn
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1 U.S. Ocean Dumping — History, Regulations, and Pertinence to the MDS 1-1
1.2 Need for Remediation 1-9
1.2.1 Study Area Contaminant Toxicity 1-11
1.2.2 Study Area Contaminant Bioaccumulation/Trophic Transfer 1-12
1.2.3 Other Indicators of Sediment Degradation in the Study Area 1-12
1.2.4 Solutions to Sediment Degradation in the Study Area 1-13
1.3 Proposed Action 1-13
1.4 Basis for the SEIS 1-15
1.5 Issues of Concern Addressed by This SEIS 1-16
1.5.1 Environmental Concerns 1-16
1.5.2 Socioeconomic Concerns 1-17
1.6 References 1-20
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action 2-1
2.2 Alternative 2: Close MDS-No HARS Designation 2-2
2.3 Alternative 3: HARS Remediation 2-3
2.4 Altemative4: HARS Restoration 2-6
2.5 References 2-8
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 Geographic Location and Physical Description of the Affected Environment 3-4
3.2 Input of Pollutants to the MDS Area 3-9
3.2.1 Pollution Inputs [Sections 228.5(e) and 228.6(a)(7)] 3-9
3.2.1.1 Historic Pollution Inputs 3-9
3.2.1.2 Recent Changes in Pollutant Inputs 3-9
3.2.2 Historical Dumping [40 CFR Sections 228.5(e) and 228.6(a)(7)] 3-14
3.2.3 Types and Quantities of Material Disposed in the Study Area
[40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(4)] 3-23
3.2.4 Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Dumping in the Area
[40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(7)] 3-24
3.3 Physical Environment 3-27
3.3.1 Geological Setting [Section 228.6(a)(l)] 3-27
3.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Study Area [Section 228.10(b)(4)] 3-28
3.3.3 Meteorology and River Runoff [Section 228.6(a)(6)] 3.39
3.3.4 Physical Oceanography [Sections 228.6(a)(l) and 228.6(a)(6)] 3.43
3.3.4.1 Regional Circulation Pattern 3.43
3.3.4.2 Study Area Region Specific Currents 3.45
3.3.4.3 Wave Climate 3.45
3.3.5 Sediment Transport [Section 228.6(a)(6)] 3.49
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Contents Page v
3.3.6 Plume Transport [Sections 228.5(b) and 228.6(a)(6)] 3-49
3.3.7 Sediment Resuspension and Transport [Section 228.6(a)(6)] 3-50
3.3.8 Depth of Sediment Resuspension [Section 228.6(a)(6)] 3-51
3.3.9 Contaminant Distributions and Concentrations 3-59
3.3.9.1 Metals Distributions 3-59
3.3.9.2 Organic Contaminants 3-67
3.3.9.3 Sediment Quality 3-72
3.3.10 Water Quality [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(9)] 3-78
3.3.10.1 Temperature, Salinity, and Density 3-80
3.3.10.2 Water Column Turbidity 3-82
3.3.10.3 Dissolved Oxygen 3-82
3.3.10.4 Nutrients 3-86
3.3.10.5 Contaminants 3-87
3.4 Biological Environment 3-93
3.4.1 Plankton Community [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(9)] 3-94
3.4.1.1 Phytoplankton 3-95
3.4.1.2 Zooplankton 3-95
3.4.2 Benthic Invertebrates [40 CFR Sections 228.6(a)(2) and 228.6(a)(9); 228.10(b)(2),
228.10(b)(3), and 228.10(b)(5)] 3-96
3.4.2.1 Studies of Infaunal Communities in the New York Bight
Conducted Before 1990 3-98
3.4.2.2 Characterization of the Study Area Based on Studies
Conducted After 1990 3-100
3.4.2.3 Comparison of Study Area Benthic Infaunal Communities Before and
After 1990 3-109
3.4.2.4 Are the Study Area Infaunal Communities Impacted? 3-109
3.4.3 Fish and Shellfish of the Study Area .^_ 3-110
3.4.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Fish in the Study Area .3-115
3.4.3.1.1 Commercially Important Fish Distribution 3-117
3.4.3.1.2 Recreationally Important Fish Distribution -.- 3-119
3.4.3.1.3 Ecologically Important Fish Distribution 3-119
3.4.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Shellfish in the Study Area 3-120
3.4.3.3 Spawning Strategies of Fish and Shellfish in the Study Area 3-122
3.4.3.3.1 Demersal Fish Spawning Strategies 3-124
3.4.3.3.2 Pelagic Fish Spawning Strategies 3-134
3.4.3.3.3 Shellfish Spawning Strategies 3-135
3.4.3.4 Food and Habitat Requirements of Fish and Shellfish in the
Study Area 3-136
3.4.3.4.1 Fish—Food and Habitats 3-140
3.4.3.4.2 Shellfish—Food and Habitats 3-145
3.4.4 Marine and Coastal Birds [Section 228.6(a)(9)] ; 3-147
3.4.4.1 Pelagic Birds 3-147
3.4.4.2 Shorebirds 3-147
3.4.4.3 Waterfowl 3-149
3.4.4.4 Colonial Water Birds 3-149
3.4.4.5 Raptors 3-149
3.4.4.6 Marsh Birds 3-149
3.4.5 Marine Mammals and Reptiles [Section 228.6(a)(9)] 3-149
3.4.5.1 Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises) 3-150
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 199?
Contents Pa*en
3.4.5.2 Pinnipeds 3'153
3.4.5.3 Reptiles (Turtles) 3-153
3.4.6 Other Factors for the Biological Community 3-155
3.4.6.1 Predator-Prey Interactions in the Study Area 3-155
3.4.6.2 Bioaccumulation and Trophic Transfer of Environmental
Contaminants 3-159
3.4.6.2.1 Contaminants in Polychaete Worms from the
Study Area 3-163
3.4.6.2.2 Contaminant Bioaccumulation in Polychaetes from the
Study Area 3-170
3.5 Socio-economic Environment [40 CFR Sections 228.6(a)(8) and (11)] 3-173
3.5.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 3-173
3.5.1.1 Chemical Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish 3-173
3.5.1.1.1 Metals in Fish and Shellfish 3-173
3.5.1.1.2 Organic Compounds in Fish and Shellfish 3-179
3.5.1.1.3 Dioxins and Furans in Fish and Shellfish 3-183
3.5.1.1.4 Contaminant Bioaccumulation Potential in Study Area
Organisms [Section 228.10(b)(6)] 3-183
3.5.1.1.5 Seafood Contaminant Levels Relative to FDA
Advisory Levels 3-185
3.5.1.2 Catch Data of Commercially and Recreationally Important Fish and
Shellfish in the Study Area 3-186
3.5.2 Fishery Enhancement Structures and Operations 3-192
3.5.3 Shipping [Sections 228.5(a) and 228.6(a)(8)] 3-194
3.5.4 Military Usage 3-195
3.5.5 Mineral/Energy Development [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(8)] 3-196
3.5.6 Recreational Activities 3-197
3.5.7 Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance
[40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(ll)].... 3-197
3.5.8 Other Legitimate Uses of the Study Area [Section 228.6(a)(8)], 3-201
3.5.9 Areas of Special Concern 3r201
3.6 References 3-204
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 Approach to Evaluating Consequences of the Four Alternatives 4-1
4.2 Nondiscriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts — Common to All Alternatives 4-5
4.2.1 Marine Sanctuaries, Areas of Special Scientific Importance, and Other Special Areas
of Concern
[228.5(a), 228.6(a)(3), 228.6(a)(8), 228.10(b)(l), 228.10(c)(l)(i)] 4-5
4.2.2 Geographically Limited Fisheries and Shellfisheries
[228.5(a), 228.5(b), 228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8), 228.10(c)(l)(ii)] 4-7
4.2.3 Beaches, Shorelines, and Amenity Areas
[228.5(b), 228.6(a)(3), 228.6(a)(6), 228.10(b)(l), 228.10(c)(l)(i)] 4-7
4.2.4 Commercial and Recreational Navigation
[228.5(a), 228.6(a)(8)] 4.9
4.2.5 Mineral Extraction and Energy Development [228.6(a)(8)J 4_10
4.2.5.1 Mineral Extraction [228.6(a)(8>] 4_10
4.2.5.2 Energy Development [228.6(a)(8)] 4_11
4.2.6 Military Operations [228.6(a)(8>] 4_U
-------
MDS/HARS SE1S May 1997
Contents Page vii
4.2.7 Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean [228.6(a)(8)] 4-11
4.2.8 Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat and Migration [228.5(b), 228.6(a)(8)] . 4-12
4.2.9 Topography, Hydrography, and Hydrology [228.6(a)(l>] 4-12
4.3 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts — Used to Select the Preferred Alternative 4-14
4.3.1 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts of Alternative 1 (No Action) 4-14
4.3.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Degraded Sediments
[228.6(a)(7), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(i),
228.10(c)(l)(ii)] 4-14
4.3.1.2 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Benthic Infauna
[228.10(b)(3), 228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)] 4-16
4.3.1.3 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Contaminant Bioaccumulation
[228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)] 4-19
4.3.1.4 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Fish and Shellfish Resources
[228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8), 228.6(a)(ll), 228.10(b)(2), 228.10(b)(4),
228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii), 228.10(c)(l)(iv)
228.10(c)(l)(v)] 4-20
4.3.1.5 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Natural and Cultural Features of
Historical Importance
[228.6(a)(ll)] 4-25
4.3.1.6 Pros and Cons of Alternative 1 4-25
4.3.1.7 Monitoring and Surveillance for Alternative 1
[228.6(a)(5)] 4-26
4.3.2 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts of the No MDS-No HARS Designation
Alternative (Alternative 2) 4-26
4.3.2.1 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Degraded Sediment
[228.6(a)(7), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(i),
228.10(c)(l)(ii)] 4-26
4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Benthic Infauna
[228.10(b)(3), 228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)] 4-26
4.3.2.3 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Contaminant
Bioaccumulation
[228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)] 4-27
4.3.2.4 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Fish and Shellfish
Resources
[228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8), 228.6(a)(ll), 228.10(b)(2), 228.10(b)(4),
228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii), 228.10(c)(l)(iv)
228.10(c)(l)(v)] 4-27
4.3.2.5 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Natural and Cultural
Features of Historical Importance
[228.6(a)(ll)] 4-29
4.3.2.6 Pros and Cons of Alternative 2 4-30
4.3.2.7 Monitoring and Surveillance for Alternative 2
[228.6(a)(5)] 4-30
4.3.3 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts of Alternative 3 (Remediation) 4-30
4.3.3.1 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Degraded Sediments
[228.6(a)(7), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(i),
228.10(c)(l)(ii)] 4-30
4.3.3.2 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Benthic Infauna
[228.10(b)(3), 228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)] 4-31
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS **
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Contents Page ix
APPENDIX A Fisheries Data from NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Resource Surveys
and New Jersey DEP Trawl Surveys
APPENDIX B Latitude and Longitude Coordinates of HARS Borders, including
Priority Remediation Area (PRA), No Discharge Zone (NDZ), and Buffer Zone (BZ)
APPENDIX C HARS Site Management and Monitoring Plan
APPENDIX D Memo from C. Mantzaris, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service to
Co-chairs, Mud Dump Site Closure Working Group, June 16,1995
List of Tables
1-1. Five Factors to be Considered in the Determination of Impact Category I 1-14
1-2. Five General Criteria for the Selection of Ocean Dredged Material Sites 1-18
1-3. Eleven Specific Factors To Be Considered in the Selection of
Ocean Dredged Material Sites 1-19
3-1. History of ocean disposal sites in the New York Bight 3-2
3-2. Reduction in contaminant loading to the New York Bight Apex following transfer of
sewage sludge disposal to the 106-Mile Site in 1987 3-10
3-3. Improvements to water and sediment quality in the inner Bight following transfer of
sewage sludge disposal from the 12-Mile Site to the 106-Mile Site 3-15
3-4. Historical and recent dredged material disposal volumes in the New York Bight Apex
and Mud Dump Site 3-23
3-5. Peak near-bottom wave orbital velocity 3-47
3-6. Critical wave heights (m) needed for resuspension of 1.0 mm diameter sediment 3-55
3-7. Percent frequency of significant wave height (meters) vs. dominant wave period (seconds)
at Ambrose Light (40.5N/73.8W), November 1984 through December 1993 3-57
3-8. Background contaminant metal concentrations in uncontaminated sandy and
silty sediments of the New York Bight and Bight Apex (in ppm dry weight) 3-61
3-9. Ranges in metal concentrations [ppm Cug/g) dry weight] in sediments from the
New York Bight Apex, Study Area, and Mud Dump Site 3-62
3-10. PAH, PCB, DDT, and organotin concentrations [ppb (ng/g) dry weight] and
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations [pptr (pg/g) dry weight] in surface sediment samples in
the New York Bight Apex and Mud Dump Site 3-68
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Contents PageX
3-11. Representative recent total metal concentrations measured in the water column of
the New York Bight Apex and MDS 3'91
3-12. General geophysical and biological properties of the two main cluster groups resulting
from Bray-Curtis similarity analysis 3'103
3-13. Fish inhabiting the Study Area and the New York Bight 3-116
3-14. Shellfish in the Study Area and New York Bight 3-117
3-15. Egg type and characteristics of fish species that occupy the New York Bight 3-123
3-16. Egg type and characteristics of shellfish species that occupy the New York Bight 3-123
3-17. Primary and secondary prey species of fish occupying the Study Area 3-125
3-18. Primary and secondary prey species of shellfish occupying the Study Area 3-129
3-19. Coastal and marine birds in New York and New Jersey listed as endangered,
threatened, or of special concern 3-148
3-20. Marine mammals and sea turtles in the New York Bight 3-151
3-21. Dietary importance of key benthic species found in each benthic habitat type in
the Study Area , 3-158
3-22. Range in metal concentrations in polychaetes collected from the Study Area 3-164
3-23. Organic contaminant concentrations (ppb wet weight) in polychaete samples from
the Study Area -„ 3-167
3-24. Dioxin results for polychaete tissues collected in the Study Area in the early 1990s 3-171
3-25a. Range in metal concentrations in organisms collected in the late 1970s through 1995
from the New York Bight, Bight Apex, and Hudson Shelf Valley 3-174
3-25b. Range in metal concentrations in organisms collected in the late 1970s through 1995
from the New York Bight, Bight Apex, and Hudson Shelf Valley 3-175
3-26. Concentrations of contaminants in the flesh of recreational fish collected in the
New York Bight Apex in 1993 3-177
3-27. Concentrations of metals in muscle and hepatopancreas of lobster collected in the
New York Bight Apex in parts per million (wet weight) 3-178
3-28. Ranges in organic contaminants (in ppb wet weight) in organisms collected from the
New York Bight Apex and Hudson Shelf Valley 3-180
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Contents Page xi
3-29. Recent concentrations of organic contaminants in muscle and hepatopancreas of
lobster collected in the New York Bight Apex 3-182
3-30. Dioxin results in fisheries tissues samples collected in and near the Study Area 3-184
3-31. Commercial landings and value of selected commercially important fish and shellfish
species caught in statistical Subarea 612 in 1993 3-188
3-32. Estimated number (in thousands) of recreational anglers fishing off the coasts of
New York and New Jersey 3-188
3-33. Estimated number (in thousands) of recreational angler fishing trips from New York
and New Jersey 3-189
3-34. Top 10 recreational fish species, in decreasing order of estimated catch weight (1,000s Ibs)
for New York and New Jersey 3-190
3-35. Fishing areas and target species of the Study Area 3-191
3-36. Artificial reef sites located near the Study Area 3-192
3-37. New York-New Jersey Harbor area military installations 3-196
3-38. Documented vessel sinkings and side scan targets identified as shipwrecks in the Study
Area, and their potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) 3-200
3-39. Areas of special concern, jurisdiction, and distance from the Study Area 3-203
4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of
Environmental Consequences 4-55
List of Figures
1-1. Location of the current Mud Dump Site (MDS), designated in 1984 1-5
1-2. Location of Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Study Area Subareas 1 and 2 1-8
1-3. Location of the current Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS) 1-10
2-1. Alternative 3 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS), with Priority Remediation Area
(PRA), Buffer Zone (BZ), and No Discharge Zone (NDZ) 2-4
2-2. Alternative 4 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS), with Priority Remediation Area
(PRA), Buffer Zone (BZ), and No Discharge Zone (NDZ) 2-7
3-1. Location of present and former disposal sites in the New York Bight Apex 3-3
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Contents _ _ __ Pa*extt
3-2. The Mud Dump Site and SEIS Study Area are located in the New York Bight Apex in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean [[[ -*-5
3-3. Location of the Study Area including the 3-nmi line that delineates state and federal waters ... 3-6
3-4. Topography and water depths in the Study Area ..................................... 3-8
3-5. Relative inputs of representative pollutants to inner New York Bight in the late 1 980s ...... 3-11
3-6. Bathymetry of the Inner New York Bight
(a) 1845 [[[ 3-16
(b) 1885 [[[ 3-16
(c) 1936 [[[ 3-17
(d) 1973 [[[ 3-17
3-7. Map showing the lateral and vertical growth of the dredged material mound in the Hudson
Shelf Valley off the entrance to New York/New Jersey Harbor between 1 885 and 1936 ..... 3-18
3-8. Map showing the lateral and vertical growth of the dredged material mound in the Hudson
Shelf Valley off the entrance to New York/New Jersey Harbor between 1936 and 1973 ..... 3-18
3-9. Detailed bathymetry of the seafloor in the vicinity of the MDS and
Cellar Dirt area in 1978 ................................ ..... .................. 3-19
3-10. High resolution two-dimensional representation of the bathymetry of the Study Area ....... 3-20
3-11. Bathymetry of the inner New York Bight in 1995 and 1996 ...... ......... ............ 3-21
3-12. High resolution three-dimensional representation of the bathymetry of the Study Area ...... 3-22
3-13. Annual volumes of dredged material disposed at the MDS from 1976 through 1995 ........ 3-24
3-14. Representation of percent mud in the sediments of the New York Bight Apex area
as of 1973 ....... „ ........ . ....................... „ ........................ 3-30
3-15. Representation of percent mud in the sediments of the New York Bight Apex area
priorto 1976 ... ................ ..... ..... . ____ . ....... ....... ..... . ........ 3-30
3-16. Compilation of surface sediment grain size data for stations in the Study Area (Subarea 1)
sampled from 1990 through 1996 ......... . ..................................... 3-31
3-17. Locations of ripple and sand fields identified in Subarea 1 by side scan .................. 3-32
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Contents Page xiii
3-21 Correlation between mud content and organic carbon content of surface sediments
(upper 10 cm) from the Study Area 3-37
3-22. Spatial distribution of total organic carbon in the surface sediments from the Study Area .... 3-38
3-23. Mean monthly precipitation received over New Jersey 3-39
3-24. Comparison of the mean monthly air and sea temperatures, dominant monthly wind direction,
and winds exceeding 30 knots in the New York Bight at the Ambrose Light Platform for
November 1984 to December 1993 3-40
3-25. Comparison of average wind speed and direction by calendar quarter at
Ambrose Light Platform 3-41
3-26. Monthly mean river discharge from the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers 3-42
3-27. General circulation structure of the New York Bight 3-43
3-28. Mean current vectors from current meters moored in the Middle Atlantic Bight region 3-44
3-29. Tidal ellipses (M2) from 17 moorings located in the New York Bight 3-44
3-30. Time series current vectors and hourly bottom pressure, water temperature, and significant
wave height from November 1992 through March 1993 at the MDS 3-46
3-31. Current vectors from June through September 1993 at three sites in the vicinity
of the MDS 3-47
3-32. Significant wave heights and dominant wave periods in the vicinity of the MDS from 1984
through 1993 3-48
3-33. Illustration of idealized dredged material plume behavior 3-49
3-34. Current meter mooring locations from 1986 through 1989 3-51
3-35. Spatial estimates of erosional conditions in the vicinity of the Study Area 3-52
3-36. Representation of the potential sediment transport rates under a 16 cms"1 transport threshold
in 10°-segments for stations in the New York Bight 3-53
3-37. Modified shields diagram for the initiation of sediment motion 3-54
3-38. Wave friction factor diagram 3-55
3-39a. Distribution of metals in surface sediments of the Study Area (a) Copper, (b) Lead 3-64
3-39b. Distribution of Mercury in surface sediments of the Study Area 3-65
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Contents Pa«exiv
3-40a. Correspondence between the fraction of mud in surface sediment samples from the
Study Area and the copper concentrations 3-66
3-40b. Correspondence between total organic carbon concentration in surface sediment samples
from the Study Area and the copper concentrations 3-66
3-41. Relationship between the mud fraction in sediments of the Study Area and MDS and total
PCBs 3-69
3-42. Total PCB and total DDT distributions in the Study Area 3-70
3-43. Regional distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pptr dry weight) 3-71
3-44. Spatial distribution of sediments exhibiting exceedances of NOAA ER-L/ER-M
guideline values 3-73
3-45. Spatial distribution of sediments in the Study Area exhibiting low, moderate, and
high chemical degradation 3-75
3-46. Spatial distribution of biologically significant toxicity in sediments in the Study Area 3-76
3-47. Spatial distribution of sediments having low, moderate, and high toxicity in the
Study Area 3-77
3-48. Spatial distribution of areas considered degraded in the Study Area 3-79
3-49. Representative surface and vertical salinity features in the inner New York Bight 3-81
3-50. Vertical sections of beam attenuation (a measure of water clarity) for the Study Area
and MDS in June 1993 3-83
3-51. Horizontal contours of beam attenuation at 2 m (Panel 1) and 8 m (Panel 2) depths in
the Study Area in June 1993 3-84
3-52. Dissipation of total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations of dredged material plumes
surveyed in the MDS in (Panel 1) June of 1992 and (Panel 2) June of 1993 3-85
3-53. Spatial distribution of chlorophyll a in surface waters in the Mid-Atlantic Bight from
New Jersey to Virginia Beach, VA from 1989 through 1992 3-88
3-54a. Total recoverable cadmium concentrations in the surface and mid-depth water of the
New York Bight in July 1988 3.39
3-54b. Total recoverable copper concentrations in the surface and mid-depth water of the
New York Bight in July 1988 3_90
3-55a. Dissipation of contaminants after dredged material disposal 3.92
3-55b. Dissipation of contaminants after dredged material disposal 3.92
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Contents Page xv
3-56. Seasonal cycles of phytoplankton and zooplankton community biomass in
the North Atlantic 3-94
3-57. Geographic distribution of mean total infaunal abundance, numbers of species per replicate,
and species diversity per replicate in the October 1994 Study Area (Subarea 1) 3-101
3-58. Dendrogram resulting from clustering of stations based on Bray-Curtis similarity 3-102
3-59. Mean total infaunal abundance (number/m2), number of species, and species diversity
in the October 1994 Study Area (Subarea 1) 3-104
3-60. Mean abundance (number/m2) of nucula proximo, prionospio steenstrupi, and Pherusa
in the October 1994 Study Area (Subarea 1) 3-105
3-61. Locations of cluster groups within the October 1994 Study Area (Subarea 1) 3-106
3-62. Mud (%), TOC (%), and water depth (m) at stations included in the infaunal analyses 3-107
3-63. Mean abundance (number/m2) of polygordius, echinarachnius parma, and
pseudunciola obliquua in the Study Area 3-108
3-64. National Marine Fisheries Service commercial fisheries statistical areas,
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras 3-111
3-65. National Marine Fisheries Service bottom trawl survey strata in the vicinity of
the Study Area 3-113
3-66. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection fisheries trawl survey sampling
Strata Nos. 13 and 14 3-113
3-67 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection fisheries sampling Strata No. 14
and blocks nearest the Study Area 3-114
3-68. Quarterly distribution of demersal fish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and corresponding
spawning periods (asterisks) 3-130
3-69. Quarterly distribution of pelagic fish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and corresponding
spawning periods (asterisks) 3-132
3-70. Quarterly distribution of shellfish fish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and corresponding
spawning periods (asterisks) 3-133
3-71. Schematic diagram of location and extent of the four major surface sediment categories
in the Study Area 3-137
3-72. Sediment preferences offish and shellfish that occupy the Study Area 3-139
3-73. Generalized marine food chain model 3-156
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Contents Pa*exn
3-74. Representative trophic transfers in the Study Area 3-157
3-75. Schematic representation of major pathways of contaminant entry into the food web
and trophic transfer pathways 3-161
3-76. Distribution of copper and lead in polychaete tissues collected in and
near the Study Area 3-166
3-77. Representative distributions of total PCB and total organotins in polychaete worms collected
from the Study Area 3-168
3-78. Representative distributions of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and total DDT in polychaete worms
collected from the Study Area 3-169
3-79. Trend in PCB contamination in striped bass from the lower Hudson River between
1978 and 1990 3-179
3-80. Commercial fishing data for all New York and New Jersey ocean ports 3-187
3-81. Commercial and recreational fishing locations in the Study Area 3-189
3-82. Artificial reefs located near the Study Area 3-193
3-83. Location of the Mud Dump Site and the Study Area in relation to New York Bight Apex
shipping areas 3-195
3-84. Locations of shipwrecks in the Study Area identified during side scan surveys
by SAIC 3-198
3-85. Location of vessels documented as having foundered and sunk within or near
the Study Area 3-198
3-86. Inactive Cable Area crossing the Study Area 3-202
4-1. Location of Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) 4-4
4-2. Location of Areas of Special Concern relative to the MDS and HARS 4-6
4-3. Location of the MDS and HARS in relation to shipping lanes and navigation areas of
the New York Bight Apex „ 4-10
4-4. Study Area locations found to be degraded 4-15
4-5. Bentbic community groups in and around the MDS 4-17
4-6. Alternative 3 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) and locations of degraded sediment .. 4-30
4-7. Benthic community groups in and around the HARS 4.33
-------
MDS/HARS SE1S May 1997
Contents Page xvii
4-8. Major bottoms habitat types of the MDS and HARS 4-38
4-9. Major fishery areas of the MDS and HARS 4-39
4-10. Location of side scan-identified shipwrecks on the sea floor of the HARS 4-42
4-11. Alternative 4 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) 4-46
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Contents
May 1997
Page xviii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Bioconcentration Factors
Below Mean Low Water
Biological Oxygen Demand
Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors
Buffer Zone
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan
Confined Disposal Facilities
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Combined Sewer Overflow
Clean Water Act
Disposal Area Monitoring System
Dredged Material Management Plan
Dissolved Oxygen
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Effects Range - Low
Effects Range - Median
Endangered Species Act
Food and Drug Administration
Historic Area Remediation Site
Draft Historic Area Remediation Site Management
and Monitoring Plan
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Limiting Permissible Concentration
Mud Dump Site
Marine EcoSystems Analysis
Mean Low Water
U.S. Minerals Management Service
Vlonitoring Program
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972
No Discharge Zone
BCF
BMLW
BOD
BSAF
BZ
CCMP
CDF
COD
CSO
CWA
DAMOS
DMMP
DO
EIS
EPA
ER-L
ER-M
ESA
FDA
HARS
HARSMP
HMWPAH
LMWPAH
LPC
MDS
MESA
MLW
MMS
MP
MPRSA
NDZ
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Contents
May 1997
Page xLx
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Northeast Monitoring Program
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
New Jersey State Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Survey
Nonpoint Source
National Register of Historic Places
New York District
Operations and Maintenance
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Organism-Sediment Indices
Public Announcement
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Priority Remediation Area
Request for Information and Interest
Regional Testing Manual
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Development Act
NEFSC
NEMP
NEPA
NHPA
NJDEP
NJGS
NMFS
NOAA
NOAA/NOS
NFS
NRHP
NYD
O&M
ODMDS
OSI
PA
PAHs
PRA
RFIN
RTM
SEIS
SMMP
TOC
TSS
USAGE
USCG
USFWS
USGS
WRDA
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Contents
May 1997
Page xx
Ocean Dumping Regulation Reference Table for the MDS/HARS SEIS
Ocean Dumping
Regulation
Key Words and Phrases
SEIS Chapter Location
40 CFR 228.5(a-e): General Criteria for the Selection of Sites
228.5(a)
228.5(b)
228.5(c)
228.5(d)
228.5(e)
interference with other
activities
perturbations to the
environment during initial
mixing
closure of interim ODMDSs
limiting site size for
monitoring and surveillance
designating historically used
sites
3.5.3,4.2.1,4.2.2,4.2.4
3.3.6, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.8, 5.0
N/A
5.0
3.2.1, 3.2.2
40 CFR 228.6(a)(l-ll): Specific Criteria for Site Selection
228.6(a)(l)
228.6(a)(2)
228.6(aX3)
228.6(a)(4)
228.6(a)(5)
228.6(a)(6)
228.6(a)(7)
228.6(a)(8)
geography, depth,
topography, distance from
coast
location relative to living
resources
location relative to beaches
and amenities
types and quantities of wastes
and disposal methods
feasibility of site surveillance
and monitoring
site dispersion, transport, and
mixing characteristics
previous dumping, cumulative
effects
interference with other uses
3.1,3.3.1,3.3.4,4.2.9
3.4.2, 3.5, 4.2.2, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.4
3.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.3,
3.2.3, 3.2.4, 5.0
3.2.4, 4.3.1.7, 4.3.2.7, 4.3.3.7, 4.3.4.7, 5.0
3.3.3, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.2.3
3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3.1,
4.3.4.1
3.5, 3.5.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.8, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.4,
4.2.5, 4.2.5.1, 4.2.5.2, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.2.8,
4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.4, 4.3.4.4
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Contents
May 1997
Page xxi
Ocean Dumping Regulation Reference Table for the MDS/HARS SEIS
Ocean Dumping
Regulation
228.6(a)(9)
228.6(a)(10)
228.6(a)(ll)
Key Words and Phrases
existing water quality and
ecology of site
nuisance species
proximity to historical
features
SEIS Chapter Location
3.3.10,3.4.1,3.4.2,3.4.4,3.4.5
3.4.1.1
3.5.7, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.2.5, 4.3.3.4,
4.3.3.5, 4.3.4.4, 4.3.4.5
40 CFR 228.10: Evaluating Disposal Impact
228.10(b)(l)
228.10(b)(2)
228.10(b)(3)
228.10(b)(4)
228.10(b)(5)
228.10(b)(6)
228.10(c)(l)(i)
228.10(c)(l)(ii)
228.10(c)(l)(iii)
228.10(c)(l)(iv)
228.10(c)(l)(v)
impact to estuaries,
sanctuaries, beaches, or
shorelines
impact to fish or shellfish
areas
impact to pollution-sensitive
biota
changes in water quality or
sediment
changes in biota composition
bioaccumulation
movement/accumulation
within 12 miles of shoreline,
sanctuary or critical area
adverse affect to commercial
or recreational species
impairment of other major
uses
adverse affects to commercial
or recreational species
toxicity outside ODMDS
4 hours after disposal event
3.3.4,4.2.1,4.2.3
3.4.2, 4.3 1 4 4 3 2.4, 4 3.3.4 4.3 4 4
3.4.2, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.3.2 4.3.4.2
3.3.2, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.4 , 4.3.3.1,
4.3.3.4,4.3.4.1,4.3.4.4
3.4.2, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.3.2, 4.3.4.2
3.4.6, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.3,
4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.3, 4.3.3.4, 4.3.4.1,
4.3.4.3, 4.3.4.4
3.3.6, 3.3.10.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2.1,
4.3.3.1,4.3.4.1
3.4, 3.5.1, 4.2.2, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.4,
4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.1, 4.3.3.2,
4.3.3.4, 4.3.4.1, 4 3.4.2, 4.3.4 4
4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.2.3,
4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.2, 4.3.3.3, 4.3.3.4, 4.3.4.2,
4.3.4.3, 4.3.4.4
3.4, 3.5.1, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.4, 4.3.4.4
3.3.6, 3.3.10.5, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.3, 4.3.4.4
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Executive Summary _ Pagexxu
SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE NEW YORK DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE HISTORIC AREA REMEDIATION SITE (BARS)
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT APEX
MAY 1997
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For the reasons described below, this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) demonstrates
a need to terminate and de-designate the New York Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site, and
simultaneously designate that site and surrounding degraded areas as the Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS). The HARS will be remediated with "uncontaminated dredged material (i.e., dredged material
that meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects including through
bioaccumulation)"1 in order to reduce impacts at the site to acceptable levels [see 40 CFR Section
228.11(c)]. EPA also recognizes that the success of remediation at the HARS and complete recovery of
the associated benthic community be affected by the success of efforts to manage and reduce other sources
of contaminants to the New York Bight Apex. The recently-approved Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) for New York-New Jersey Harbor provides for a variety of actions to be taken
by many parties that would reduce contaminant levels from point and nonpoint sources. Implementation of
the commitments contained in the CCMP will provide additional relief from contaminant inputs to the
-HARS from sources such as the Hudson river and atmospheric deposition, and will help ensure the success
of the HARS remediation.operations. _ „ ._ ._
BACKGROUND
Since the 1800s, the New York Bight Apex and surrounding area has been used for disposal of dredged
material and a variety of waste products, including municipal garbage, building materials, sewage sludge,
and industrial waste^redged^aterialplacement-in the New York Bight Apex-bega&^effieiaHy" in 1888
at a point 2.5 miles^ south of Coney Island. At that time, die New York HarborJLLS. Congressional Act of
1888 established mat the Supervisor of New York Harbor had the authority to grant permits for ocean
disposal. Due to shoaling off Coney-Mandrthe dredged material disposal loeation~wasTnovedin 1900 to a
point one-half mile south and eastward of Sandy Hook Lightship.. Jn_19Q3,Jie lpcatip_nwas moved again,
to 1.5 miles east of Scotland Lightship. Dredged material placement continued seaward of this area for the
next 70 years.
In 1972 the Congress of the United States enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) to address and control the dumping of materials into ocean waters. Title I of MPRSA
authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
to regulate dumping in ocean waters. Since MPRSA was enacted, and through its subsequent
amendments, dumping in the New York Bight has been dramatically reduced through actions by EPA, the
USAGE, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and other agencies. In the New York Bight, this has meant
permanent closure of the 12-Mile and 106-Mile sewage sludge sites, the Cellar Dirt site, Acid Waste site,
and Woodburning site.
1 As provided for in a letter of July 24, 1996, signed by EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, Secretary of
Transportation, Federico F. Pena, and Secretary of U.S. Department of the Army, Togo D. West, Jr. (July 24, 1996,
3-Party Letter)
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Executive Summary Page xtiii
In 1973, EPA designated the New York Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site; MDS) in
the New York Bight Apex as an "interim" ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for dredged
materials from the Port of New York and New Jersey. The interim ODMDS was a 2.2-nmi2 rectangle
approximately 5.3 nmi east of Sandy Hook, NJ, and 9.6 nmi south of Rockaway Beach, Long Island, NY.
After interim designation, detailed environmental studies were conducted and a site-designation
environmental impact statement (EIS) was published in 1982. In 1984, EPA designated the interim MDS
as "final" with no changes to the borders of the interim 2.2-nmi2 site. At the time of designation, the MDS
was designated an Impact Category I site2 with capacity for up to 100 million cubic yards (Myd3) of
dredged material.
Since 1984, the MDS has received approximately 68 Myd3 of dredged material. The current remaining
disposal capacity is approximately 32 Myd3. Recent bathymetric data show that water depths within the
MDS now average 20 m (65 ft). In 1996, EPA and the USAGE completed a comprehensive analysis of
benthic erosion at the MDS and established "management depths" at the site above which deposited
dredged material would not be allowed to shoal. The management depths for Category I and IT3 dredged
material were set at 45 ft (14 m) and 65 ft (approx. 20 m) Below Mean Low Water (BMLW), respectively.
Because of the need for a 65-ft management depth for Category n material limited the remaining
Category n disposal capacity is approximately 1 Myd3. The balance of the site's capacity (31 Myd3)
remains for Category I dredged material.
In February 1995, EPA Region 2 issued a Public Announcement stating that the Agency would commence
a study of a 23-nmi2 area surrounding the existing MDS. The product of the study was to be a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that would evaluate three alternatives under the
EPA's ocean dumping regulations:
1. No action (no expansion of the MDS)
2. Expansion of the MDS for Category I material
3. Expansion of the MDS for Category I and n material
Each of the alternatives, particularly Alternatives 2 and 3, were also to evaluate impacts from historical
disposal and the potential for remediating or restoring impacted benthic areas.
In May 1995, EPA announced results of toxicity tests conducted with 10-day amphipod bioassays using
Ampelisca abdita on benthic samples collected in the 23-nmi2 SEIS Study Area. These data demonstrated
that some parts of the Study Area contain sediments that exhibit acute toxicity. These sediments would not
comply with 40 CFR Section 227.27 and be unacceptable for ocean disposal. Bathymetric and side-scan
data also collected at this time showed evidence of dredged material mounds northwest of the 23-nmi2
SEIS Study Area. In response, EPA expanded the Study Area by adding an approximately 7-nmi2
rectangle northwest of and abutting the western border of the original 23 nmi2 area. The resulting 30-nmi2
(103.2 km2) Study Area encompassed benthic areas that showed evidence of dredged material disposal in
the New York Bight Apex.
2 For explanation of Impact Category I, See Table 1-1 or 40 CFR Section 228.10(c)(l)
3 See Section 1.1 Page 1-4 of Chapter 1 of this SEIS
-------
MDS/HARS SE1S May 199?
Executive Summary Pagexav
Other studies—some not specifically directed at evaluating dredged material impacts—further
characterized the physical, chemical, and biotic conditions of the Study Area and Bight Apex.
• Chemical analysis of infaunal (worm) tissue from parts of the Study Area confirmed that some
sediment contaminants are being bioaccumulated in lower trophic levels.
• The hepatic tissue (tomalley) of Bight Apex lobsters was found to have levels of PCBs and
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) above currently acceptable action levels and guidelines.
• Several shipwrecks were located in the Apex and Study Area, triggering a need for a National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) evaluation and an evaluation of the spatially-limited reef habitat
created by the wrecks.
The assembly of this new information generated heightened concern about the environmental
consequences of historical ocean disposal in the Bight Apex, as well as the continued disposal of Category
n dredged material. This in turn brought into question the appropriateness of continued use or expansion
of the MDS. The concerns led to Federal actions detailed in a July 24,1996, letter to several New Jersey
Congressmen, signed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Secretary of Transportation Federico F. Pena,
and Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Jr. (July 24,1996,3-Party Letter):
"... Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will immediately begin the
administrative process for closure of the MDS by September 1,1997. The proposed
closure shall be finalized no later than that date. Post-closure use of the site would be
limited, consistent with management standards in 40 C.F.R. Section 228.11(c).
Simultaneous with closure of the MDS, the site^nd surrounding^reas thathave been used
historically as disposal sites for contaminated material will be redesignated under
40 C.F.R. Section 228 as the Historic^ Area Remediation Site. This designation will
include a proposal that the site be managed to reduce impacts at the site to acceptable
levels (in accordance wolh^OJCLFJR- SecliDn_228JJj(c>XJIbje..His.toric Area Remediation
Site will be remediated with uncontaminated dredged material (i.e. dredged material that
meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects
including through bioaccumulation)4..." (EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996)
The July 24,1996,3-Party Letter further stated: "The designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site
will assure long-term use of category 1 dredge material."
Subsequent to the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter, EPA Region 2 issued a Public Announcement in
September 1996 modifying the scope of the SEIS from evaluating the potential expansion of the Mud
Dump Site to evaluating the designation of a Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS). In the same
announcement, the Agency stated that it was beginning the administrative process to close (de-designate)
the MDS.
Hereafter referenced to as "Material for Remediation" or "Remediation Material".
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Executive Summary Page xxv
NEED FOR REMEDIATION
Field studies of the New York Bight Apex have found undesirable levels of bioaccumulative contaminants
and toxicity in the surface sediments of much of the MDS and in sediments immediately surrounding the
MDS. Further, it was found that some of these sediments cause toxicity in amphipod bioassays.
Amphipods are small-bodied crustaceans that live in the surface layers of sediment, and are important prey
items for many coastal marine organisms. These and other organisms are used by EPA and the USAGE to
evaluate sediment samples from proposed dredging sites.
While it is impossible to quantify how much of New York Bight Apex contamination is the direct result of
past dredged material disposal, other ocean dumping activities (e.g., former sewage sludge disposal at the
12-Mile Site), or other sources (e.g., via Hudson River plume or atmospheric deposition), the presence of
these degraded sediments in the Apex is cause for concern. Organisms living in or near these degraded
surface sediments in nearshore waters will be continually exposed to contaminants until the contaminants
are buried by natural sedimentation, placement of Remediation Material, or otherwise isolated or removed.
Exposed sediments can directly and indirectly impact benthic and pelagic organisms. Impacts to terrestrial
organisms (including human beings) are also possible if the contaminants were to undergo trophic transfer.
EPA employed several types of evaluations to determine the extent and location of potential environmental
impacts in the vicinity of the MDS and historic dredged material disposal areas. These included the type
of bioassays normally conducted on sediment samples from proposed dredging sites, contaminant-
bioaccumulation evaluations of infaunal organisms and sediment from the Study Area, and evaluation of
the benthic community structure in the potentially impacted areas. The results of these evaluations and the
main factors that make remediation necessary are summarized below.
Contaminant Toxicity
Potential toxicity of sediments was evaluated using the same 10-day amphipod (Ampelisca abditd)
bioassay test used to evaluate the suitability of sediment for ocean disposal by EPA Region 2 and the
USAGE New York District (NYD). The data from amphipod bioassays of sediments from 1994 Study
Area samples indicated widespread toxic conditions in sediment from areas around the MDS. If these
surface sediments from the Study Area were from a proposed Region 2/NYD dredging project site, the
sediments would have been categorized as Category HI and found to not meet the limiting permissible
concentration (LPC) in EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Section 227.27), and thus would not
be permitted for disposal at the MDS.
Contaminant Bioaccumulation/Trophic Transfer
Contaminant bioaccumulation was evaluated by analyzing the tissues of infaunal worms collected from the
Study Area sediments. Infaunal organism bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants can, if
accumulated to high enough levels, result in both acute and chronic impacts and eventually transform
benthic community structure. Such changes can affect the food source of demersal predators. When
demersal predators feed on infauna with contaminated tissues, the contaminants can be transferred to and
potentially accumulate in the predator. These contaminants can then potentially be consumed by humans.
EPA's evaluation of contaminant bioaccumulation in the Study Area was similar to the Agency's Green
Book Tier IV "steady-state" evaluations, which are used in determining compliance with the ocean
dumping criteria. The results showed that there were areas in the vicinity of the MDS where these benthic
worms were accumulating undesirable levels of contaminants from the sediments.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Executive Summary Pagexxv,
Contaminants in Sediments
Contaminant concentrations in sediments in the vicinity of the MDS were compared to National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ER-L (Effects Range-Low) and ER-M (Effects Range-Median)
values which have been derived from a broad range of biological and chemical data collected synoptically
from field and laboratory experiments. Although ER-L/ER-M values are not appropriate for regulatory
decisionmaking, they are useful in sediment evaluations when considered concurrently with other data. In
general, the comparisons of ER-L/ER-M values to contaminant levels in sediments from parts of the Study
Area indicated that, based on contaminant levels in the sediment, negative biological effects could be
possible at many stations. This conclusion is corroborated by the results of the toxicity and contaminant
bioaccumulation tests described above.
Contaminant Levels in Area Lobsters
Additional evidence of degraded sediments in the New York Bight was found in NOAA tissue data from
lobsters that were harvested in the New York Bight Apex in 1994. PCB and 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
concentrations in the hepatic tissue (tomalley) of the lobsters were above U.S. Food and Drug
Administration consumption guidelines. Other contaminants were also present in the hepatopancreas and
other tissues, but the concentrations of these contaminants were within consumption guidelines.
Lobster study data revealed that food sources of Bight Apex lobsters are contaminated, that contaminants
are being accumulated, and that concern about potential human-health risks is warranted. It must be kept
in mind, however, that the lobsters analyzed in the NOAA study were harvested from wild stocks in the
Apex, whose populations migrate seasonally through the region, including perhaps the SEIS Study Area.
Contamination of these animals cannot be definitively linked to specific areas of dredged material disposal,
to other past dumping activities, or to other ongoing pollution sources. Nor does the study data indicate
that human consumption of lobster muscle tissue (meat) presents health risks. However, the contaminant
data set complements other evidence of benthic contamination in the Bight Apex region.
Solutions to Sediment Degradation in the Study Area
The need to terminate and de-designate the New York Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site, and
simultaneously redesignate the area of that site and surrounding degraded areas as the Historic Area
Remediation Site (HARS) is demonstrated by the presence of toxic effects (a Category HI sediment
characteristic), dioxin bioaccumulation exceeding Category I levels in worm tissue (a Category n sediment
characteristic), ER-L/ER-M exceedances in some Study Area sediments, as well as TCDD/PCB
contamination in area lobster stocks. Individual elements of the aforementioned data do not prove that
sediments within the Study Area are imminent hazards to the New York Bight Apex ecosystem, living
resources, or human health,. However, the collective evidence presents cause for concern, justifies the
conclusion of the July 24,1996,3-Party Letter that a need for remediation exists, and demonstrates that the
MDS is an Impact Category I site.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED UNDER THIS SEIS
Four alternatives were considered under this SEIS to address the need for remediation.
Alternative 1: No-Action
• No change to size or management of the present Mud Dump Site (MDS)
• No remediation of areas outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaceumulative contaminants, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Table of Contents
May 1997
Page xxvii
• Disposal of Category I dredged material continues per the MDS Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 21 USAGE NYD, 1991 a) until current remaining disposal capacity is
reached
• Category n dredged material capacity will be reached by September 1, 1997
Under Alternative 1, the size, location, and management of the MDS are unchanged. Only Category I
dredged material will be disposed at the MDS after September 1,1997 (the remaining capacity for
Category H dredged material will be filled before September 1,1997).
Alternative 2: Close MDS-No HARS Designation
• Closure of the present Mud Dump Site
• No Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) designated
• No remediation of sediments outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas created by past dredged
material disposal
Under Alternative 2, the MDS is closed, no Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) will be designated,
and degraded sediment areas in and around the MDS will not be actively remediated or restored.
Alternative 3: HARS Remediation
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and
designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the Priority
Remediation Area (PRA), a Buffer Zone (BZ),
and No Discharge Zone (NDZ), including the
MDS and sediments that have toxicity or
bioaccumulative contaminants. (Refer to
Appendix B for HARS latitude/longitude
coordinates.)
• Remediation conducted by capping degraded
sediment areas with at least 1 m
of Material for Remediation
• Approximately 40.6 Myd3 required to
remediate the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) PRA; actual
placement volume may be larger to ensure at
least aim cap throughout the PRA
• Remediation work prioritized by degree of
sediment degradation
Under Alternative 3, the MDS will be closed.
Simultaneous with the closure of the MDS, the site and
surrounding areas that have been used historically as
disposal sites for contaminated material will be
redesignated under 40 CFR Section 228 as the Historic
Area Remediation Site. The basis for designating the HARS is that it (1) allows remediation of sediments
degraded by historical disposal (40 CFR Section 228.11), (2) complies with EPA's site-designation criteria
[40 CFR Sections 228.5 and 228.6(a)], and (3) meets the intent of the July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter
(EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Executive Summary ^ Pagexxviii
Alternative 4: HARS Restoration
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
The HARS is composed of the PRA, NDZ, and BZ, including the MDS, surrounding areas that
has been historically used for disposal of dredged material and other wastes (e.g., building
materials, sewage sludge, industrial wastes), and sediments degraded by bioaccumulative
contaminants or toxicity.
• Restoration work conducted by covering fine-grain sediment areas with at least 1 m of sandy (0-
10% fines) Material for Remediation
Approximately 46.4 Myd3 required to restore the 10.3 nmi2 (35.5 km2) of fine-grained sediments in
the PRA; actual placement volume may be larger to ensure at least aim cap throughout the PRA
• Restoration work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, with additional conditions that capping operations within the
HARS use only sandy (0-10% fines) Material for Remediation, and the areas to be capped include fine-
grain surface sediments that are attributable to historical dredged material disposal. The Restoration
HARS for Alternative 4 overlaps the entire area delineated by the Remediation HARS for Alternative 3
and includes additional areas with fine-grain sediments. The total size of the HARS under Alternative 4 is
15.7 nmi2 (54 km2), and includes the present MDS, the surrounding areas that have been used historically
as disposal sites for contaminated material, and area sediments exhibiting toxicity and degraded with
bioaccumulative contaminants. Implementation of Alternative 4 will restore benthic conditions within the
New York Bight Apex Study Area to conditions found in the area prior to dredged material disposal.
PROPOSED ACTION
Each alternative was evaluated under criteria set forth in the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations [40 CFR
Sections 228.5,228.6, and 228.10]. Based on a comprehensive evaluation of physical, chemical,
biological, and socioeconomic data relative to the 30-nmi2 Study Area, EPA has selected Alternative 3 as
the Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is to simultaneously terminate/de-
designate the MDS and designate the site and surrounding areas that have been used historically as
disposal sites for contaminated material as the HARS.
The 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS will include the entire current MDS area. Within the HARS will be a 9.0-
nmi2 Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a 0.27-nmi wide Buffer Zone (BZ) with a total area of 5.7 nmi2,
and a 1-nmi2 No Discharge Zone (NDZ). The Material for Remediation (Remediation Material) is "...
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e., dredged material that meets current category I standards and will
not cause significant undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)..." (July 24,1996,3-Party
Letter).
The Remediation Material for the 9-nmi2 PRA of the HARS will be uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects
including through bioaccumulation) from the Port of New York and New Jersey and surrounding areas.
Consistent with the July 24,1996, 3-Party letter, the designation of the HARS will help "assure long-term
use of category 1 dredged material."
BASIS FOR THE HARS DESIGNATION
Under the authority of Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA is responsible for designating ocean sites for dredged
material. EPA's regulations for this activity are found in 40 CFR Section 228.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May ] 997
Executive Summary Page xxix
The Agency considers MPRSA site designations on a case-by-case basis, designates appropriately sized
sites in suitable areas, and implements site-specific management and monitoring plans (SMMP). Goals of
the EPA site designation process include limiting impacts to the environment; providing for efficient site
management and monitoring operations; and, where appropriate, supporting multiple users (e.g., the
USAGE, a local port authority, and the owners of berthing areas).
The other major Federal law relevant to designation of MPRSA sites is the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). NEPA is the basic U.S. charter for protecting the environment. Section 102(C) of the Act
specifies that a detailed statement by the responsible official is to be prepared for "major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The purpose and intent of these statements
are specified in the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR
Sections 1500-1508). The statements assemble and clearly present accurate and pertinent "environmental
information to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken
[§15001(b)]." Although EPA is not legally required to develop EISs for its own actions, including
evaluating and designating MPRSA sites, the Agency has voluntarily established a policy (39 FR 37119,
October 21,1974) to publish EISs site designations and similar actions as part of its open decision-making
process. All EISs relating to MPRSA site designations, including this SEIS, have been developed under
this voluntary Agency policy.
Environmental information used to produce this document results from numerous studies and field surveys
by several agencies and investigators working in the New York Bight over the past several years. The
summary of data and interpretations presented are a synthesis of all available information found to be
recent, accurate, and applicable to the evaluations, and provide a technically sound basis for the Agency's
decisions embodied in the accompanying proposed site-designation Rule.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An opportunity to review the preliminary draft chapters during development of the SEIS by interested
parties was provided. Public comments on the SEIS will be accepted until approximately June 30,1997.
In addition, copies of the proposed site designation Rule and HARS Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (HARS SMMP) may be obtained for review and comment by contacting Mr. Mario Del Vicario,
Chief, Place-Based Protection Branch, U.S. EPA Region 2, New York City, NY, 10007-1866 (Voice 212-
637-3781; E-mail delvicario.mario@epamail.epa.gov). Additional copies of the SEIS may be obtained by
contacting Mr. Robert Hargrove, Chief, Strategic Planning & Multi-Media Programs Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 2, New York City, NY, 10007-1866 (Voice: 212-637-3495; E-mail:
hargrove.robert@epamail.epa.gov).
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The impact assessments and use-conflict criteria in the Ocean Dumping Regulations were divided into two
groups, those that were "discriminating" and those that were "nondiscriminating." The nondiscriminating
impacts, while useful in assessing the acceptability of the alternatives, do not significantly differ among the
alternatives and did not provide substantial utility for identifying the Preferred Alternative. On the other
hand, the discriminating impacts have substantial differences among the four alternatives. These impacts
were used to rank the alternatives and select the Preferred Alternative.
The evaluation of each alternative included the consideration of all possible detrimental, mitigatable, or
beneficial impacts that could result from implementation of the alternatives. The evaluations were
conducted with an iterative, weight-of-evidence approach. The following information summarizes the pros
and cons resulting from this analysis.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Executive Summary
May 1997
Page xxx
Alternative 1: No Action
Pros
No impact to fish and shellfish resources,
shorelines, or special areas of concern
Limited short-term impact to benthic
community within the disposal site
Extension of the dredged material mound
may provide longer berm and
incrementally improve fish and shellfish
habitat
No new impacts to Bight Apex navigation
No impact to cultural resource sites
Provides approximately 31 Myd3 of
Category I capacity
Cons
Contaminant trophic transfer and potential
human-health or ecological risks for areas
outside the MDS unaffected
Sediment areas degraded by toxic and
bioaccumulative contaminants outside the
MDS are not remediated or restored. This
area is 6.8 nmi2, three times bigger than
the current MDS.
Does not meet the intent of the July 24,
1996, 3-Party Letter regarding: "The
Historic Area Remediation Site will be
remediated with uncontaminated dredged
material (i.e., dredged material that meets
current Category I standards and will not
cause undesirable effects including
through bioaccumulation)." and "The
designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term
use of category 1 dredge material."
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Executive Summary
May 1997
Page xcti
Alternative 2: Close MDS-No HARS Designation
Pros Cons
No impact to fish and shellfish resources,
shorelines, or Special Areas of Concern
No short-term impact to benthic
community within the Study Area
Reduced potential for impacts to Bight
Apex navigation
No impact to cultural resources
Does not address the need for benthic
remediation inside or outside the MDS
Contaminant toxicity and bioaccumulation
potential from degraded sediments
unchanged
No change to potential human-health and
ecological risks, including potential
impacts to endangered and threatened
species, from contaminant trophic transfer.
Does not meet the intent of the July 24,
1996, 3-Party Letter regarding: "The
Historic Area Remediation Site will be
remediated with uncontaminated dredged
material (i.e., dredged material that meets
current Category I standards and will not
cause undesirable effects including
through bioaccumulation)." and "The
designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term
use of category 1 dredge material."
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Executive Summary
May 1997
Page xxdi
Alternative 3: HARS Remediation
Pros
Cons
Meets the need for remediation
Degraded sediment areas (exhibiting
Category n and HI type characteristics)
throughout the PRA are capped with at
least 1 m of Material for Remediation
Decreased contaminant toxicity and
bioavailability to fish and shellfish
resources; increased habitat quality
Reduced potential for trophic transfer of
contaminants, including to human beings
(seafood consumers)
Decreased ecological and human-health
risk
The 500 m buffer zones delineated around
all identified shipwrecks (1) ensure that
Material for Remediation does not impact
cultural or historic resources, (2) allow for
further study of the sites for potential
National Registry of Historic Places
(NRHP) eligibility, and (3) have little
impact on overall PRA remediation
Habitat associated with the shipwrecks are
maintained; no impact to reef fish and
shellfish habitat
Meets the intent of the July 24,1996, 3-
Party Letter regarding: "The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current
Category I standards and will not cause
undesirable effects including through
bioaccumulation)" and "The designation
of the Historic Area Remediation Site will
assure long-term use of category 1 dredge
material."
Small areas of unremediated sediment in
the vicinity of HARS shipwrecks will
remain exposed, and may continue to
potentially impact fish and shellfish
resources at these habitats
Habitat disruption during PRA
remediation operations
Losses of some sandy and hard/rough-
bottom habitat in degraded sediment areas
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Executive Summary
May 1997
Page xxjdii
Alternative 4: HARS Restoration
Pros
Meets the need for remediation
Degraded sediment areas (exhibiting
Category n and HI type characteristics)
throughout the PRA capped with at least
1 m of sandy (1-10%) Material for
Remediation
Decreased contaminant bioavailability and
possible sublethal effects to fish and
shellfish resources; increased habitat
quality
Reduced potential for trophic transfer of
contaminants, including to human beings
(seafood consumers)
Decreased ecological and human-health
risk
The 500 m buffer zones delineated around
all identified shipwrecks (1) ensure that
material for restoration does not impact
potential cultural or historic resources, (2)
allow for further study of the sites for
potential NRHP eligibility, and (3) have
little impact on overall PRA restoration
Habitat associated with the shipwrecks are
maintained; no impact to reef fish and
shellfish habitat
Meets the intent of the July 24,1996, 3-
Party Letter regarding: "The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current
Category I standards and will not cause
undesirable effects including through
bioaccumulation)."
Cons
Loss of mud, muddy-sand, and
rough/hard-bottom habitats; possible
negative effects to living resources (e.g.,
lobster and winter flounder)
Lengthy restoration period, and continued
exposure of degraded sediments to the
biotic zone of the New York Bight Apex
Limited availability of Remediation
Material from the Port of New York and
New Jersey and surrounding areas
Small areas of unrestored sediment in the
vicinity of HARS shipwrecks will remain
exposed, and may continue to potentially
impact fish and shellfish resources at these
habitats
Does not meet the intent of the July 24,
1996, 3-Party Letter regarding: "The
designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term
use of category 1 dredge material."
-------
MDS/HARS SE1S **ay1997
Executive Siunmary Pagexcdv
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
An iterative comparison of the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of the four
alternatives has led EPA to select Alternative 3 as the Agency's Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3 was
found to have the most benefits and the least negative impacts by meeting the need for remediation in the
Historic Area Remediation Site, and helping assure the long-term use of Remediation Material from the
Port of New York and New Jersey and surrounding areas.
Alternative 3 is the alternative that can most quickly remove from the biotic zone of the New York Bight
Apex the potential risks presented by the degraded sediments of the PRA. Capping the PRA with Material
for Remediation will also prevent the degraded sediment erosion and dispersion by storm events and other
seafloor processes, and the associated potential toxicity and contaminant bioaccumulation from these
sediments.
Alternative 3 also presents the most positive and fewest negative impacts to commercial, recreational, and
ecologically important fish and shellfish. Fish and shellfish inhabiting degraded areas will be only
temporarily displaced by placement of at least aim cap of Material for Remediation. Few fish and motile
shellfish will be directly impacted by the remediation operations, but infauna and epifauna prey organisms
will be buried. The associated fish and shellfish will not be able to forage at the remediated areas until the
prey communities (benthic infauna) become reestablished. Recolonization of the prey communities,
specific to the quality of the Remediation Material, is expected to occur within about one year from
placement of material; full recovery may take several years. Area-specific recovery periods will depend
largely on the season during which the Remediation Material is placed on the site, recruitment success of
infaunal and epifaunal species, and storm events, if any.
The July 24,1996, 3-Party letter states "designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site will assure
long-term use of category 1 dredge material." As Alternative 4 only allows for the use of sandy Material
for Restoration, otherwise acceptable Remediation Material from the Port that is composed of silts and
clays would be excluded from restoration operations, rather than being used for remediation. In addition,
such materials would potentially need to be disposed in non-ocean sites (e.g., harbor pits and landfills).
The placement of silt and clay material suitable for remediation in nearshore and upland locations will, in
addition to being expensive, unnecessarily consume disposal capacities of non-ocean sites that can accept
Category JJ and HI material; it would also waste a resource that can expeditiously remediate the degraded
sediments of the HARS. Filling of nearshore and upland disposal sites with large volumes of silt and clay
material suitable for remediation is less preferable than using such sites for Category U and JH disposal,
where transportation costs, containment costs, and environmental risks can be minimized.
Some areas of high-relief and mixed habitat (e.g., east of the Mud Dump Site) will be permanently lost
under Alternative 3, but no more so than would occur under Alternative 4. Leaving these areas
unremediated, as would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2, will allow continued exposure of degraded
sediments in these areas. Except for the isolation of the degraded sediment by burial, and the loss of some
hard-bottom habitat, the diverse habitat types that exist within the borders of the HARS will be maintained
during and after the remediation operations. When remediation work is complete at the HARS, benthic
conditions within the site are expected to remain static, affected only by occasional severe storms, coastal
pollution, and fishing activities.
Management of the HARS under Alternative 3 is summarized in Chapter 5. Details are provided in EPA's
(1997) HARS SMMP document (see Appendix C). The division of the PRA into nine 1-nmi2 areas
facilitates comprehensive benthic characterization of the site, as well as management of the Remediation
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Executive Summary Page xxxv
Material placement operations and post-placement monitoring. If monitoring activities show that the
remediation work for a particular areas is incomplete, or otherwise not containing the underlying degraded
sediments, additional remediation or other work will be conducted.
With respect to endangered and threatened species under Alternatives 1 and 2, there would be a continued
exposure of degraded sediments to the biotic zone of the New York Bight Apex. Further, given the limited
availability of sandy (0-10%) Remediation Material to achieve Alternative 4, Alternative 4 would not
reduce the potential bioaccumulation of contaminants by benthic and demersal species living in the vicinity
of the HARS within a reasonable time frame. The Preferred Alternative will cap the PRA with
Remediation Material and reduce the exposure of degraded sediments to the biotic zone.
Finally, compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) under Alternative 3 is met by
avoidance of the six shipwrecks in the HARS during remediation operations. Only four of the wrecks are
located in the PRA. The continued exposure of degraded sediments within 500 m of the wreck structures
is considered by EPA to an acceptable balance for (1) compliance with the NHPA, (2) preservation of the
wrecks for future cultural-resource evaluations, and (3) use of the wrecks as reef structures by fish and
shellfish species.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) presents an evaluation of the New York Bight
Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site; MDS) and surrounding areas, and supports the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) action to close the MDS. "Simultaneous with closure of the
MDS, the site and surrounding areas that have been used historically as disposal sites for contaminated
material will be redesignated under 40 C.F.R. Section 228 as the Historic Area Remediation Site" (HARS)
(EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996).
The environmental information used to produce this document results from numerous studies and field
surveys by several agencies and investigators working in the New York Bight over the past several years.
The summary of data and professional interpretations presented herein are syntheses of all available
information found to be recent, accurate, and applicable to the evaluations. As information from the New
York Bight continues to be acquired through several ongoing studies—some focused on ocean disposal
activities, others on large-scale phenomena that extend outside the Bight (e.g., stock assessments of
migratory fish), this information will be considered in making future site management and monitoring
decisions. The existing information and data have been synthesized in this SEIS, and provide a technically
sound basis for the Agency's decisions embodied in the accompanying site-designation Proposed Rule.
1.1 U.S. Ocean Dumping — History, Regulations, and Pertinence to the MDS
Since the 1800s, the New York Bight Apex1 and surrounding areas have been used for disposal of dredged
material and a variety of waste products, including municipal garbage, building materials, sewage sludge,
and industrial waste. Ocean disposal of garbage was stopped in 1934. Other waste product disposal ended
as a result of the passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act.2
Dredged material disposal in the New York Bight Apex began "officially" in 1888 at a point 2.5 miles
south of Coney Island. At that time, the New York Harbor U.S. Congressional Act of 1888 established
that the Supervisor of New York Harbor had the authority to grant permits for ocean disposal (Williams,
1979). Due to shoaling off Coney Island, the dredged material disposal location was moved in 1900 to a
point one-half mile south and eastward of Sandy Hook Lightship. In 1903, the location was moved again,
to 1.5 miles east of Scotland Lightship.
Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) to address and
control the dumping of materials into ocean waters. Title I of MPRSA authorized EPA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to regulate dumping in U.S. ocean waters.
Since MPRSA was enacted, and through its subsequent amendments, dumping in the New York Bight has
been dramatically reduced through actions by EPA, the USAGE, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and other
agencies. In the New York Bight, this has meant permanent closure of the 12-Mile and 106-Mile sewage
sludge sites, the Cellar Dirt site, Acid Waste site, and Woodbuming site. There are nine ocean dredged
material sites currently designated in the New York Bight: the MDS for New York-New Jersey Harbor
1 The New York Bight Apex is defined as the area of approximately 2,000 km2 extending along the New Jersey
coastline from Sandy Hook south to 40° 10' latitude and east along the Long Island coastline from Rockaway Point to
73 °30'longitude.
2 Sewage sludge dumping ended at the 12-Mile Site in 1987 and at the 106-Mile Site in 1992.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action ^ PaSe 1-2
dredged material and eight sites (four off New Jersey and four off New York) for barrier-beach inlet
material.
Throughout the country, EPA and the USAGE share responsibility for managing dredged material. Under
Section 103 of MPRSA, the USAGE evaluates permit applications for projects proposing to place dredged
material in ocean waters. The USAGE evaluation includes determining whether sediment from a dredging
project complies with EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Section 227. Also under MPRSA Section 103, EPA
conducts an independent evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposal and must concur with the
USAGE determination before a permit can be issued.
Under the authority of Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA is responsible for designating ocean sites. EPA's
regulations for this activity are found in 40 CFR Section 228. EPA and the USAGE work cooperatively to
designate, monitor, and manage sites, and to evaluate dredged material permits and projects. National
technical guidance for determining whether dredged material is acceptable for ocean dumping is contained
in the Ocean Testing Manual (Green Book; EPA/USAGE, 1991). Regional testing/implementation
manuals, developed by EPA Regions and USAGE Districts, provide specific testing and evaluation
methods (e.g., bioassay species, analyte detection limits, administrative requirements) for dredged material
projects at specific sites or groups of sites. The regional testing manual (RTM) that covers the MDS was
published in 1992 (USAGE NYD/EPA Region 2, 1992).
While EPA's MPRSA site designation process seeks to achieve national consistency among U.S. sites, it
. also allows flexibility to meet local needs. The Agency considers ocean site designation on a case-by-case
basis, designates appropriately sized sites in suitable areas, and implements site-specific
management/monitoring plans. Goals of the EPA site-designation process include limiting impacts to the
environment; providing for efficient management and monitoring operations; and, where appropriate,
supporting multiple users (e.g., the USAGE, a local port authority, and the owners of berthing areas). In
addition, EPA evaluates the impact of disposal at and near the site; where there are certain adverse
conditions resulting from activities at the site, the site is categorized as Impact Category I (40 CFR Section
228.10). For an Impact Category I site, EPA places appropriate limitations on use of the site to reduce the
impacts to acceptable levels [40 CFR Section 228.1 l(c)].
In areas where EPA has not designated an MPRSA dredged material site, or when the USAGE District
Engineer determines that it is not feasible to use an EPA-designated site, the District Engineer may select
an alternative site in accordance with EPA criteria in 40 CFR Section 228 [MPRSA Section 103(b)].
Under this scenario, compliance with the ocean dumping criteria of 40 CFR Section 227 is still required
and EPA concurrence on the permit or civil works project must still be obtained. Currently, there are no
USACE-selected ocean sites in the New York Bight. In summary, the presence of an EPA designated site
does not authorize or imply that the dredging project can use the site without (1) sediment evaluation (2)
USAGE permit/project review, and (3) EPA concurrence (refer to box on Page 1-3).
The other major Federal law relevant to ocean dumping and the designation of sites is the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is the basic U.S. charter for protecting the environment
Section 102(C) of the Act specifies that a detailed statement by the responsible official is to be prepared for
"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" The purpose and
intent of these statements are specified in the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508). The statements are to assemble and clearly present
accurate and pertinent "environmental information to public officials and citizens before decisions are
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1 -3
made and before actions are taken [40 CFR Section 15001(b)]." In regard to ocean dumping,
environmental impact statements (EISs) are developed by EPA for site designations and the USAGE for
large dredging projects. Even though EPA is not legally required to develop EISs for its own actions,
including evaluating and designating sites, the Agency has voluntarily established a policy (39 FR 37119,
October 21,1974) to publish EISs for site designations and similar actions as part of its open decision-
making process.
Alternatives Analyses for Ocean Dredged Material Site Designations
and Dredged Material Disposal Projects
Like other site designation EISs, the MDS designation EIS (EPA, 1982) first assessed the need for an
open-ocean site, then evaluated candidate designation sites that were environmentally acceptable and
economically feasible. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluations for USAGE dredging
permits and Federal civil works dredging projects include evaluations of candidate disposal sites. There
are significant differences between the alternatives analyses for site designations and the alternatives
analyses for dredged material disposal projects. The following summarizes and contrasts the two types
of alternatives analyses.
Alternatives Analyses for Ocean Site Designations. Candidate designation sites are open-ocean areas
that are governed by the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). Site
designation identifies an area that would be suitable to receive the material if a permit were issued, and
does not constitute automatic site use or promote the ocean option over non-ocean alternatives for
specific projects. As a result, an EPA alternatives analysis of candidate sites does not include specific
evaluation of non-ocean alternatives, such as potential upland sites, estuarine sites, or sites where
islands or other above-water containment facilities are proposed. Ocean candidate sites are
differentiated from one another by their site-specific characteristics, including any potential impacts to
environmental resources (e.g., fisheries) and other uses of the ocean (e.g., navigation). Significant
modification of a designated site requires either another EIS or a Supplement to the original EIS.
Alternatives Analyses for Dredged Material Projects. Site use is subject to the requirements for an
MPRSA permit or Section 103 equivalent. All dredged material projects must undergo a NEPA
alternatives analysis in accordance with USAGE procedures and USAGE NEPA regulations in 33 CFR
Section 230. In the case of proposed permits under MPRSA, under Subpart C of 40 CFR Section 227
(Need for Ocean Dumping) it must be demonstrated that no other "practicable alternative" locations or
methods, including non-ocean alternatives, are available. To accomplish this, the permittee or the
USAGE conduct an alternatives analysis which evaluates available alternative locations and methods
(ocean and non-ocean), as well as recycling and treatment Before a MPRSA permit proceeds, the EPA
Regional Administrator and the USAGE District Engineer must determine that the criteria of Subpart C
are satisfied. When other low-impact or beneficial-use alternatives are practicable, a MPRSA permit is
not issued. Readers interested in further information on comparing all dredged material alternatives
may refer to "Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives — A
Technical Framework" (EPA/USAGE, 1992).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Pa8e 1-4
Brief History of the Mud Dump Site, 1973-1997. In 1973, EPA designated the Mud Dump Site as an
"interim" ocean dredged material site. The interim site was a 2.2-nmi2 rectangle in an area of naturally
occurring sand bottom, approximately 5.3 nmi east of Sandy Hook, NJ and 9.6 nmi south of Rockaway
Beach, Long Island, NY (Figure 1-1). In the comparison of the alternatives in the site-designation EIS
(EPA, 1982), five "favorable" and three "unfavorable" factors were described for the interim MDS.
After completion of environmental studies and publication of the site-designation EIS in 1982, EPA
designated the interim MDS as an Impact Category I site in 1984, with no changes to the borders of the
2.2-nmi2 site. Depths of the site ranged from 15.8 to 28.8 m (51.8 to 94.5 ft) below mean low water
(BMLW) at designation, with capacity for up to 100 million cubic yards (Myd3) of dredged material. That
capacity limitation was intended to assure that dredged material mounds would not present a hazard to
navigation in the Bight Apex.
Since 1984, the MDS has received approximately 68 Myd3 of dredged material. Recent bathymetric data
show that water depths within the MDS currently average 20 m (65 ft) (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD,
1997). The current remaining capacity is approximately 32 Myd3.
The Green Book (EPA/USACE, 1991) specifies test methods, criteria, and a decision framework for
evaluating water-column and benthic impact for a proposed dredged material project. The USAGE
NYD/EPA Region 2 (1992) Implementation Manual, Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material
Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Regional Testing Manual, RTM) complements the Green Book with
information on permit procedures, laboratory work-plan requirements, analyte lists, laboratory methods,
and QA/QC procedures.
EPA Region 2 and the USAGE New York District have evaluated testing results to determine a dredged
material's category and suitability for ocean disposal at the MDS. Sediments are segregated into a 3
category system, with Category I being allowed for ocean disposal without restriction, Category n allowed
for ocean disposal with restriction (capping), and Category in is prohibited from ocean disposal. In
particular, Category I material is material that will not cause unacceptable toxicity or significant
undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation in accordance with 40 CFR 227.6 and is suitable
for "unrestricted" ocean disposal. Readers should note that the above is a regional categorization system; it
is not applied to ocean sites in other areas of the country.
In 1996, EPA and the USAGE completed a comprehensive analysis of benthic erosion at the MDS and
afterwards established "management depths" at the site above which deposited dredged material would not
be allowed to shoal. The management depths for Category I and n dredged material were set at 45 ft
(14 m) and 65 ft (approx. 20 m) BMLW, respectively. The establishment of the 65-ft management depth
for Category n material3 limited the remaining Category n capacity to approximately 1 Myd3. The balance
of the site's capacity (31 Myd3) is for Category I dredged material.
The 65-ft BMLW management depth for Category n dredged material includes a 1 m cap of sand. Refer to the
MDS Site Management and Monitoring Plan (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997) for additional information on
current Category I and II dredged material practices.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter I, Purpose and Need for Action
May 1997
Page 1-5
3 nautical
mile limit
Figure 1-1. Location of the current Mud Dump Site (MDS), designated in 1984.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action
MDS Favorable Factors MDS Unfavorable Factors
Within region of influence from previous • Shallowest site
dumping
• Adjacent to important recreational fishing
Within shellfish closure zone grounds
Within influence of Hudson-Raritan Plume • Within Precautionary Zone, but outside of
major shipping lanes
Site not filled to capacity
Low in biotic density
Source: EPA (1982)
Between 1984 and 1996, several events and Federal Agency actions relating to the MDS led EPA to begin
the administrative process for closure of the MDS by September 1, 1997, and to designate the site and
surrounding areas that have been used historically as disposal sites as the Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS). With designation of the MDS in 1984, EPA and the USAGE conducted dredged material testing,
permitting, disposal, and monitoring at the site, as specified by Federal regulations and policy. Technical
advances in laboratory and field methods during this period provided dredging program managers with
improved tools and increasingly accurate and precise information about dredging site sediments and
predicting effects of their disposal at the MDS.
In February 1995, EPA Region 2 <1995a) issued a Public Announcement stating that the Agency would
commence a study of a 23-nmi2 area surrounding the existing MDS. The product of the study was to be a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that would evaluate the following three alternatives
according to EPA's ocean dumping regulations.
1. No action (no expansion of the MDS)
2. Expansion of the MDS for Category I material
3. Expansion of the MDS for Category I and n material
Each of the alternatives, particularly Alternatives 2 and 3, were also to be evaluated relative to impacts
from historical disposal and the potential for remediating or restoring impacted benthic areas.
Development of the SEIS was started while several major Bight Apex field studies were still in progress.
In May 1995, EPA announced toxicity test results4 from benthic samples collected in the 23-nmi2 SEIS
Study Area (EPA Region 2,1995b). These data showed that if the Study Area sediment samples had come
from a proposed dredging site, sediments in some parts of the Study Area would have been classified as
Category HI and determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal. Bathymetric and side-scan data also
collected at this time also showed evidence of dredged material mounds northwest of the 23-nmi2 SEIS
The toxicity tests reported by EPA Region 2 (1995a) were from 10-day amphipod bioassays using Ampelisca
abdita. Study Area sediments and reference area sediments were tested side-by-side under identical conditions [refer
to EPA/USACE (1991) and USAGE NYD/EPA Region 2 (1992) for further description of test procedures].
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-7
Study Area (Subarea 1). In response to this new information, EPA expanded the Study Area by adding an
approximately 7-nmi2 rectangle (Subarea 2) northwest of and abutting the western border of Subarea 1.
The resulting 30-nmi2 (103.2 km2) Study Area encompassed all benthic areas that showed evidence of
dredged material disposal in the New York Bight Apex (see Figure 1-2).
Other studies—some not directed at evaluating dredged material impacts—further characterized the
physical, chemical, and biotic conditions of the Study Area and Bight Apex.
• Chemical analysis of infaunal (worm) tissue from the Study Area confirmed that some sediment
contaminants are being bioaccumulated in the lower trophic levels.
• The hepatic tissue (tomalley) of Bight Apex lobsters was found to have levels of PCBs and 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (dioxin) above currently acceptable action levels and guidelines.
• Several shipwrecks were located in the Apex and Study Area, triggering a need for a National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) evaluation and an evaluation of the spatially-limited reef habitat created by
the wrecks.
The assembly of this new information generated heightened concern about the environmental
consequences of historical ocean disposal in the Bight Apex, including the continued disposal of Category
n dredged material. This in turn brought into question the appropriateness of continued use or expansion
.of the MDS. The concerns led to Federal actions detailed in a July 24,1996 letter to several New Jersey
Congressmen, signed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Secretary of Transportation Federico F. Pena,
and Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Jr. (July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter):
"... Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will immediately begin the
administrative process for closure of the MDS by September 1,1997. The proposed closure
shall be finalized no later than that date. Post-closure use of the site would be limited,
consistent with management standards in 40 C.F.R. Section 228.1 l(c). Simultaneous with
closure of the MDS, the site and surrounding areas that have been used historically as
disposal sites for contaminated material will be redesignated under 40 C.F.R. Section 228 as
the Historic Area Remediation Site. This designation will include a proposal that the site be
managed to reduce impacts at the site to acceptable levels (in accordance with 40 C.F.R.
Section 228.11(c)). The Historic Area Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e. dredged material that meets current Category I
standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects including through
bioaccumulation)..." (EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996)
The July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter further states that "The designation of the Historic Area Remediation
Site will assure long-term use of category 1 dredge material," and that the three agencies will work to
develop a sound dredged material management plan for the Port, reduce the backlog of dredging projects,
and start a feasibility study for a 50-foot deep port.
Subsequent to the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter, EPA Region 2 (1996a) issued a Public Announcement in
September 1996 modifying the scope of the SETS from evaluating the potential expansion of the Mud
Dump Site to evaluating the designation of a Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS). In the same
announcement, the Agency stated that it was beginning the administrative process to close (de-designate)
the MDS.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action
May 1997
Page 1-8
Lower
New York
Bay
Figure 1-2. Location of Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Study Area Subareas 1 and 2.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action
May 1997
Page 1-9
The following sections and chapters of this SEIS evaluate a comprehensive set of physical, chemical,
biological, and socioeconomic data relative to the 30-nmi2 Study Area and the portion of the Study Area
that EPA is proposing to designate as the HARS (Figure 1-3). Where living and nonliving resources or
phenomena could not be adequately characterized directly within the confines of the Study Area, the scales
of the evaluations were expanded to include the larger Bight Apex (e.g., for characterizing physical
conditions such as waves, currents and weather patterns) or the full New York Bight (e.g., for
characterizing the status of migratory fish and shellfish stocks).
12 Need for Remediation
As presented above and examined in detail in Chapter 3, field studies of the New York Bight Apex have
found bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity in surface sediments of much of the MDS and
surrounding areas, and that some of these sediments can cause toxicity to sensitive marine organisms
exposed to it. It is impossible to quantify how much of this contamination is the direct result of past
dredged material disposal, or how much can be attributed to other ocean disposal activities (e.g., former
sewage sludge dumping at the 12-Mile Site) or land-based discharges (e.g., via Hudson River plume or
atmospheric deposition). However, the presence of these degraded sediments in the New York Bight Apex
is cause for concern.
Degraded surface sediments in nearshore waters are continually exposed to the ecosystem until they are
buried by natural sedimentation, the placement of dredged material, or otherwise isolated or removed.
While exposed, these sediments can directly and indirectly impact benthic and pelagic organisms. Impacts
to terrestrial organisms (including human beings) are also possible if the contaminants undergo trophic
transfer.
Under the MPRSA permitting procedures,
dredged material is evaluated for both potential
toxicity and contaminant bioaccumulation. These
evaluations include the use of bioassays with
marine organisms of ecological relevance to ocean
site environments, specifically, small infaunal
worms, clams, and crustaceans. Infaunal
organisms that burrow or construct tubes on or in
sediment are good evaluative tools because their
high surface area to mass ratio and limited
mobility (compared to fauna such as fish)
maximizes exposure to the test sediments, (Brown
and Neff, 1993; Boese and Lee, 1992; Lee et al,
1989). Infaunal organisms are also more likely
than other organisms to bioaccumulate
contaminants, exhibit effects, and transfer
contaminants to higher trophic levels. Deposit
feeding infauna are especially susceptible to
contaminant toxicity and bioaccumulation because they actively ingest sediment particles while foraging
for microorganism prey and organic matter. Such organisms are also exposed to sediment constituents by
dermal contact and respiration activities.
Use of Bedded Sediment Bioassays in Dredged
Material Management Decisionmaking
The primary tool for EPA/USACE dredged material
evaluation is the bedded sediment bioassay of whole
sediment. These bioassays are particularly useful
because they integrate additive and synergistic effects
of multiple contaminants and can be used to__
differentiate contaminant-related effects from
noncontaminant effects present on the seafloor (e.g.,
grain size, temperature, light). In most applications,
control, reference, and test samples are run side-by-
side. Comparison of the results from the three types of
samples determines if the test run is acceptable and
whether the sediment from the dredging site meets the
requirements of EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action
May 1997
Page 1-10
0 2 468 Kilometers
=^
0246 Mies
Figure 1-3. Location of the current Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-11
If biologically available contaminants in sediments from an area are too high for specific infauna to
tolerate, individual organisms are killed by the toxic effects or they migrate to more hospitable habitats.
From an ecosystem perspective, the loss of contaminant-sensitive infauna from a benthic area represents a
loss of potential prey organisms for higher trophic level species, such as bottom foraging fish. Such an
occurrence also removes the potential for contaminant trophic transfer. However, shallow-water benthic
ecosystems such as the Bight Apex are very complex, and overlapping biological linkages are variably
affected by different physical and chemical parameters. Like in other nearshore ecosystems, Bight Apex
communities are resilient to physical (e.g., storm events) and chemical impacts (e.g., pollution). If
conditions become inhospitable for one species, another similar species usually fills the physical space and
ecological niche of the former. Thus, contaminant-induced changes in infaunal communities are usually
difficult to detect and evaluate. Furthermore, the magnitude of large-scale natural processes, such as
seasonal changes in water temperature and currents, natural variability of predator/prey abundances, and
anthropogenic activities such as fishing, can mask the effects of sediment contamination. Widespread
infauna toxicity is usually detectable only when the sediment contamination is so acute that few or only
highly specialized (i.e., "pollution-tolerant") infauna are able to inhabit the area.
As a result of these uncertainties and the difficulty in detecting negative impacts to benthic infauna or
higher organisms actually living in the Bight Apex, EPA evaluated sediment degradation and the need for
remediation by indirect (i.e., surrogate) methods. Sediment toxicity was evaluated using bioassays
normally conducted on sediment samples from proposed dredging sites in the harbor (see Section 1.2.1).
Similarly, the Agency evaluated the potential for contaminant bioaccumulation by collecting infaunal
organisms and sediment from the Study Area, and conducting the corresponding chemical analyses (see
Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3).
1.2.1 Study Area Contaminant Toxicity
The method used to assess toxicity in the SEIS Study Area was the 10-day amphipod (Ampelisca abdita)
bioassay, the same toxicity test used to evaluate the suitability of sediment in EPA Region 2 and the
USAGE NYD. This sensitive bioassay is one of several tests developed to evaluate proposed dredging
projects, and thus protect ocean sites from receiving dredged material that is potentially toxic to the site
environment. While the uses of the amphipod bioassay to evaluate disposal site sediments was a
nonroutine procedure, the generated data have both ecological relevance5 and allows for direct comparison
with data from samples of current MDS disposal projects.
The data from amphipod bioassays of the Study Area samples indicated widespread toxic conditions in
sediment around the MDS (EPA Region 2,1995b). If these surface sediments from the Study Area
(sampled in 1994) were from a proposed Region 2/NYD dredging project site, the sediments would have
been categorized as Category ffl, found to not meet the limiting permissible concentration (LPC) in EPA's
Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Section 227.27), and thus not permitted for disposal at an ocean
site.
1.2.2 Study Area Contaminant Bioaccumulation/Trophic Transfer
While acute sediment toxicity is considered by EPA and other resource agencies to be a clear negative and
unacceptable impact, contaminant bioaccumulation is more difficult to predict and evaluate. However
bioaccumulation is of a concern because it can be an indicator of trophic transfer phenomena. While
individual organisms that accumulate contaminants in the field or in laboratory studies might not
! Amphipods are prey items for many organisms in the Bight Apex, including fish.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action PaSe 1-12
experience a detrimental impact, the degree to which the contaminants are accumulated can be an indicator
that the organism's population, community, or predator may be at risk of impact.
Infaunal bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants can result in both acute and chronic
impacts and eventually transform benthic community structure (Lee, et al, 1989). Such changes affect the
food source of demersal predators. When demersal predators feed on infauna with contaminated tissue, the
contaminants can be transferred to and potentially accumulate in the tissue of the predator. These
contaminants can then potentially continue through the marine trophic levels, and possibly to human
consumers of seafood. Fortunately, most infaunal predators with the potential to transfer contaminants to
human food tend to be relatively large, motile species (e.g., crabs, lobsters, fish) with correspondingly large
forage areas. The result is that most marine predators have lower contaminant burdens than their infaunal
prey located in a small part of their large foraging areas. Additionally, contaminant bioaccumulation is
often species specific, and assessment of the potential for effect is complicated by a number of physical
and chemical factors. These factors include:
• Number and concentration of bioaccumulative contaminants in the sediments,
• Bioaccumulation efficiencies
• Biomagnification potential among receptors,
• Background body burdens,
• Synergistic effects,
• Life history, and
• Habitat range and contaminants in other areas of species' range.
Each of the above adds complexity to the evaluation of contaminant bioaccumulation in the SEIS Study
Area.
EPA's approach to evaluating potential contaminant bioaccumulation in the Study Area was to collect and
analyze infaunal worms for known bioaccumulative compounds. The evaluation was similar to Green
Book Tier IV "steady-state" evaluations. The results of the study were able to show where and to what
levels Study Area infauna were accumulating contaminants from the sediments. The study results also
provided data that could be compared to data from bioaccumulation bioassays of past and proposed
dredged material disposal projects and potentially used in trophic-transfer studies and.risk assessments.
1.23 Other Indicators of Sediment Degradation in the Study Area
Other indicators of degraded sediment in the Study Area were the relatively high contaminant
concentrations in whole sediment samples and findings of elevated contaminant levels in area lobsters.
As discussed in Chapter 3, sediment contaminant concentrations of Study Area samples were compared to
NOAA ER-L (Effects Range-Low) and ER-M (Effects Range-Median) thresholds. ER-L/ER-M thresholds
have been derived from a broad range of biological and chemical data collected synoptically from field and
laboratory experiments (Long and Morgan, 1991; Long etal, 1995). Although ER-L/ER-M thresholds
have not been established as criteria for regulatory decisionmaking, they are useful in sediment evaluations
when considered concurrently with other data. In general, the ER-L/ER-M comparison to Study Area data
indicated that, based on contaminant presence in the sediment alone, negative biological effects are
possible at many stations. This conclusion is corroborated by the results of the toxicity tests described
above.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-13
Additional evidence of degraded sediments in the New York Bight was found in tissue data from lobsters
that were harvested in the New York Bight Apex in 1994 (NOAA, 1996). PCB and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin) concentrations in the hepatic tissue (tomalley) of the lobsters were above U.S. Food and Drug
Administration consumption guidelines. Other contaminants were also present in the hepatopancreas and
other tissues, but the concentrations were within consumption guidelines. Collectively, the study data
reveal that food sources of Bight Apex lobsters are contaminated, that contaminants are being
accumulated, and that concern about potential human-health risks is warranted. It must be kept in mind,
however, that the lobsters analyzed in the NOAA study were harvested from wild stocks in the Apex,
whose populations migrate seasonally through the region, including perhaps the SEIS Study Area.
Contamination of these animals cannot be definitively linked to specific areas of dredged material disposal,
to other past dumping activities, or to other ongoing pollution sources. Nor does the study indicate that
human consumption of lobster muscle tissue (meat) presents health risks. However, the contaminant data
set complements other evidence of benthic contamination in the Bight Apex region.
1.2.4 Solutions to Sediment Degradation in the Study Area
The presence of toxic effects (a Category HI sediment characteristic), high levels of bioaccumulative
contaminants (a Category n sediment characteristic), ER-L/ER-M exceedances in Study Area sediments,
as well as TCDD/PCB contamination in area lobster stocks, support the need to designate a HARS and
conduct remediation work. While individual elements of the available data do not indicate that sediments
within the Study Area are imminent hazards to the New York Bight Apex ecosystem, living resources, or
human health, the collective evidence presents cause for concern and justifies the conclusion of the July
24,1996, 3-Party Letter (EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996) that a need for remediation exists. The data also
support a finding that, to the extent these effects are attributable to ocean dumping activities, the MDS and
parts of the surrounding areas would be an Impact Category I Site [40 CFR Section 228.10(c)(l); refer to
Table 1-1]. Therefore, it is appropriate to modify use of the site and provide for appropriate remediation
(40 CFR Section 228.11).
Chapter 4 of this SEIS compares four alternatives and selects the Preferred Alternative which is
remediation of the degraded sediments.
13 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action, in accordance with 40 CFR Section 228.11, is to simultaneously close/de-designate
the MDS and designate the site and surrounding areas that have been used historically as disposal sites for
contaminated material as the HARS (Alternative 3 in Chapter 2). The HARS will be 15.7 nmi2 (54 km2)
and include the entire current MDS area. Within the HARS will be a 9.0-nmi2 Priority Remediation Area
(PRA), a 5.7 nmi2/0.27-nmi wide Buffer Zone (BZ), and a 1-nmi2 No Discharge Zone (NDZ). The
Remediation Material for the 9-nmi2 PRA of the HARS will primarily be obtained from maintenance
dredging projects in the Port of New York and New Jersey and surrounding areas.
The "Material for Remediation" (Remediation Material) is defined as:
".. .uncontaminated dredged material (i.e. dredged material that meets current Category I
standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects including through
bioaccumulation)."
(EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996)
This material shall be selected so as to ensure it will not cause significant undesirable effects including
through bioaccumulation or unacceptable toxicity, in accordance with 40 CFR 227.6.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Pagel-14
Table 1-1. Five Factors to be Considered
in the Determination of Impact Category I
[40 CFR Section 228.10(c)(l)]
(1) Impact Category I: The effects of activities at the disposal site shall be
categorized in Impact Category I when one or more of the following conditions
is present and can reasonably be attributed to ocean dumping activities;
(i) There is identifiable progressive movement or accumulation, in detectable
concentrations above normal ambient values, of any waste or waste constituent
from the disposal site within 12 nautical miles of any shoreline, marine
sanctuary designated under Title III of the Act, or critical area designated
under section 102(c) of the Act; or
(ii) The biota, sediments, or water column of the disposal site, or of any area
outside the disposal site where any waste or waste constituent from the
disposal site is present in detectable concentrations above normal ambient
values, are adversely affected by the toxicity of such waste or waste constituent
to the extent that there are statistically significant decreases in the populations
of valuable commercial or recreational species, or of specific species of biota
essential to the propagation of such species, within the disposal site and such
other area as compared to populations of the same organisms in comparable
locations outside such site and area; or
(Hi) Solid waste material disposed of at the site has accumulated at the site or
in areas adjacent to it, to such an extent that major uses of the site or of
adjacent areas are significantly impaired and the Federal or State agency
responsible for regulating such uses certifies that such significant impairment
has occurred and states in its certificate the basis for its determination of such
impairment; or
(iv) There are adverse effects on the taste or odor of valuable commercial or
recreational species as a result of disposal activities; or
(v) When any toxic waste, toxic waste constituent, or toxic byproduct of waste
interaction, is consistently identified in toxic concentrations above normal
ambient values outside the disposal site more than 4 hours after disposal.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action
May 1997
Page 1-15
The maintenance of Port waterways and possible deepenings is expected to produce large volumes of
Remediation Material, comprised primarily of silts and clays. It should be mentioned, however, that most
of the materials (approx. 75%) produced by the maintenance of the Port are unacceptable for ocean
disposal, thereby requiring the identification of alternative means of disposal for these materials.
Currently, there are several operations and maintenance (O&M) dredging projects for the Port in the
planning, review, or contracting stages, and preliminary studies; as well as a 50-ft Port deepening project.
As stated in the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter, "the designation of Historic Area Remediation Site will
assure long-term use of category 1 dredge material."
Details of the Proposed Action and the other three alternatives are presented in Chapter 2 of this SEIS.
Comparison of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the considered alternatives are
presented in Chapter 4.
1.4
Basis for the SEIS
As discussed above in Section 1.1, EPA established a
voluntarily policy (39 FR 37119, October 21,1974) to
publish EISs for ocean site designations and similar
actions as part of its open decision-making process.
This SEIS has been prepared under this policy,
following the regulatory guidance provided by 40 CFR
1502.9(c)(l). Other subparts of 40 CFR
Section 1502.9 that have guided the development of
this SEIS state that agencies "may also prepare
supplements when the agency determines that the
purposes of [NEPA] will be furthered by doing so [40
CFR Section 1502.9(c)(2)]," and that the SEISs
should be prepared, circulated and filed in the same
fashion as the draft and final EIS unless alternative
procedures are approved by the Council on
Environmental Quality [40 CFR Section
1502.9(c)(4)]. EPA has adhered to these paragraphs and
Preparing SEISs under
40 CFR Section 1502.9(c)(l)
(c) Agencies:
(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft
or final environmental impact statements
if:
(i) The agency makes substantial changes in
the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns; or
(ii) There are significant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed
action or its impacts.
subparts of the regulations, as described below.
EPA is making substantial changes to its earlier action [40 CFR Section 1502.9(c)(l)(I)].
EPA intends by its rulemaking authority under MPRSA to designate a HARS that includes the current
MDS area and surrounding areas that have been impacted by dredged material disposal. This action
requires (1) closing the current MDS, (2) designating the HARS, (3) developing and implementing a
HARS management and monitoring plan, and (4) coordinating with other agencies (USAGE, NMFS,
MMS, etc.) that have jurisdictional authority or who are trustees of natural resources in the area.
There are significant new circumstances and information relevant to environmental concerns
in areas adjacent to the current MDS [40 CFR Section 1502.9(c)(l)(ii)].
Surveys of the present MDS and surrounding areas have revealed regions of degraded sediment
strongly linked to historic dredged material disposal. Some of the sediments in these areas (1) are
toxic to bioassay organisms used to identify Category HI sediments in proposed dredging projects, (2)
contain infauna that have significantly bioaccumulated sediment contaminants, and/or (3) have whole-
sediment contaminant levels that significantly exceed NOAA effects-level calculations. Furthermore,
the hepatic tissue (tomalley) of lobsters in the area have levels of PCBs and 23,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
above currently acceptable action levels and guidelines (NOAA, 1996; EPA Region 2,1996b).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-16
• This SEIS furthers the purposes of NEPA [40 CFR Section 1502.9(c)(2)].
Designating a HARS that includes the present MDS and impacted areas created by historic dumping
clearly furthers NEPA's purposes, which include being a responsible "trustee of the environment for
succeeding generations,... [using] the environment without degradation, risk to health or human
safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences,... [and preserving] an environment which
supports diversity and variety... [NEPA Section 101(b)]."
• This SEIS has been prepared, circulated, and filed in the same fashion as the 1982 EIS that was
used to designate the current MDS [40 CFR Section 1502.9(c)(4)].
As with all draft, final, and supplemental EISs developed by or for the EPA, this SEIS has been
developed from technical data and information available from Federal, State, and local agencies,
affected industry, and other involved parties. New York-New Jersey Dredging Forum individuals
participating in the MDS/HARS Work Group have been provided opportunity and encouraged to
communicate directly with the authors of this SEIS, and have been allowed to review and comment on
preliminary SEIS text and conclusions. EPA's five general and eleven specific criteria for designating
ocean disposal sites, found in 40 CFR Sections 228.5 and 228.6(a) (Tables 1-2 and 1-3), were
addressed in the 1982 MDS designation EIS and are addressed again in this SEIS in the Chapter 4
comparison of environmental consequences for the alternatives.
1.5 Issues of Concern Addressed by This SEIS
The primary focuses of this SEIS are on the environmental conditions at and around the MDS and the
effects of sediment placement operations on the adjacent environment and natural resources. There are
several socioeconomic concerns, specified in 40 CFR Sections 228.5 and 228.6(a) (refer to Tables 1-2 and
1-3), which are also addressed in this SEIS.
1.5.1 Environmental Concerns
The major environmental concern about the present MDS and the designation of the HARS involves the
potential for ecological or human-health effects, and the need to take appropriate remedial action to
safeguard against such effects. The data presented and evaluated in the Affected Environment chapter
(Chapter 3) characterizes the present conditions in the Study Area The Environmental Consequences
chapter (Chapter 4) compares the four alternatives described in Chapter 2, relative to potential
environmental impacts. Issues addressed in these chapters include:
« Characterization of areas affected by historical and ongoing dredged material disposal.
• Delineation of degraded benthic areas within the Study Area;
• Expected presence and impacts of contaminants in the benthos at the present MDS and the proposed
HARS;
• Actual and perceived impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries and human health; and
• Existing and future impacts to endangered species and ecologically important habitats.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-17
1.5.2 Socioeconomic Concerns
Many of the socioeconomic concerns about closure of the current MDS and the designation of the HARS
have been introduced earlier in this chapter. These concerns are addressed in the July 24, 1996, 3-Party
Letter (EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996) and can generally be grouped into two categories:
1. Community concerns about environmental threats and use conflicts presented by the historic
disposal areas, the present MDS, and the proposed HARS; and
2. Ensuring the health of the Port and the environment for the 21st Century
These socioeconomic concerns are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 7-78
Table 1-2. Five General Criteria for the Selection of
Ocean Dredged Material Sites.
[40 CFR Section 228.5]
Part 228.5(a) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or areas selected to minimize the interference of
disposal activities with other activities in the marine environ-
ment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shell-
fisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational
navigation.
Part 228.5(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
so that temporary perturbations in water quality or the envi-
ronmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal
operations anywhere within the site can be expected to be
reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable
contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any
beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited fishery or shellfishery.
Part 228.5(c) If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies,
it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved
on a interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria
for site selection set forth in §§ 228.5 through 228.6, the use of
such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate
disposal sites can be designated.
Part 228.5(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse
impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring
and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range im-
pacts. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal
site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation
or designation study.
Part 228.5(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites
that have been historically used.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-19
Table 1-3. Eleven Specific Factors To Be Considered in
the Selection of Ocean Dredged Material Sites.
[40 CFR Section 228.6(a)]
Para. No.
(1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance
from the coast;
(2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases;
(3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas;
(4) Types and quantities of wastes [dredged material] proposed to be
disposed of, and proposed methods of release, including methods of
packaging the waste [dredged material], if any;
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the
area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any;
(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in
the area (including cumulative effects);
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the
ocean;
(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined
by available data or by trend assessment or baseline surveys;
(10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site;
(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant
natural or cultural features of historical importance.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action PaSe 1-20
1.6 References
Boese, B.L. and H. Lee HI. 1992. Synthesis of Methods to Predict Bioaccumulation of Sediment
Pollutants. ERL-N Contrib. No. N232. U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory,
Bioaccumulation/Stratozone Team, Pacific Ecosystems Branch, Environmental Research Laboratory -
Narragansett, Newport, OR. September 1992. 87pp.
Brown, B. and J. Neff. 1993. Bioavailability of Sediment-Bound Contaminants to Marine Organisms.
Rept. to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Pollution Program Office.
U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Related Services Agreement. Contract DE-
AC06-76RLO 0830. Rept. No. PNL-8761. Battelle Memorial Institute, Marine Sciences Laboratory,
Sequim, WA. September 1993. 442pp.
EPA. 1982. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Criteria and Standards Division.
August 1982. 172 pp + appendices.
EPA/DOT/USACE. 1996. Letter to New Jersey U.S. Congresspersons, signed by Carol M. Browner,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Federico F. Pefia, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation; and Togo D. West, Jr. Secretary of U.S. Department of the Army. July 24, 1996. 4 pp.
EPA/USACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal — Testing Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, and United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC. EPA-503/8-91/001. 219 pp + appendices.
EPA/USACE. 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives —
A Technical Framework. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, and United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. EPA842-B-92-008.
EPA Region 2. 1995a. Public Announcement. J.M. Fox, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2,
New York City, NY. February 3,1995. 2 pp + attachments.
EPA Region 2. 1995b. Press Release—Test Results Confirm Toxicity in Historical Dumping Area. M.
Mears, U.S. EPA Region 2, New York City, NY. May 10,1995. 3 pp + attachments.
EPA Region 2. 1996a. Public Announcement. J.M. Fox, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2,
New York City, NY. September 11,1996. 2 pp + attachment
EPA Region 2. 1996b. Press Release—Area Lobster Flesh Meet Consumption Guidelines. M. Mears,
U.S. EPA Region 2, New York City, NY. April 25,1996. 2 pp.
EPA Region 2/USACE NYD. 1997. Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the New York Bight
Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2,
New York City, NY and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York City, NY.
February 1997. 45 pp.
Lee, H., B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. T. Specht, and R.C. Randall. 1989. Guidance Manual:
Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. ERL-N Contrib. No. Nl 11. U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory - Narragansett, Pacific Ecosystem Branch, Newport OR. September 1989. 163pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action Page 1-21
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants
tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Tech. Memorandum NOS OMA 52. 175 pp +
appendices.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects
with ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ. Mgmt. 19(l):81-97.
NOAA. 1996. Contaminant Levels in Muscle and Hepatic Tissue of Lobster from the New York Bight
Apex. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National
marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Marine Science Laboratory, Highlands, NJ. May 1996. 72 pp
+ tables and figures.
USAGE NYD/EPA Region 2. 1992. Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District and Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2, New York, NY. Draft release December 1992, Revision 1: June 1994. 46 pp + appendices.
Williams, S.J. 1979. Geologic Effects of Ocean Dumping on the New York Bight Inner Shelf. In: Palmer
and Gross (eds.), Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution. Pp. 51-72.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 2, Alternatives
May 1997
Page 2-1
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
EPA has evaluated four separate site-designation alternatives for the area of the current Mud Dump Site
and its surrounding areas. The components of the four alternatives are described in this chapter relative to
the 30-nmi2 Study Area (see Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1).
Readers may find it useful to periodically consult the descriptions of the following alternatives while
reviewing the physical, chemical, and biological information about the affected environment and the
predicted impacts of the alternatives, in Chapters 3 and 4 respectively. This is particularly true for
Chapter 4, where impacts of the four alternatives are compared to one another (as specified by EPA's
Ocean Dumping Regulations), and determinations are made in selecting the Preferred Alternative.
Although the first few pages of Chapter 4 summarize the main components of the alternatives, the details
of the components are presented only in this chapter.
2.1
Alternative 1: No-Action
Under Alternative 1, the operation and
management of the MDS would continue
according to the existing EPA Region 2/USACE
NYD (1997a) Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (MDS SMMP).
The objectives of the MDS SMMP are as follows:
A. Provide that no significant adverse
environmental impacts occur from the
disposal of dredged material at the MDS.
Alternative 1
No Action
No change to size or management of the present
Mud Dump Site (MDS)
No remediation of areas outside of the MDS
with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration of
fine-grain sediment areas
Disposal of Category I dredged material
continues per the MDS Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 21
USAGE NYD, 1991 a) until current remaining
disposal capacity is reached
Category n dredged material capacity will be
reached by September 1,1997
B. Ensure that dredged material disposal
mounds do not exceed the USAGE
NYD/EPA Region 2 management depth
[currently 45 ft below mean low water
(BMLW) for Category I dredged material
and 65 feet BMLW for Category n dredged material].
C. Recognize and correct any potential unacceptable conditions before they can cause any significant
adverse impacts to the marine environment or present a navigational hazard to commercial and
recreational water borne vessel traffic.
D. Determine/enforce compliance with USAGE ocean dumping permit conditions.
E. Provide a baseline assessment of conditions at the MDS.
F. Provide a program for monitoring the MDS.
G. Describe special management conditions/practices to be implemented at the MDS.
H. Specify the quantity of material to be disposed at the MDS, including the presence, nature, and
bioavailability of the contaminants in the dredged material.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 2, Alternatives Page 2^
I. Specify the anticipated use of the MDS, including the closure date.
J. Provide a schedule for review and revision of the MDS SMMP.
The MDS SMMP is jointly funded and implemented by the USAGE NYD and EPA Region 2.
A major element of the MDS SMMP is the Monitoring Program (MP) for the site. The MP addresses both
the regulatory and technical concerns associated with open-water (i.e., ocean) disposal of dredged material,
and the MDS in general. The program is organized by tiers, with successive tiers containing increasing
detailed, accurate, and expensive means to obtain data for evaluation. The tiered MP is an
environmentally-sound and cost-effective means for generating the technical information necessary to
understand and manage the disposal site environment, and, if needed, to quickly implement corrective
actions.
Under Alternative 1, the current MDS SMMP would remain implemented and unchanged until the
2.2 nmi2 MDS is filled to its designated 100 Myd3. Consistent with the July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter, and
because of the approximate 1 Myd3 capacity Category n dredged material capacity being filled, all
discharges at the MDS after September 1, 1997 would be Category I material.
Category I material disposed at the MDS would be primarily of fine-grain silts and clays.
2.2 Alternative 2: Close MDS-No
BARS Designation
Close MDS-No BARS Designation
Under Alternative 2, the MDS would be
Alternative 2
Closure of the present Mud Dump Site
No Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS)
designated
No remediation of sediments outside of the
MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration
of fine-grain sediment areas created by past
dredged material disposal
closed/de-designated effective September 1,1997.
No remediation placement operations would be
conducted within the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) area of
the Bight Apex found to be degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity, nor
would restoration operations be conducted in the
15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) area of fine-grain sediments
attributable to dredged material disposal. Any
remediation or restoration that occurs at degraded
or fine-grain sediment areas would depend on
natural deposition of cleaner sediments from other locations, including resuspension and relocation of
benthic materials from shallow waters (<20 m) of the Bight Apex, and deposition of natural sediments
(e.g., from the Hudson River plume, as watershed pollution controls become effective).
Alternative 2 is the alternative that represents the least change to the Bight Apex environment from current
environmental conditions. Any environmental changes that occur in the area after September 1,1997
would be the result of both positive and negative natural processes (e.g., storms, natural biological
variability) and non-disposal anthropogenic impacts (e.g., fishing, atmospheric deposition, and Hudson
River plume sediments). Surveillance and monitoring of the site under the current MDS Site Management
and Monitoring Plan (SMMP; EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a) would stop when the disposal site is
closed/de-designated. However, EPA and the USAGE would continue to work with applicable Federal
agencies on future monitoring work and determine any future management actions as necessary.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 2, Alternatives
May 1997
Page 2-3
23 Alternative 3: HARS Remediation
Under Alternative 3, the MDS would be closed.
Simultaneous with the closure of the MDS, the site
and surrounding areas that have been used
historically as disposal sites and would be
redesignated under 40 CFR Section 228 as the
Historic Area Remediation Site. The basis for
designating the HARS is that it (1) allows
remediation of sediments degraded by historical
disposal (40 CFR Section 228.11), (2) complies
with EPA's site-designation criteria in 40 CFR
Sections 228.5 and 228.6(a), and (3) meets the
intent of the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter
(EPA/DOT/US ACE, 1996).
The 15.7-nmi2 HARS would be composed of the
Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a Buffer Zone
(BZ), and No Discharge Zone (NDZ). The
location of the site and its components is shown in
Figure 2-1. (See Appendix B for
latitude/longitude coordinates). All identified
degraded sediments (i.e., exhibiting Category n
and IJJ characteristics) are within the 9-nmi2 U-
shaped PRA, and would be capped with at least
1 m of Remediation Material.
At least 40.6 Myd3 of Remediation Material would be required to cap the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) PRA (divided
into nine 1-nmi2 cells for management purposes). The actual placement volume of Remediation Material
may be larger, to ensure at least aim cap throughout the PRA. Because of the inability to remediate all of
the PRA within a short period, remediation operations would be prioritized by degree of degradation.
Areas exhibiting the greatest relative degree of degradation would be remediated first
As stated in the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter, the Material for Remediation would be "uncontaminated
dredged material (i.e. dredged material that meets Category I standards and will not cause significant
undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)... [and]... designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term use of category 1 dredge material." Most of the Material for
Remediation used under Alternative 3 would be composed of fine-grain silts and clays. However, other
coarse-grain material, including sands and gravels, that become available can also be used to remediate the
HARS, where appropriate [Draft HARS SMMP (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997b)]. Sandy Material
for Remediation could potentially become available from new work projects in the Port (e.g., 50-Foot
Deepening Project discussed in the July, 24,1996, 3-Party Letter).
Alternative 3
HARS Remediation
Simultaneous closure of the MDS and
designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
The HARS is composed of the Priority
Remediation Area (PRA), a Buffer Zone (BZ),
and No Discharge Zone (NDZ), including the
MDS and sediments that have toxicity or
bioaccumulative contaminants. (Refer to
Appendix B for HARS latitude/longitude
coordinates.)
Remediation conducted by capping degraded
sediment areas with at least 1 m of Material for
Remediation
• Approximately 40.6 Myd3 required to
remediate the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) PRA; actual
placement volume may be larger to ensure at
least aim cap throughout the PRA
Remediation work prioritized by degree of
sediment degradation
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 2, Alternatives
May 1997
Page 2-4
1996 Bathymetry
/ < 20 meters
20 meters
>20 meters
Figure 2-1. Alternative 3 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS), with Priority Remediation
Area (PRA), Buffer Zone (BZ), and No Discharge Zone (NDZ).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 2, Alternatives Page 2-5
The Buffer Zone (BZ) is an approximately 5.7-nmi2 area (0.27-nmi wide band around the PRA) in which
no placement of Remediation Material would be allowed, but may receive Remediation Material that
incidentally spreads out of the PRA.
The No Discharge Zone (NDZ) is an approximately 1.0-nmi2 area in which no placement or incidental
spread of Material for Remediation will be allowed. This area is not degraded, and is generally above the
20 m (approx. 65-ft) depth contour (the depth at which large storms such as hurricanes and noreasters are
able to generate sufficient water turbulence to resuspend and transport benthic sediments).
The operation and management of the HARS under Alternative 3 would be conducted under a HARS Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (HARS SMMP), developed pursuant to Section 506 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA'92), specifically to ensure that the objectives of the site are
met, and to safeguard against unexpected or potentially negative effects (see 40 CFR Sections 228.10 and
228.11). The objectives of the Draft HARS SMMP are as follows (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997b):
A. Provide for the remediation of required areas within the HARS by placing a one-meter cap
(minimum required cap thickness) of Material for Remediation on sediments within the PRA
(inside the HARS). Sediments within the PRA have been found to exhibit Category n and
Category III dredged material characteristics and will be remediated.
B. Provide that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur from the placement of Material for
Remediation at the HARS. The phrase "significant adverse environmental impacts" is inclusive of
all significant or potentially substantial negative impacts on resources within the HARS and
vicinity. Factors to be evaluated include:
1. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront beaches, or
shorelines;
2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shell fishery areas;
3. Absence from the HARS of pollution-sensitive biota characteristic of the general area;
4. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment composition at the HARS,
when these changes are attributable to Material for Remediation placed at the HARS;
5. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic
biota at or near the HARS, when these changes can be attributed to the effects of Material for
Remediation placed at the HARS;
6. Accumulation of Material for Remediation constituents in marine biota near the HARS.
C. Recognize and correct any potential unacceptable conditions before they cause any significant
adverse impacts to the marine environment or present a navigational hazard to commercial and
recreational water-borne vessel traffic. The term "potential unacceptable conditions" is inclusive
of the range of negative situations that could arise as a result of placement of the Material for
Remediation at the HARS such that its occurrence could have an undesirable affect Examples
could include things such as: the Remediation Material placement mounds exceeding the
required management depth or barges dumping Material for Remediation in the wrong locations.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 2, Alternatives
May 1997
Page 2j
D. Determine/enforce compliance with MPRSA Permit conditions.
E. Provide a baseline assessment of conditions at the HARS.
F. Provide a program for monitoring the HARS.
G. Describe special management conditions/practices to be implemented at the HARS.
H. Specify the quantity of Material for Remediation placed at the HARS, and the presence, nature,
and bioavailability of the contaminants in the Material for Remediation.
I. Specify the anticipated use of the HARS, including the closure date (the date upon which EPA
Region 2/USACE NYD determines that all areas with the PRA of the HARS has been
remediated by placement of at 1 m of Remediation Material).
J. Provide a schedule for review and revision of the HARS SMMP.
The Draft HARS SMMP contains a monitoring program (HARSMP), organized into tiers of increasing
levels of investigative intensity, which generate increasingly detailed and accurate data for evaluators and
site managers. The tiers are structured based on the type of monitoring (physical, chemical, biological)
required, and do not need to be conducted sequentially. The results of the lower tiers are evaluated and
used where applicable to initiate higher tiered monitoring. The main focus of the HARSMP is on the
impacts of Remediation Material placement in the PRA, which are evaluated through the seven
hypotheses. Copies of the draft HARS SMMP are available by contacting Douglas A. Pabst at U.S. EPA
Region 2, New York City, NY (tel. 212-637-3797, e-mail: pabstdouglas@epamail.epagov).
2.4
Alternative 4: HARS Restoration
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3, with
additional conditions that capping operations
within the HARS would use only sandy (0-10%
fines) Material for Remediation, and capped areas
include fine-grain surface sediments that are
attributable to historical dredged material;r- -:.
disposal. The Restoration HARS for
Alternative 4 overlaps the entire area delineated
by the Remediation HARS for Alternative 3
(Figure 2-2). The total size of the Alternative 4
HARS is 15.7 nmi2 (54 km2), and includes the
present MDS, the surrounding areas that have
been used historically as disposal sites, and area
sediments degraded by bioaccumulative
contaminants and toxicity. Implementation of
Alternative 4 would restore benthic conditions
within the New York Bight Apex to conditions
found in the area prior to dredged material
disposal.
Alternative 4
HARS Restoration
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and
designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the PRA, NDZ, and
BZ, including the MDS, surrounding areas that
has been historically used for disposal of
dredged material and other wastes (e.g., building
materials, sewage sludge, industrial wastes), and
sediments degraded by bioaccumulative
contaminants or toxicity.
• Restoration work conducted by covering fine-
grain sediment areas with at least 1 m of sandy
(0-10% fines) Material for Remediation
• Approximately 46.4 Myd3 required to restore the
10.3 nmi2 (35.5 km2) of fine-grained sediments
in the PRA; actual placement volume may be
larger to ensure at least aim cap throughout the
PRA
• Restoration work prioritized by degree of
sediment degradation
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 2, Alternatives
May 1997
Page 2-7
1996 Bathymetry
/Vy' < 20 meters
20meters
/V >20meters
Priority
Restoration Area
Buffer Zone
No Discharge Zone
Figure 2-2. Alternative 4 Historic Area Remediation Site (BARS), with Priority Restoration
Area (PRA), Buffer Zone (BZ), and No Discharge Zone (NDZ).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 2, Alternatives Page 2-8
Components of the Alternative 4 HARS are a PRA, NDZ, and BZ, with the location of the PRA
determined from analyses of sediment grain-size distribution, chemical, and lexicological samples
collected throughout the Study Area. The Alternative 4 PRA is 10.3 nmi2 (35.5 km2) and would require
approximately 46.4 Myd3 of Material for Remediation. The actual placement volume of the Remediation
Material may be larger, to ensure at least aim cap throughout the PRA. The Alternative 4 HARS has no
BZ on the two northwest corners of the U-shaped PRA, because (1) fine-grain sediments attributable to
dredged material disposal are found in these areas, and (2) only sandy (0-10%) Material for Remediation
would be used for restoration operations.
As with Alternatives 3, the Material for Remediation used for Alternative 4 would be obtained from
dredging projects in the Port of New York and New Jersey and surrounding areas. Because most of the
Port's dredged material consists of silts and clays, which are not suitable for restoring the fine-grain
sediment areas to predisposal conditions, PRA restoration under Alternative 4 is expected to take 3-5 times
longer than remediation of the PRA under Alternative 3. However, the duration of both alternatives cannot
be accurately estimated until proposed dredging sites are sampled and evaluated.
Also like Alternative 3, no placement or incidental spread of Material for Remediation would be allowed
in the NDZ, but incidental spreading of material into the BZ from placement operations in the PRA would
be allowed. Li general, the operation and management of the HARS for restoration would be the same as
described above for remediation work under Alternative 3, except that the only sandy Material for
Remediation would be placed within the PRA.
2.5 References
EPA/DOT/USACE. 1996. Letter to New Jersey U.S. Congresspersons, signed by Carol M. Browner,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Federico F. Pena, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation; and Togo D. West, Jr. Secretary of U.S. Department of the Army. July 24,1996. 4 pp
EPA Region 2/USACE NYD. 1997a. Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the New York
Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site). October 1996 Draft SMMP. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, New York District and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York City,
NY. 32 pp
EPA Region 2/US ACE NYD. 1997b. Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Historic
Area Remediation Site (HARS). April 1997 Draft HARS SMMP. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York City, NY. 42 pp
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-]
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter discusses current conditions in the Study Area. The New York Bight and the area
encompassing the Study Area have been influenced by anthropogenic activities since the region was first
settled in colonial times. Environmental impacts resulting from anthropogenic activity in the Bight fall
into two distinct categories — direct impacts from intentional discharges and disposal of waste into the
waters of the Bight, and indirect impacts resulting from releases of point and nonpoint source pollution in
the watershed which is carried to the Bight via the Hudson River outflow as well as atmospheric releases
and deposition on the Bight. Dredged material and sewage sludge disposal are examples of the first
category. Stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition, and other nonpoint source (NFS) pollution fall
within the second category. Clearly, the lengthy and high-density development of the greater New York
City metropolitan region has significantly affected and changed the environment of the New York Bight
through both of these input categories. However, there are important differences between the two
categories. Discussing them separately helps to characterize the historical and existing condition of the
environment and provides decision-makers with the necessary understanding to protect and restore the
attributes and resources of the Bight.
Use of the New York/New Jersey Harbor and Bight as a repository of waste and dredged materials is
documented back to the 1800s, and the practice probably goes back much further. Caspe (1995) states that
raw sewage, garbage, refuse, and street sweepings were routinely disposed into the inner harbor until the
early 1900s. As the harbor area developed and the population increased, public complaints about odor and
debris problems, and environmental degradation resulting from these disposal practices, forced the disposal
activities out of the inner Harbor area to the outer Harbor, and eventually to the ocean waters of the inner
and outer Bight. Other material disposed into the Bight in the past includes soils, rocks, and debris
excavated during construction of bridges, tunnels, and buildings (Williams, 1979).
With the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other federal and state environ-
mental laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, much of the intentional disposal of waste in the Harbor and
Bight was regulated, restricted to specific sites, and in many cases, stopped entirely. Beginning in the late
1980s, disposal at many designated sites was discontinued and the sites were dedesignated (Table 3-1).
The location of both present and historic disposal sites in the Bight Apex are shown in Figure 3-1. All
dredged material disposed in United States waters, including the New York Bight, must comply with EPA
and USAGE regulations, and be in accordance with permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Concurrent with recent years' control and reduction of dumping in the New York Bight, other sources of
pollution were also regulated. Untreated industrial and municipal waste and effluents are no longer
allowed to flow unchecked into New York and New Jersey waterbodies and airsheds. Across-the-board
improvements in pollution control regulations and technologies, waste minimization efforts by dischargers,
and a general increase in the public's concern about the environment of the Harbor and Bight have reduced
contaminant inputs (Bopp etal., 1993; Bopp and Simpson, 1989), reduced impacts, and improved the
overall health of the ecosystem. It is within the context of decreasing inputs of contaminants and nutrients
to the New York Bight Apex, and generally improving environmental conditions in the MDS and Study
Area that this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was developed.
The primary impact from dredged material disposal in ocean waters occurs in the benthic region [water
column impacts from dredged material disposal are intermittent, short lived, and minimal (Vogt and Walls,
1994; Engler and Mathis, 1989)]. These impacts can vary greatly within an affected environment and are
beneficial in some aspects and detrimental in others.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-2
Topography, water column depth, sediment texture, organism habitat, chemical levels, and benthic
infaunal and fish communities may all be influenced by disposal of dredged materials (Vogt and Walls,
1994). In order to understand the specific influences from the dredged material disposal and the address
the actions being evaluated means that this SEIS will focus on the benthic environment in the Study Area
and assess the present conditions in the areas that have historically received wastes.
Table 3-1. History of ocean disposal sites in the New York Bight.
Site Name
12-Mile Site
Acid Waste Site
Cellar Dirt Site
Wood-burning
Site
106-Mile
Deepwater
Municipal
Sewage Sludge
Disposal Site
106-Mile Site
(Industrial)
Inlet sites
(Dredged
material sites)
New York Bight
Dredged
Material
Disposal Site
(Mud Dump
Site)
Material Disposed
Sewage Sludge
Industrial acid waste
byproducts
Construction and
excavation debris
Wood pilings and other
navigation hazards
from Harbor
Mixed waste types
prior to final site
designation (1960s -
1980s); Multiple wastes
including acid iron
waste and sewage
sludge; sewage sludge
only after final site
designation
Industrial wastes
Inlet maintenance
sediments
Dredged material
Key Dates or
Initial Year of
Use
1924
1948
1940s
1960
1986
1960s
1990
1973
Year of Interim (I) and
Final Designation (F)
1973 (I)
1979 (F)
1973 (I)
1983 (F)
1973 a)
1983 (F)
1973 a)
1984 (F)
1984 (F)
1990 (F)
1973 (I)
1984 (F)
Final Site
Year of De-designation
Site Use Year
1987 1990
1988 1991
1989 1994
1991 De-designation in
process (Use of
this site has been
prohibited since
12/31/93 under
WRDA 1990)
1992 1994
1987 1990
Active NA
Active NA
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-3
Lower
New York
Bay
Former 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Site
Former Cellar Dirt Site /
Former Acid Waste Site
Shark River Inlet Disposal Site
02468 Kilometers
0246 Miles
Figure 3-1. Location of present and former disposal sites in the New York Bight Apex.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-4
This chapter describes present environmental
conditions and socio-economic uses in the
Study Area relative to dredged material
disposal and benthic areas contaminated by
historical dumping activities. The description
of the affected environment focuses on the
physical, chemical, and biological conditions.
The socio-economic discussion focuses on
potential use conflicts in the Study Area (see
box for specific topics addressed).
Information being considered is referenced to
sections of the Ocean Dumping Regulations in
section headings as appropriate. Wherever
possible recent data from the Study Area
evaluated in support of this SEIS was used.
When data were not available, data from the
New York Bight Apex or nearby regions were
used. This information provides the basis for
recommendations relevant to the alternatives
described in Chapter 4 of this SEIS.
3.1 Geographic Location and
Physical Description of the
Affected Environment
Factors Evaluated in the Affected Environment Chapter
Section numbers of the discussion are in parentheses
Geographic location (Section 3.1)
Input of Pollutants to the MDS Area (Section 3.2)
Pollution Inputs (3.2.1)
Historical Dumping (3.2.2)
Types and Quantities of Materials Disposed (3.2.3)
Release Methods and Management Practices (3.2.4)
Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Dumping (3.2.5)
Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (3.2.6)
Physical Environment (Section 3.3)
Geological Setting (3.3.1)
Physical Characteristics of Study Area (3.3.2)
Meteorology and River Runoff (3.3.3)
Physical Oceanography (3.3.4)
Erosion Potential (3.3.5 and 3.3.6)
Critical Depth (3.3.7 and 3.3.8)
Post Depositional Transport/Retention (3.3.6)
Toxic Chemical Contaminant Distribution (3.3.9)
Sediment Quality (3.3.9)
Water Quality (Section 3.3.10)
Biological Environment (Section 3.4)
Plankton Community (3.4.1)
Benthic Invertebrates (3.4.2)
Fish and Shellfish (3.4.3)
Marine and Coastal Birds (3.4.4)
Marine Mammals (3.4.5)
Other Concerns for the Biological Community(3.4.6)
Socio-economic Environment (Section 3.5)
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries (3.5.1)
Mariculture (3.5.2)
Shipping (3.5.3)
Military Usage (3.5.4)
Mineral/Energy Development (3.5.5)
Recreational Activities (3.5.6)
Natural or Cultural Features of Historic Importance (3.5.7)
Other Legitimate Uses of the Study Area (3.5.8)
Areas of Special Concern (3.5.9)
Geographic Location [40 CFR
Section 228.6(a)(l)]: The Study Area is
located on the inner continental shelf of the
northwest Atlantic Ocean within the
geographic area known as the inner New York
Bight (Figure 3-2). The inner Bight or Bight
Apex is approximately 2000 km2 and
comprises about 5% of the area of the greater
New York Bight. Figure 3-3 shows the Study
Area which is the focus of this SEIS
(approximately 5% of the Bight Apex). The
Study Area comprises about 1 % of the Bight
Apex. The boundaries of the Study Area were
determined after careful examination of historical disposal records for the region and after conducting
studies on the affected environment in and around the MDS.
This evaluation process led first to the delineation of an area referred to as Subarea 1 (see Figure 3-3), a
22.9 nmi2 rectangular area encompassing the MDS (EPA Region 2, 1995). In January 1996, further
research and studies focusing on historical disposal activities resulted in the addition of Subarea 2, a 7 nmi2
rectangular area which is contiguous with the northwest corner of Subarea 1 (Figure 3-3) (EPA Region 2,
1996a).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-5
tLong 'Island
%\j-?}-' "Tv '•'•'"',' '•:•;,; "K;'-":-f. * L" ' ' >->~- '*"£ '' " '• - '" *' " ,'''
10 20 30 40 Kilometers
=Z!E!!5^2
10 20 30 Miles
Figure 3-2. The Mud Dump Site and SEIS Study Area are located in the New York Bight Apex
hi the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-6
Lower
New York
Bay
Figure 3-3. Location of the Study Area including the 3-nmi line that delineates State and
Federal waters. The eastern most large rectangle is discussed in the text as Subarea 1;
the smaller area to the northwest is Subarea 2.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-7
Latitude/Longitude
Coordinates of Subarea 1
Together, these two subareas make up the 30 nmi2 Study Area
which is the primary focus of all the studies completed to
describe and understand the affected environment The
40°20'N 73°48.0W
characterizations of current conditions provided in this chapter
will be used to evaluate the alternatives considered in
Chapter 4.
40°20'N 73°53.0'W
40°26'N 73°48.(yW
40°26'N 73°53.0W
Water Depth [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(l)]: Water depths „ latitude/longitude
>» T T.r /^TTTrnx- ^ r. j A ^ Coordinates of Subarea 2
below Mean Low Water (MLW]) in the Study Area range from
14 to over 42 m. Depths in the northern half of the Study Area
40°23.5'N 73°53.5'W
40°23.5'N 73°55.0'W
40°27.0'N 73°53.5W
areas presently range between 14 and 26 m (Figure 3-3). The 40°27.0' N 73°55.0W
and in the MDS have been significantly decreased by historical
disposal activities (see Section 3.2). Water depths in these
shallowest depths (14 m) are in the northern-most portion of
Subarea 2. These shallow depths extend southward through
the axis of Subarea 2 (Figure 3-3). In the northeastern and southeastern quadrant of the Subarea 1, water
depths increase, reaching depths of 40 m at the eastern boundary of the Study Area. Depths along the
southern third of the Study Area have not been significantly affected by the dredged material disposal;
water depths consistently increase seaward from about 22 m in the Shrewsbury Rocks area (southeastern
comer of Subarea 1) to 42 m in the Hudson Shelf Valley. A shallow basin extending northwest from this
topographic high is approximately 26 m at its deepest point and less than 22 m in the central parts of
Subarea 2.
Topography [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(l)]: The topography of the Study Area is dominated by the
dredged material disposed and mounded in the area over the past 100 years (Figure 3-4). The axis of this
manmade feature rises as high as 12 m above the surrounding sea floor and extends approximately 8 km
(5 nmi) southeastward from the entrance to New York/New Jersey Harbor before turning southward for
another 3 km (1.8 nmi). At the northwest comer of the present MDS, the mound turns southeasterly,
reflecting mound growth from disposal in the MDS since the early 1980s (see Section 3.2.2 for a
description of the historical disposal). To the east of this mound, the topography grades rapidly and
smoothly into the drowned Hudson Shelf Valley. A topographic low, known as the Christiaensen Basin, is
situated in the northeast quadrant of the Study Area. This feature connects directly to the Hudson Shelf
Valley which runs north and south through the eastern most third of the Study Area and forms the
dominant topographic feature in this part of the Study Area. The material disposed at the former Cellar
Dirt Site is clearly visible as a mound rising above the Hudson Shelf Valley sediments on the central east
boundary of the Study Area.
The topography of the west central portion of Subarea 1 and Subarea 2 is dominated by a shallow basin on
the natural seaward slope of the seabed from the New Jersey shore. This basin was formed by historical
disposal of dredged material southeast of New York/New Jersey Harbor and at the present MDS. The
southwestern quadrant of the Study Area is dominated by the seaward extension of a geological feature
known as the Shrewsbury Rocks.
Distance from Coast [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(l)] and Proximity to Beaches and Amenities [40 CFR
Section 228.6(a)(3)]: The Study Area is seaward of the three-mile limit for state waters except for a small
area on the southern two-thirds of the western border of Subarea 2 (Figure 3-3).
The closest approach of Subarea 2 to the New Jersey shore is 5.3 km (2.8 nmi). The closest approach to
the New Jersey shore of Subarea 1 is 7.5 km (4.1 nmi). The shoreline of Long Island, New York lies
13.1 km (7.1 nmi) north of Subarea 2.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-8
Long
Island
Rockawa
Point
o
o
Tf
h-
Lower i
New York/—
New Jersey
Harbor
Sandy
Hook
v_.o .- ^-v-/ rr / '.&•< •» '
Scotland
Light ^
Shallow basin
(formed by
dredged material
disposal to east)
Shrewsbury
Rocks
Mud Dump Site
Former
Cellar Dirt Site
Hudson|Shelf Valley
Note: Bathymetry within the Study Area is
1996 SAIC (1 m contour intervals) while
the bathymetry outside the study area is
1995 USGS (2 m contour intervals).
1996 Bathymetry
/\/ < 20 meters
/V 20 meters
/\y > 20 meters
Kilometers
Figure 3-4. Topography and water depths in the Study Area. Depth contours are from precision
bathymetry studies conducted in 1995 and 1996 (SAIC, 1995a; SAIC 1996a,tr USGS,
1996).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-9
32 Input of Pollutants to the MDS Area
This section reviews historical sources and quantities of pollutants entering the inner New York Bight,
including historical dredged material disposal. The section also discusses the changes in the amounts and
types of pollutants which have entered the area during the past decade and provides context for the relative
importance of dredged material disposal as a source of pollutants to the system. The discussion focuses
only on inputs to the Study Area; issues of bioavailability and potential transfer of contaminants to living
resources are considered in Sections 3.4.6 and 3.5.1.1.
3.2.1 Pollution Inputs [Sections 228.5(e) and 228.6(a)(7)]
Historic pollution input and loading to the Bight, and changes in the these inputs in response to
environmental management actions, are described in this section.
3.2.1.1 Historic Pollution Inputs
From the late 1800s through the early 1990s, New York/New Jersey Harbor and the New York Bight
received wastes from urbanization and growing industrialization (Williams, 1979). Until the late 1800s,
these wastes were discharged within the New York/New Jersey Harbor complex (Caspe, 1995). Over
time, visual impairment and environmental degradation increased, public acceptability of the odor levels
associated with these disposal practices lessened, and the capacity of the inner Harbor to receive wastes
was exceeded. These factors resulted in the transfer of disposal operations from the inner Harbor to the
outer Harbor and eventually to the ocean. Ultimately, offshore disposal locations were consolidated into a
set of specific sites (Figure 3-1) that were designated and managed under the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) and subsequent amendments. The MDS was designated as an
interim dredged material disposal site in 1973. Formal designation was completed in 1984. The site
designation process included the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance
with NEPA requirements under EPA!s- policy of developing voluntary EISs for site designations.
The materials discharged into the Harbor and—-— to , - ,. . . . .
0 Relative loading of contaminants by major sources to the
Bight complex in the early part of the 20th century
ranged from direct discharges of raw sewage,
garbage, refuse, and street sweepings (Caspe7
1995) to byproducts of sewage treatment and
industrial processes to sediments dredged from
shipping channels. Other materials disposed
routinely in the Bight included excavation
materials from bridge, tunnel, and building
construction (Williams, 1979). Contaminants also _ , _
v Coastal outflow
inner New York Bight as of the mid 1980s
(Stanford and Young, 1988).
Source Range (%) Median (%)
Dredged Material 30 - 83 56
Hudson River outflow 13-45 27
Sewage sludge disposal 3-24 16
Other sources . 5
Atmospheric
- Acid wastes
found their way to the Bight from upstream
sources and via atmospheric pathways
(HydroQual, 1989a; Stanford and Young, 1988).
By the mid-1980s, the Bight was receiving over 5 million metric tons of solid waste and dredged material,
over 36 thousand metric tons of various contaminants, and approximately 140 thousand metric tons of
nitrogen annually (Stanford and Young, 1988).
32.1.2 Recent Changes in Pollutant Inputs
Significant changes in the use of the Bight as a repository of anthropogenic wastes began in 1986 with the
transfer of sewage sludge disposal from the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Disposal Site to the 106-Mile
Deepwater Municipal Sewage Sludge Site (106-Mile Site), located seaward of the continental shelf (Hunt
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment fage 3-1Q
et ai, 1995). This single action removed disposal of over eight million wet tons of waste per year from the
inner Bight. At about the same time, point source pollution throughout the NY-NJ metropolitan region
was reduced. Dredged material disposal activities were specifically confined to the Mud Dump Site and
three inlet sites (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1).
The closure/de-designation of waste disposal sites in the New York Bight has resulted in major decreases
in the amount of many wastes and associated pollutants directly entering this system from disposal
practices. For example, data included in a recent compilation of contaminant inputs to the New York
Bight Apex (HydroQual, 1989a) show that the transfer of sewage sludge disposal from the 12-Mile Site to
the 106-Mile Site resulted in a 7 to 37 percent reduction of metals loading to the Bight Apex and a 39
percent reduction in BOD loading (Table 3-2). Stanford and Young (1988) independently estimated that
this action decreased loadings of many contaminants to the inner Bight by about 25%, although reduction
in the inputs of solids and total PCB were reduced by less than 4 percent. This suggests that sewage
sludge disposal was only a minor source of solids to the inner Bight.
Table 3-2. Reduction in contaminant loading to the New York Bight Apex
following transfer of sewage sludge disposal to the 106-Mile Site
in 1987 (estimated from HydroQual, 1989a).
Parameter
Solids
BOD5
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Total PCB
Reduction
(%)
3.4
39.0
6.5
25.0
27.0
37.0
22.0
7.0
22.0
1.7
By 1989, there were only three major quantifiable sources of contaminants to the Bight and Bight Apex:
dredged material disposal, outflow from the Hudson River (across the Sandy Hook — Rockaway Point
transect), and atmospheric inputs (HydroQual, 1989a). Acid waste disposal contributed minor amounts of
contaminants to the Bight through 1988. Sources located along coastal New Jersey and Long Island also
contributed minor amounts of contaminants (HydroQual, 1989a). Although remobilization of
contaminants from sediments and coastal transport [associated with the general southerly net circulation in
the New York Bight and sources to the north (HydroQual, 1989b) were recognized as potentially important
source terms, they could not be quantified due to lack of data.
Of the three major sources to the New York Bight Apex, outflow from the Hudson River and dredged
material disposal are clearly the dominant inputs, although the relative importance of these two sources
varies with each contaminant (Figure 3-5). Continued reduction in the input of contaminants, especially
those associated with dredged materials, likely occurred in response to revised testing under the 1991
EPA/USACE Dredged Material Testing Manual (EPA/USACE, 1991).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-11
LEAD
ZINC
COPPER
LEGEND
Atmospheric Deposition Dredged Material
PCB
SOLIDS
Hudson River Outflow
Figure 3-5. Relative inputs of representative pollutants to inner New York Bight in the late 1980s
(from HydroQual, 1989a). Data on dredged material is from pre-1991 and do not reflect
effects of updated testing requirements for acceptability for ocean disposal implemented
under the 1991 Green Book (USACE/EPA 1991). As discussed in the accompanying text,
there has been a downward trend in pollution levels entering the New York Bight over the
past two decades. This is due in part to pollution control regulations and upgraded
treatment facilities completed since the 1970s throughout the water and airsheds of the
greater New York metropolitan region. Additionally, new dredged material testing
requirements have reduced the level of contaminants in dredged material recently disposed
at the MDS. Thus, the late 1980s data shown above likely overestimate the current fraction
of contaminants entering the Bight through dredged material disposal. Unfortunately, no
equivalent study has been conducted to allow comparison of this 1989 HydroQual study to
present conditions. The available information suggests that the total amount of
contaminants entering the Bight in association with all sources has decreased in the past
few years.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment p"ge 3-12
Estimates of the importance of atmospheric inputs to the New York Bight are highly dependent on the area
of the Bight included in the evaluation; this must be considered carefully within the context of this SEIS.
For several contaminants, atmospheric sources can be a major contribution to the input to the greater Bight
(Stanford and Young, 1988). Duce et al. (1976) estimated that atmospheric sources contribute less than
25% of the total contaminant input within 100 km of the shore. More recently, HydroQual (1989a)
concluded that atmospheric inputs may be the dominant source of metals and organic compounds such as
PCBs and PAHs over the greater Bight. HydroQual (1989a) also calculates that about ten percent of the
Bight-wide atmospheric input occurred in the Bight Apex.
Bopp et al. (1995) examined sediment core data and water column particulates collected in the mid-1980s
for inputs of DDT and found that the Hudson River Plume is a significant source of these compounds to
the sediments located within the Study Area. Specifically, Bopp et al. (1995) indicate that the composition
of the DDT signature in sediments from the Shrewsbury Rocks area are consistent with those from the
Sandy Hook area, a region clearly dominated by the Hudson River outflow. The results from this study
suggest that the outflow of the Hudson River provides a large fraction of measurable pollution depositing
in the Shrewsbury Rocks area. Because areas off Sandy Hook and Shrewsbury Rocks area extend into the
Study Area, the results imply that the Hudson River Plume is also a major source of contaminants to the
sediments of the Study Area. Further, DDT in surface sediments collected near the disposal sites in the
Bight suggest that resuspended sediments have DDT ratios that are similar to those from the mouth of the
New York/New Jersey Harbor and that atmospheric sources enhance, but do not dominate, the DDT
signature of those sediments (Bopp etal., 1995).
Since the 1970s, the levels of chemical contaminants discharged to the Hudson River watershed and water
ways of the New York/New Jersey Harbor complex have continued to decrease as a result of permitted
effluent limitations has become more stringent, improvements to the combined sewer overflow (CSO)
systems have been completed (Brosnan and Heckler, 1996), and implementation of nonpoint source
controls has taken place (Brosnan et al., 1995). Results of extensive annual water quality monitoring in
New York/New Jersey Harbor has clearly shown the effectiveness of these controls (NYC, 1993,1994,
1997; Brosnan and Heckler, 1996). For example^New York City reports that metals loading from its
treatment facilities declined by 50 to 97-percent between 1985 and 1993. Moreover, application of
sophisticated analytical techniques to monitor sewage effluent also resulted in substantially lower estimates
of PCB loading to the Harbor (NYC, 1993) from these sources. Input of total PCBs to the Harbor from
water pollution control facilities (WPCF) in 1993 was calculated at 0.37 kg/d; wet weather loadings froiu
CSOs and storm runoff added an additional 0.16 kg/d. These loadings are approximately 45% of the
inputs calculated in previous Harbor Estuary Program Reports (NYC, 1993). As a result, estimates of
contaminant inputs to the Bight in association with the Hudson River Plume have decreased. In addition,
continued reduction of emissions from industrial and energy production in the past decade have lowered
atmospheric inputs to coastal waters. Tighter restrictions on the types of dredged material that can be
disposed in the ocean, in conjunction with lower volumes of dredged material disposed at the MDS, have
resulted in continued decreases in the amount of contaminants loaded to the Bight Apex.
Currently, most of the nutrients entering the Bight come from the Harbor in association with the Hudson
river Plume (HydroQual, 1989a). Although atmospheric inputs are significant at a Bight-wide scale, these
inputs are equal to those associated with the Hudson River Plume only if augmented by return of nutrients
to the water column from sediments (HydroQual, 1989a). Further, HydroQual (1989a) estimated that
nutrient input from dredged material disposal is minor in the Bight.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
May 1997
Pase 3-13
The Hudson River Plume, readily detected using thermal and visible satellite imagery, frequently
extends across the Study Area and MDS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May J997
Page 3-14
Major decreases in nutrient loading to the Bight resulted from the transfer of sewage sludge disposal to the
106-Mile Site (Table 3-2) in 1987. The disposal of sewage sludge at the 12-Mile Site was believed to be a
major factor in the over-enrichment in the Bight Apex area, eutrophying the receiving waters and
contributing to low dissolved oxygen levels in the water and sediments of the New York Bight Apex with
negative effects on benthic communities and other life in this environment. For example, prior to site
transfer, areas of low dissolved oxygen were especially severe in the Christiaensen Basin and coastal New
Jersey. In the late 1980s, dissolved oxygen measurements showed consistent and significant annual
depressions of oxygen in the bottom waters along the New Jersey Coast and in the vicinity of the
dumpsites in the Bight Apex (HydroQual, 1989b). Low oxygen levels were most pronounced along the
northern third of the New Jersey Coast (lowest mean concentrations of 4.0 mg/1) with levels often dipping
below 1 mg/1 between Mansquan and Bamegat Inlets and between Little Egg and Absecon Inlet. Prior to
the transfer of the sludge disposal to the 106-Mile Site, minimum dissolved oxygen levels in bottom waters
were often less than 3 mg/1 from the New Jersey shoreline to a distance of 30 to 40 miles offshore.
After the transfer of sewage sludge disposal to the 106-Mile Site, dissolved oxygen levels recovered
rapidly in the inner Bight with values remaining above 4 mg/1 from 1986 through 1988, compared with
values below 0.5 mg/1 at the most heavily impacted station during the summer months from 1983 through
1985 (Mountain and Arlen, 1995). Other improvements in water and sediment quality in the inner Bight
were documented following the removal of this major source of nutrients and contaminants from the Bight
Clear responses and recovery of the ecosystem are evident from studies conducted from 1987 through
1989 to evaluate the response to this major reduction in loading (Studholme et al., 1995). Many of these
findings are considered in subsequent discussions in this section, however, for clarity, the major findings
are summarized in Table 3-3. The findings clearly indicate that conditions in the Bight Apex improved
following the transfer of sewage sludge disposal from the inner Bight to the 106-Mile Site.
3.2.2 Historical Dumping [40 CFR Sections 228.5(e) and 22S.6(a)(7)]
A comprehensive summary of ocean disposal practices
in the inner New York Bight between the early 1800s
and 1978 is provided in Williams (1979). His review
of historical bathymetric charts, seismic reflection
data, and sediment cores reveals a progressive filling
of the Hudson River channel between the Sandy
Hook-Rockaway transect and the northeastern corner
of the present Mud Dump Site between 1845 and 1978
(Figures 3-6 to 3-11). Disposal in the region seaward
of New York/New Jersey Harbor in 1888 was
officially initiated "to relieve health problems,
congestion, and accelerated shoaling of navigation
channels long associated with uncontrolled disposal
within the city and adjacent waterways" (Williams,
1979). Available information did not show significant
disposal of material in areas immediately offshore
from the mouth of the New York/New Jersey Harbor
between 1845 (Figure 3-6a) and 1885 (Figure 3-6b), although records indicate that a position 2.5 miles
south of Coney Island was designated in 1888 to receive wastes. This designated area was moved to "a
point one-half mile south and eastward of Sandy Hook Lightship" in 1900 due to shoaling and fouling of
adjacent [Coney Island] beaches (Williams, 1979).
Stability of Disposed Sediments in the Bight
The long-term stability of materials disposed at depths
greater than 20 m in the New York Bight is
demonstrated in the discussion by Williams (1979)
regarding the appearance of a mound in an area catted
Diamond Hill (present Ambrose Light) between 1845
and 1885 (Figure 3-6). Williams indicates that
material in the mound includes large rocks, possibly
from major excavations for bridges, tunnels, and
roads, as well as the destruction of buildings in the
New York area between 1850 and 1875 and the
disposal of cellar din debris. The apparent stability of
this mound is evidenced by its unchanged shape over
the years following disposal and little apparent
movement of the material disposed into surrounding
sediments between 1885 and 1936.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-15
Table 3-3. Improvements to water and sediment quality in the inner Bight following transfer of
sewage sludge disposal from the 12-Mile Site to the 106-Mile Site.
Measurement
Response
Reference
Rate of seabed oxygen consumption
Lower rates
Rates became typical of background
sediments
Phoele/a/. (1995)
Surface sediment REDOX potential
Decreased levels
Smaller area of high values
Decreased AVS levels
Decreased sediment porosity and total
organic carbon levels
Draxler (1995)
Packer etal. (1995)
Bottom water dissolved oxygen
Higher concentrations
Smaller areas of hypoxia
Lower near-bottom dissolved oxygen
gradient
Mountain and Arlen (1995)
StudholmeeraZ. (1995)
Draxler (1995)
Total bacteria and fecal coliform
levels in sediments
Lower concentrations
Smaller area with elevated levels
Gaines and Reid (1995)
O'Reilly etal. (1995)
Metals enrichment - sediments
Lower concentrations
Less enrichment
Smaller area of enrichment
Zdanowicz et al. (1995)
Benthic community
More species
More crustaceans
Lower abundance of pollution indicator
species
Reid et al. (1995)
Megafauna
No changes detected
More lobster at previous high-impact area
Lobstering increased in previously
unfished areas
Decreased incidence of finrot and internal
lesions in winter flounder
Phelan(1995)
Wilketal. (1995)
Pacheco and Rugg (1995)
Between 1900 and 1950, disposal locations moved progressively seaward along the Hudson River Channel
as topographic relief became positive (i.e., mounding was evident). Generally, the limiting depth
described in Williams for these areas appears to be about 15m. Historical records show that the solid
wastes that were disposed during this period included "mud, one-man stone, steam ashes, derrick stone,
street sweepings, and cellar dirt ('masonry material, brick, tile, wood, natural soil and rock')" (Williams,
1979). Further, Williams notes that shoaling problems caused relocation of the site for "derrick stones"
disposal in 1924 to a point 6 miles from the Scotland Lightship in waters >19 m.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-16
SX
Sandy \\ *•*•*
Hook SY« lJBht *
Kilometers
Kilometers
a. 1845 (digitized from Williams, 1979). The b.
historic location of Scotland Light, the Castle
Hill area, and the Study Area are overlain for
perspective. Note that the depth contours of the
Hudson Shelf Valley extend towards the
entrance to the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
1885 (digitized from Williams, 1979). The
historic location of Scotland Light, Castle Hill
area, and Study Area are overlain for
perspective. Note the mound at the present day
Ambrose Light position (Diamond Hill) and
depth contours of the Hudson Shelf Valley
pointing towards the entrance to the New
York/New Jersey Harbor.
Figure 3-6. Historic changes in the bathymetry of the New York Bight Apex, including the Study
Area examined under this SEIS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-17
Kilometers
1936 (digital data from NOAA/NOS data
base). The historic location of Scotland Light
and the Study Area are overlain for perspective.
Note that the depth contours of the Hudson
Shelf Valley in the northern portions of the
Study Area point offshore (away) from the
entrance to New York/New Jersey Harbor.
d. 1973 (data digitized from Williams, 1979).
The historic location of Scotland Light and
present Study Area are overlain for perspective.
Note that the depth contours of the Hudson
Shelf Valley in the northern portions of the
Study Area point offshore (away) from the
entrance to New York/New Jersey Harbor and
extend southward into the Study Area and
across the northern boundary of the present
MDS.
Figure 3-6. Historic changes in the bathymetry of the inner New York Bight Apex, including the
Study Area examined under this SEIS. (continued).
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-18
Disposal of material seaward of the Castle Hill area
resulted in shallowing of the drowned Hudson River
channel (Figure 3-6c). An examination of the overall
change in the bathymetry southeast of Scotland Light
between 1885 and 1936 (Figure 3-7) showed that about
9,000 hectares of seabottom (a 14.5 km by 11.5 km
region) had been affected by the disposal operations by
1936 (Williams, 1979), and a mound of material of
about 15m maximum height had been created. No
apparent changes in the topography of the Diamond Hill
and Castle Hill areas were noted between these years.
Disposal practices between 1936 and 1973 resulted in
the appearance of an elongated hill of about 10 m to the
south of Castle Hill (Freeland and Merrill, 1976;
Williams, 1979; Dayal etal, 1981) (Figure 3-6d).
About 5 m of material had acreted to the southeast of
Castle Hill (Figure 3-8). The water depth in this area
was as shallow as 16 m below mean low water (MLW)
at the mound peak. Williams indicates that the disposal
mound that developed between 1936 and 1973 was
nearly circular (4.8 km diameter) and covered an area
calculated to be about 18 km2. This latter area is almost
entirely within the northwest quadrant of Subarea 1 of
the Study Area and extends into the northeast corner of
the present MDS.
26' -
25
24'
23'
22'
OKPCE SPOIL OUMPSITE. M.Y. BIGHT
MET CHANCE MAP
»36-l*T3
C.I • I METER
JL.
J_
JL.
Figure 3-7. Map showing the lateral and vertical
growth of the dredged material mound in the Hudson
Shelf Valley off the entrance to New York/New Jersey
Harbor between 1885 and 1936 (figure from Williams,
1979).
54' 531 S2' 51' 73-501
SOUKK Fran FiMtandndlfanW 1978
Figure 3-8. Map showing the lateral and
vertical growth of the dredged material mound
in the Hudson Shelf Valley off the entrance to
New York/New Jersey Harbor between 1936
and 1973 (figure from Williams, 1979).
Disposal between 1973 and 1984 continued to increase the spatial
extent and height of the disposed material towards the south and
southeast. By 1978, an increase in me moundiieight was clearly
evident in two areas in the region of the northwest corner of the
MDS (Dayal et al, 1981). Two distinct peaks appeared in the
bathymetry data; each peak was generally about 16m below mean
low water, although the southern most Peak shoaled to about 14 m
in a small area. Continued propagation of the dredged material
mound to the south and southeast was evident in bathymetric data
collected in 1980 and documented in the 1982 Mud Dump Site
Environmental Impact Statement (EPA Region 2,1982) (Figure 3-
9).
High precision bathymetry surveys of the MDS have been
conducted annually since the early 1980s by the USAGE.
Comparison of the data from the 1980s (Parker and Valente, 1988;
SAIC, 1992) through 1995 (SAIC, 1996a) show continued mound
growth from the deposited dredged material throughout the MD
but primarily within the northern and central regions (Figure 3-10).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-19
40-13'
7T33-
73*50'
Contour Interval.— 2 Feet
Contours in Feet at Mean Low Water - Tidal Corrected
Figure 3-9.
Detailed bathymetry of the seafloor in the vicinity of the MDS and the Cellar Dirt
Site in 1978 (From FJ»A Region 2,1982). Note the extension of the dredged material
mound into the present MDS (small rectangle in the center of the figure) and in the area of
the Cellar Dirt Site (circle to the right of MDS).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-20
40" 27' -f
40° 26'-
40*25'-
40° 24* -
40° 23" -
40° 22' -
40' 21'-
40° 20' -
Shrewsburyy
Rocks
73054' 73" 53' 73"' 52' 73° 5V 73° 50' 73°'49'
Okm 2km
Figure 3-10. High resolution two-dimensional representation of the bathymetry
of the Study Area (from SAIC, 1996a).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-21
Clearly evident in the data are distinct mounds of recent project specific dredged material deposits within
the site. Less evident, but definitively documented by bathymetric data, other monitoring records (SAIC,
1995b), and the side scan data (SAIC, 1995a), is the dredged material from the Port Newark/Port Elizabeth
Dredging Project that was deposited in the south central half of the MDS in 1993 and capped with
Category I material from the Ambrose Channel. A topographic high resulting from the disposal at the
Cellar Dirt Site is also evident
in recent bathymetric survey
data (SAIC, 1995a). The most
recent compilation of detailed
bathymetry data of the MDS
and nearby areas shows these
features and delineates the
extent of dredged material
deposition in the inner Bight
(Figure 3-11).
The recent bathymetry data
(SAIC, 1996a) show that the
deepest water depths (42 m)
are located along the eastern
boundary of the southeastern
quadrant of the Study Area in
the Hudson Shelf Valley
(Figure 3-11). The shallowest
depths in the area are located
in the northwestern and central
portions of the Study Area. A
three-dimensional represent-
ation (with exaggerated
vertical scale) shows the ridge
of dredged material described
above, as well as the location
of recently completed dredged
material disposal activity
(Figure 3-12).
The 1995 bathymetric data was
complimented by a detailed
side scan sonar survey of the
Subarea 1 completed in March
1995 (SAIC, 1995a), a side
scan survey of Subarea 2 in
January 1996 (SAIC, 1996a),
and a precision bathymetry
study in May of 1996 (SAIC,
1996b).
Rockawa1
Point
Sandy
Hook
Note: Bathymetry within the Study Area Is
1996 SAIC (1 m contour Intervals) while
the bathymetry outside the study area Is
1995 USGS (2 m contour Intervals).
1996 Bathymetry
, < 20 meters
/V 20 meters
/\/ > 20 meters
Kilometers
re 3-11.
Bathymetry of the inner New York Bight in 1995 and 1996 (from
SAIC, 1995a,1996a; USGS, 1996). The historic location of Scotland
Light and the Study Area are overlain for perspective. Note the depth
contours in the historic mound outside of the MDS are similar to the
1973 data. Mounding of deposited dredged material in the MDS is
evident from the shallower depth contours in the northern half of the
MDS relative to 1973.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-22
The 1995 survey of Subarea 1 showed a complex set of bottom features including sand waves, ripples,
trawl scour marks, rocks, individual dredged material disposal events, and regional sediment irregularities
and smooth topographic features (SAIC, 1995a). In addition, the side scan survey revealed individual
dredged material disposal event signatures (circular features approximately 20 m in diameter characterized
by a slightly raised outer ring of material) throughout the northern half of the Study Area in areas on and
away from the major disposal mounds (SAIC, 1995a). These features are clustered together or found as
singular events resulting in small scale variability (not easily sampled by traditional grab sampling) and
lead to the conclusion that this entire area has received dredged material. These dredged material disposal
signatures were also evident in an area immediately outside the southeast boundary of the MDS.
Moreover, the side scan data and bathymetric data reveal the distinct topographic feature running seaward
from the New Jersey Coast known as the Shrewsbury Rocks. This feature extends into the Study Area and
includes the location of the MDS reference site (Figure 3-12).
40' 27'
40'26'
. 73' 54
73'53
Okm
73-52
2km
7T49'
40-20'
Figure 3-12.
High resolution three-dimensional representation of the bathymetry of the Study
Area (from SAIC, 1996a). The vertical exaggeration is 90:1. Mounds within the MDS
represent post-1980 disposal; mounds in the remainder of the Study Area were created by
disposal from the late 1800s through 1980. Mounds in the Cellar Dirt Site are evident at
the east central boundary of the Study Area
The January 1996 side scan and sediment grab survey to the northwest of the original Study Area found
clear evidence of the historical disposal in the area including mounds and visual evidence of building
materials and other manmade materials. The grab samples from the shallow depths in the northern portion
of the area surveyed in January consistently had bricks and other anthropogenic artifacts (Pabst, personal
communication, February 1996). The cobble and gravelly nature of the sediments in the northern most
portion of this survey area indicate a winnowing of fine grained sediments.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-23
The above information demonstrates that disposal of solid wastes and dredged material in the New York
Bight has resulted in a continuous filling of drowned Hudson River channels over the past 150 years from
just outside the New York/New Jersey Harbor to areas beyond the southern most-boundary of the present
MDS. Disposal activities have altered the bottom topography such that a distinct ridge of dredged material
extends through the Study Area and MDS from the northwest to the southeast. The disposal has created a
topographic low (basin) west of the dredged material disposal mounds. To the east of the ridge of dredged
material, depths rapidly increase into the Hudson Shelf Valley.
3.2.3 Types and Quantities of Material Disposed in the Study Area [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(4)]
Historical: Williams (1979) presents one of the most complete compilations of disposal volumes for the
Bight through 1978. Williams (1979) estimates that up to 850 million m3 of various types of material were
disposed in the inner New York Bight between 1890 and 1973. This material was comprised of dredged
material plus wastes that are no longer permitted for disposal in the ocean (i.e., sewage sludge, garbage,
cellar dirt, etc.). The annual rate of disposal of these materials was estimated at about 10 million m3 yr"1.
Bathymetric analysis reported by Williams (1979) suggested that 37% (318 million m3) of the total
disposed material had accumulated on the bottom by 1973. The 318 million m3 estimate most likely
reflects the volume of dredged material disposed up to 1973. The reader is cautioned that Williams'
calculations may have been affected by errors systematic to the historical navigational and depth
measurement methods and the accuracy of the planometering techniques available at that period.
Additionally, the retention of the material disposed into the inner Bight up to this time cannot be accurately
calculated because of incomplete disposal records. Other investigators have estimated different volumes
for these wastes (Table 3-4).
Table 3-4. Historical and recent dredged material disposal volumes in the New York Bight Apex
and Mud Dump Site.
Period
1890 to 1915
1890 to 1960
1960 to 1965
1965 to 1970
1936 to 1973
1970 to 1974
1973 to 1978
1979 to 1988
1974 to 1994
1990-1995
Volume for Period
(million m3)
225
-. 709" -
50 ca
50 ca
156
54 ca
52
45.8 ca
142.6
20.2
Annual Volume
(million nrVyr)
9
10
10
10
4.2
13.5
10.4
5.1
7.1
3.7
Source
USAGE (1915) as cited in Williams (1979)
USACE.0960) as cited in Williams (1979)
Dewelling and Anderson (1973) as cited in
Williams (1979)
Pararas-Carayannis (1973) as cited in Williams
(1979)
Dayale/a/. (1981)
Dewelling and Anderson (1976) as cited in
Williams (1979)
Dayal etal (1981)
Wilber and Will (1994)
USAGE NYD (1995)
USAGE NYD disposal records through 1995
"includes sewage sludge, garbage, and other municipal wastes
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-24
12
Gross (1976) calculated that about 250 million m3 of solid materials were disposed between 1888 and
1973. He further estimated that 88 million m3 of materials were disposed between 1963 and 1973 at an
annual rate of 8-9 million m3. Dayal et al. (1981) showed that between 1930 and 1980 annual dredged
material disposal volumes ranged from O1 to 10 million m3yr' in the vicinity of the present MDS and
showed dramatic variations in the volume disposed from year to year. Much of the variability in these
estimates results from the type of material included in the calculation (i.e., only dredged material or
dredged material plus other materials such as sewage waste and garbage) and availability of accurate
records and other documentation of the input.
Documentation of the amount and type of material disposed in the Bight has improved greatly over the past
20 years allowing more accurate portrayal of the disposal volumes. These more accurate data were
recently used to calculate the dredged material
volume disposed at the MDS over the past 20
years (USAGE NYD, 1995; Wilber and Will,
1994). Calculations show the average annual rate
of dredged material disposal was 4.75-11.6
million yds3^"1 (4-9 million mfyr1) over this
period. The annual volume disposed during the
past 10 years has ranged from 1.9-15.2 million
yds3yf' (1.4 to 11.6 million m3yf') (Figure 3-13).
Between 1990 and 1995, the combined federal
and private annual volume of dredged material
disposed at the MDS was 4.26 million yds3yr"'
(3.3 million m3yf]) (USAGE NYD unpublished
data). With the exception of 1984 and 1989, the
annual rate of disposal has remained between -2
ID-
:S 6-- -\-
m
4...
2--
I—I—1—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—I—hH—I I I I I I
1976 1978 1980 1982
1984 1988 1988 1990 1992 1994
YEAR
and 5 million yds3yf' (1.5 and 4 million rr^yr'1)
over the last 15 years.
Figure 3-13. Annual volumes of dredged material
disposed at the MDS from 1976 through 1995.
3.2.4 Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Dumping in the Area [40 CFR Section
228.6(a)(7)]
Generally, impacts from dredged material disposal can be classified as physical, chemical, biological, and
socio-economic. It is notable that impacts from dredged material disposal do not result a priori in
detrimental effects, nor are the impacts within a designated disposal site necessarily long-term. For
example, Clark and Kasal (1994) point to the potential beneficial results of dredged material disposal on
marine fisheries from berms placed in the environment. They suggest that appropriate placement of
dredged material may provide positive impacts to marine fisheries. Although substantial quantitative
information is not available, ancillary data from inshore dredged material disposal sites tend to support this
suggestion (USAGE, 1988). Evidence available in Rhoads et al. (1978) and Rhoads and Germane (1986)
indicate that recolonization of dredged material mounds occurs, with minimal long-term effects on the
environment, and often an enhancement in productivity, as a result of the disposal operation. Last, water
column impacts from dredged material disposal is "minimal to non existent" (Engler and Mathis, 1989).
However, field surveys conducted in support of the SEIS have identified two areas within the Study Area
that contain sediments that are degraded lexicologically and chemically (Battelle, 1996a). These may be
exerting indirect impacts to the biological communities and fish that inhabit these areas. These areas are
1 Offshore disposal during World War n did not occur.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-25
discussed in Section 3.3.9. The cause of these areas of degraded sediment may be related to dredged
material disposal, although other sources of contamination [i.e., the Hudson River Plume, as found in the
EIS prepared for the MDS designation (EPA Region 2,1982)] may significantly contribute sediments and
contaminants to these areas. Actions taken to reduce contaminant inputs to the New York/New Jersey
Harbor from the bordering metropolitan areas and the Hudson River watershed in general (see Section 3.0)
have substantially and significantly reduced the introduction of contaminants and volumes of wastes and
dredged material to the region (see Section 3.2.1). These actions may have contributed to the apparent
improvement in benthic biptic diversity in the Study Area relative to that found in the original site
designation EIS (see Section 3.4.2).
There is some evidence that fine-grained sediments disposed at the MDS have been transported into the
Christiaensen Basin (SAIC, 1995c) and in a southeasterly direction out of the site and down the Hudson
Shelf Valley. Data from sediment cores collected in New York /New Jersey Harbor, the Study Area, and
the Hudson Shelf Valley in the mid 1980s were used by Bopp et al. (1995) to evaluate this potential
transport to the southeast. They report that high rates of deposition, detectable concentrations of 2,3,7,8
TCDD, and trends in Csi37 and K^are consistent with translocation of sediments from the New York/New
Jersey Harbor area via dredged material disposal in the MDS. Other evidence indicates that sewage sludge
formerly disposed at the 12-Mile Site was a major contributor of contaminants to the drowned valley
(Lewis et al., 1989; Bopp et al., 1995). Bopp et al. (1995) indicate that additional coring and analysis is
required to provide more definitive assessments of the translocation of materials from the MDS.
The New York/New Jersey Harbor Dredged Materials Management Forum and several Harbor
stakeholders have raised concerns about potential effects of the dredged material disposal on habitats in the
Study Area [e.g., Memo from Remediation and Restoration Subcommittee to Mud Dump Work Group
12/15/95; EPA meetings with local fishing community (April 25 and May 6,1996)]. These concerns are
especially evident relative to potential changes in sediment type including grain size, contaminant levels
and bioavailability, bioaccumulation and human health concerns, topographic alteration, and certain socio-
economic uses including use of the area for recreational and commercial fishing and alteration of fish
habitats. As is described in detail in the sections that follow, surface sediments of the MDS and Study
Area appear to have gradually become less contaminated over the last two decades. In general, the Study
Area is characterized as having a heterogenous distribution of contaminants, and contaminant
concentrations and sediments from the MDS and Study Area could not be distinguished based on chemical
characteristics (Battelle, 1996a). Further, areas of elevated contamination are restricted to topographic
lows located primarily to the northeast and east of the MDS and in a narrow elongated basin extending
south-southeastward through the Study Area (Battelle, 1996a). Sediment toxicity testing using EPA and
USAGE dredged material testing methods indicate that some sediments in these areas are lexicologically
degraded (Battelle, 1996a).
On the basis of toxicity and chemical contaminants, marginally degraded and degraded sediments can be
found in the northeast portions of the MDS and contiguous areas to the northeast in the Study Area
(discussed further in Section 3.3.9) and in the basin west of the disposal mound. Other sediments in the
Study Area do not appear to be degraded.
Another potential impact from dredged material disposal at the MDS may include bioaccumulation of
contaminants in organisms. Bioaccumulation of some contaminants to unacceptable levels in the
hepatopancreas of lobsters collected from the vicinity of the Study Area has been documented (NOAA,
1996) (discussed further in Section 3.5.1). The source of the contaminants to the lobster has not been
clearly identified. The elevated levels are observed in lobsters from a broad area including locations
distant from the MDS. There are also several sources of contaminants to the area, including dredged
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-26
material disposed at the MDS, the Hudson River Plume outflow, and historical sewage sludge disposal at
the 12-Mile Site that was subsequently transported down the Hudson Shelf Valley. These sources have
been documented to contribute substantive amounts of contaminants to the New York Bight, and therefore
may influence the levels of these contaminants in these organisms. Because of the past history of disposal
in the Bight and continuing introduction of contaminants from sources other than dredged material, no one
source can be identified as the primary cause of the observed levels. Moreover, the relative historical
contribution of dredged material to the total input of contaminants and the bioavailability of associated
contaminants can not be assessed relative to these other sources.
No effects of the current disposal on sea traffic into New York/New Jersey Harbor have been reported or
recorded.
In summary, the primary physical impact of the dredged material disposal in the New York Bight Apex has
been changes to the original topography of the Study Area. Other impacts include elevated contaminant
levels in the fine-grained sediments found on and near the dredged material mound. The presence of
elevated levels of toxic and bioaccumulative contaminants in surface sediments is cause for concern. In
particular, contaminant bioaccumulation by infaunal organisms presents the potential for food
chain/trophic transfer and accompanying risk to seafood consumers. Elevated levels of PCBs and
dioxin/furan compounds in infauna species and lobster hepatopancreas samples collected from the vicinity
of the MDS show that these compounds can be found in these tissues. However, we can not identify
dredged material disposal at the MDS as the sole or major cause, given the proximity of the area to major
pollutant sources such as the Hudson River outflow. Finally, impact, either positive or negative, of
dredged material disposal on fishing activities within the area is not clearly definable (see NOAA NMFS
memo to Co-Chairs of the Site Closure Working Group, June 16,1995, Response to Questions). Fish and
shellfish resources throughout the Bight are impacted by shoreline habitat losses, overfishing,
eutrophication, and pollution from many sources. Many fish and shellfish species are migratory, or the
MDS area is only a small part of their foraging range. Possible fish and shellfish impacts from the disposal
site are masked by these other factors.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-27
3.3 Physical Environment
This section describes the physical attributes of the Study Area, including the geological setting, the
sedimentary make-up, the prevailing meteorological and oceanographic processes affecting the Study Area,
and the distribution of contaminants in the sediments and water column. Each of these factors is important
in determining the transport, dispersion, and fate of dredged material disposed in the Study Area as well as
any related effects on the physical environment.
33.1 Geological Setting [Section 228.6.(a)(l)]
Many of the physical and topographical features which characterize the New York Bight today are the
result of glacial and fluvial processes which took place during the appearance and subsequent recession of
Pleistocene epoch continental glaciers in southern New England. As these glaciers moved south toward
the Bight, they significantly altered the landscape, eroding land, rocks, and portions of the continental
shelf. With the end of the Ice Age, melting glaciers caused sea levels to rise inundating areas that were
previously dry and forming signature coast lines.
Apart from the Sandy-Hook - Rockaway transect and New York and New Jersey barrier beaches, the
Shrewsbury Rocks, located on the New Jersey coast near the Study Area, form the most significant
geological marker in the Bight These shoals, which extend in a northeasterly direction across the Bight
from the New Jersey shore, are comprised of eroded edges of coastal plain sedimentary strata (Williams,
1979). Williams and Duane (1974) state that the Shrewsbury Rocks "mark the demarcation between two
distinct geomorphic provinces." The area to the north of the rocks was significantly altered by flows from
the Raritan and Hudson Rivers that carried large volumes of sediment into the Bight during the glacial
recession (Williams, 1979). According to Williams (1979), this area "contains thick (-35m)
accumulations of Quaternary age sand and gravel overlying the deeply eroded Upper Cretaceous strata."
In contrast, the area to the south of the Shrewsbury Rocks received little sedimentary deposition and is
characterized by only a thin layer of Quaternary sediments (Williams, 1979). Stubblefield et al. (1977)
further summarize that the geological processes resulted in a "discontinuous sheet of relatively clean, well
sorted, coarse sand 0-8m in thickness (Swift et al., 1972)" that "grades downward into a thin basal unit of
coarse sand, gravel, and shell hash which is exposed at the surface where the sheet is thinnest." The
geological processes affecting the coastline are described by Williams (1979)
As sea level has risen during the past 10 to 15 millennia effects ofHolocene marine processes
have been superimposed. The Long Island coast is a low-relief relict sand plane where offshore
barrier islands and elongated spits predominate. The New Jersey Coastline is straight and
regular except for Sandy Hook spit which has grown and recurved during the Holocene epoch
into Lower New York Bay as a result of a large littoral drift to the north. (Williams, 1979)
A comparison of coastal features represented in bathymetry maps from the 1880s (see Williams, 1979)
with current NOAA navigation charts clearly shows the northward growth of Sandy Hook and the
westward growth of Rockaway Beach relative to coastlines of over 100 years ago. Landward transport of
fine sediments resuspended in the inner bight appears to contribute to sediment deposition in these areas
and in the Harbor (Stubblefield et al., 1977) and is consistent with the conclusions of Simpson et al.
(1976) that little or no sediment accumulates naturally in the Bight Apex.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-28
Lower
New York/
New Jersey
Harbor !
Scotland
Light *
^-•Chrtstiaensen Basin
'Study Ana
Shallow basil
(formed by
dredged material
disposal to east)
Shrewsbury
Rocks
fm \
i^^48&
-Mud Dump Site
Cellar Dirt Site
k Hudson Shelf Valley
Note: Bathymetry within the Study Area Is
1996 SMC (1 m contour Intervals) while
the bathymetry outside the study area Is
1995 USGS (2 m contour Intervals).
33.2 Physical Characteristics of
the Study Area [Section
228.10(b)(4)]
The extensive use of the New York
Bight Apex as a disposal area over the
last 100 or more years has led to major
changes in its physical character. It is
therefore necessary to characterize not
only the naturally occurring sediments
in the Study Area, but other surface
sediments that may be present due to
past dredged material disposal or other
disposal practices. Physical
characteristics discussed in these two
contexts include major bathymetric
features of the Bight Apex area, the
sediment type, texture, and organic
content of the sediment, the stability of
the bottom materials, and the
distribution of sediment types and
dredged material throughout the Study
Area.
Major Bathymetric Features: The
New York Bight Apex and Study Area
are characterized by several natural and
man-made topographic features.
Seaward of the New Jersey shore, the
continental shelf deepens in a relatively
smooth manner until it reaches 200m depth approximately 100 miles offshore. The shelf, which includes a
series of ridges and swales, is bisected from northwest to southeast by the Hudson Shelf Valley. The
valley extends from the entrance of New York Harbor across the New York Bight to the Continental Shelf.
The shallow northern portion of the Valley passes through the northern and eastern portions of the Study
Area. The Shrewsbury Rocks, which extend northeast from the New Jersey shore across the Bight, form a
second major feature of the inner Bight. These shoals are cut by the Hudson Shelf Canyon in the
southeastern portion of the Study Area. A third major natural feature in the Apex is the Christiaensen
Basin, a shallow depression in the seafloor north of the Hudson Shelf Valley that extends into the northeast
corner of the Study Area.
Man's impact on the general topography of this area is most evident in the topographically distinct dredged
material mound that has filled the upper most Hudson Shelf Valley near New York Harbor. This feature
extends as much as 12 meters above the historic seafloor in the northern and central portions of the Study
Area.
In addition to being the topographically significant, each of the major features discussed above has
distinctive sediment characteristics (grain size, carbon content, etc.) that are controlled by natural processes
and anthropogenic activities, and are important to the biological communities that inhabit the area. These
sediment characteristics are considered next from an historic perspective and as currently manifest.
Kilometers
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-29
Surface Sediment Grain Size (Texture): The natural surface sediments of the greater New York Bight are
characterized as a "sheet of sand up to 10 m thick with small areas of gravel and muddy sand" of quartz
and feldspars (Freeland and Swift, 1978). The surface sediments within the New York Bight are very
heterogeneous (Dayal et al., 1983), especially in the inner New York Bight landward of the Hudson Shelf
Valley. Typically, finer grained sediments (muddy sand) are associated with swales and other topographic
lows (Harris, 1976; Krom etal, 1985; SAIC, 1995a;1996a; 1996b; Battelle, 1996a). Dayal etal. (1983)
describe the historical (pre-disposal) sediments within the MDS and Study Area as quartzose sands that are
typical of the continental shelf of the New York Bight. They further indicate that the Mud Dump Site
(MDS) rests "directly on the once exposed green sand bed."
Surface sediment texture in the inner
New York Bight for the year 1973 is
represented in Figure 3-14. This map
shows that areas of muddy sands (5 to
50% mud) were present in the
Christiaensen Basin and in the
Hudson Shelf Valley during this
period (Freeland and Swift 1978).
These topographic lows were
surrounded by broad expanses of
sediment that are very sandy (<5%
mud). The latter are typical of
sediments described as pre-dumping
by Dayal et al. (1983). The map also
shows an area of coarse grained
sediment (<1% mud) southeast of the
entrance to New York Harbor. This
area coincides with the location of
dredged material disposed over the
previous 100 years.
Sourer. Fiwtand, StiUt, *nd Colt. In pn»
In a slightly more refined map of
surface sediment texture (Figure 3-
15), Freeland et al. (1979) show the
muddy sediments of the Christiaensen
Basin extending down the upper Hudson Shelf Valley. Also evident in this figure is a region of muddy
sand to the southwest of the Christiaensen Basin. This region is separated from the Christiaensen Basin by
an area dominated by sand. Further to the south, the surface sediments are sandy. The former cellar dirt
site, characterized as an area of sandy gravel and artifactual gravel on the western slope of the Hudson
Shelf Valley, is distinct in this figure. In addition, Freeland et al. (1979) characterize the Shrewsbury
Rocks region as an area of sandy gravel.
Figure 3-15 shows that the Study Area encompasses the sandy gravel areas reported in 1973 as well as the
regions of sandy mud near the historical and present MDS. The topographic information described
previously indicates that the sandy region separating the two sandy mud areas includes the historical
dredged material disposal mounds.
73-50' 73*45*
5-30 83% 30-50i
Figure 3-14. Representation of percent mud in the sediments of the New
York Bight Apex area as of 1973 (Freeland and Swift, 1978).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-30
Since the late 1970s, when the maps
shown in Figures 3-14 and 3-15 were
generated, disposal of dredged material
has further altered the surface sediment
texture in the area, especially that of the
MDS. Data compiled from studies
conducted in the early 1990s show that
the surface sediments in the MDS are
highly heterogeneous (Figure 3-16).
This distribution is consistent with the
disposal history in the site and recent
dredged material management
practices. For example, capping
operations conducted in 1993 to
manage Category n sediment disposed
in the southwestern portion of the MDS
created a large expanse of sandy
sediments in the southern third of the
MDS in 1992 (SAIC, 1995b).
74*00'W 73*55' 73*50' 73*45'
5-3OHSS
73*40'
73*35'
I I
30-501
Figure 3-15. Representation of percent mud in the sediments of the New
York Bight Apex area prior to 1976 (Freeland et aL, 1979). DS = dredged
material site; CD = cellar dirt; SS = sewage sludge.
Recently, side scan (SAIC,
1995a;1996a; 1996b) and grab sample
data (Battelle, 1996a; SAIC, 1996b)
continue to show an area of muddy
sediments west of the MDS (Figure 3-
16). This area coincides with the
muddy sand region noted in the above discussion of Freeland etai's (1979) results and is in the shallow
basin created west of the dredged material mound by dredged material disposal. Recent data also indicate
that the sediments in the Christiaensen Basin and the Hudson Shelf Valley remain muddy_sand (Figure 3-
16). Furthermore, the sandy areas in the northwestern and northern portions of the Study Area reported to
be void of fine grained sediments in 1973 by Freeland et al. (1979) are still present in the 1995 and 1996
data (Battelle, 1996a; SAIC, 1996b).
Detailed spatial distributions of the surface sediment texture are provided by side scan surveys (SAIC,
1995a; 1996a) and extensive mapping of the sediments with a sediment profile camera (McDowell, 1995).
These surveys show a complex set of surface sediment characteristics in the Study Area. For example,
sand wave and ripple fields tend to be concentrated in the southern portions of the Study Area, along the
eastern and southern slopes of the dredged material mounds in the MDS, east of the MDS along the head
of the Hudson Shelf Valley, and along the slopes of the dredged material mound in the northwest quadrant
of the Study Area (SAIC, 1995a) (Figure 3-17). Individual occurrences of large rocks (>2 m in size) or
rock piles are scattered throughout the Study Area. Outcrops are found throughout the Study Area, but are
particularly evident in the former Cellar Dirt Site (Figure 3-18). This area is distinctive in that it has a high
acoustic reflectance signature, which is indicative of rocks or other hard features that reflect sound waves,
rather than absorb acoustic energy (e.g., smooth soft sediment). The high reflectance surface extends to
the north and south of the Cellar Dirt Site and along the eastern flank of the dredged material mound in the
MDS (Figure 3-19). Large low-reflectance bottom areas are also evident in the side scan records. These
areas include the deep water in the extreme southeast portion of the MDS, the shallow basin west of the
dredged material mound, and areas within the MDS that have recently been disposed on or capped with
sand (SAIC, 1995a; 1996a).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-31
\ \ I
73 55' W
40 27 N
I
73 48' W
1996 Bathymetry
/\/ < 20 meters
/V 20 meters
/\/ > 20 meters
Percent Fines
o 0-10
© 10-40
• 40-70
• 70-100
73 55' W
I
I
I
I
40 20' N
73 48' W
I
Figure 3-16. Compilation of surface sediment grain size data for stations in the Study Area
sampled from 1990 through 1996.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-32
Ripples '—'
Sand Waves A
40° 2S'-\
40° 24'H
40°23'H
40° 22'~\
40° 21'
40° 20
73° 52' 73° 51' 73° 50' 73° 49'
0 4km
Figure 3-17. Locations of ripple and sand fields identified in Subarea 1 of
the Study Area by side scan (SAIC, 1995a). Areas identified
with these features are superimposed on the 1995 bathymetric
data.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-33
40° 25'-
40° 24'-
40° 23'-
40° 22'-
Rocks
40° 21'-
40° 20
73° 52' 73° 51' 73° 50' 73° 49'
4km
Figure 3-18. Locations of large rocks (>2 m) in Subarea 1 identified from
side scan data obtained in 1995 (SAIC, 1995a).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-34
Irregular Seafloor
40° 25'-
40° 24
40° 23'-
73° 52' 73° 51* 73° 50' 73° 49'
40° 22'-
40° 21'--
40° 20'-
0 4km
Figure 3-19. Areas with irregular seafloor in Subarea 1 identified by side
scan surveys of 1995 (SAIC, 1995a).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-35
Validation of this remotely sensed textural data can be seen in the surface sediment grain-size distribution
obtained from grab samples collected during surveys conducted from 1990 through 1996 (Figure 3-16), as
well as detailed sediment profile images collected in October 1995 (McDowell, 1995) (Figure 3-20).
These recent data demonstrate that areas no longer actively receiving dredged material (historic mound in
the north-central and northwest portions of the Study Area) have relatively consistent grain size
distributions (Figure 3-20). Finer grained surface sediments are generally found at the fringes of the
dredged material disposal mound (McDowell, 1995) and in the shallow basins.
Grain Size Distributions in the Dredged Material Mounds: Vertically, sediments in the historical
disposal mound have been found to be heterogeneous, consistent with the recorded disposal and site
management operations history of the area. Dayal et al. (1981;1983) describe the sediments in the dredged
material mound as being composed of various thicknesses of laminated sediments, especially in the center
of the mound. The sediment in the mound, based on core samples obtained in 1973, is described as "black
mud that frequently ranges to sandy mud (Dayal et al., 1983)." Much of this material was high in organic
content and also had identifiable artifactual materials such as sludge, broken concrete, spent caustic soda
ash, coal fragments, wood cinders, metal and rust flakes, glass shards, and other man-made items. Red
clay material typical of Newark Harbor was found as lamination, balls of contorted clay, and in beds up to
25-cm thick (Dayal et al., 1981). Dayal et al. (1983) provide the following summary of the dredged
sediments sampled in 1973.
"The sediments of the dredged-material deposit are composed of a variety of sediment types,
which can be classified as quartzose and glauconitic sands, muds, sandy muds, gravel
intermixed with muds, and artifactual material such as coal and fly ash, wood, slag, metal
flakes, glass, and so on. Black sandy mud is characteristic of dredged material whereas
glauconitic and gravelly quartzose sands are typical of the natural underlying deposit in
surrounding areas." (Dayal et al., 1981).
Geotechnical surveys of the subbottom characteristics of the inner New York Bight, conducted by the
USGS in 1995, found a loss of signature in the MDS and other areas that have historically received
dredged material (William Schwab, USGS, Woods Hole, MA, personal communication, November 1995).
The loss of signal is consistent with a heterogeneous, poorly sorted sediment.
Surface Sediment Organic Carbon Content: The organic carbon content of sediment can significantly
influence the chemical and biological conditions of sediment (Steimle, 1990; Steimle et al., 1982).
Although the distribution of organic carbon in the sediment is strongly affected by grain size distributions,
it is the organic content of the sediments that often influences chemical concentrations in the sediments
(Hunt, 1979; Dayal, etal, 1981;1983; Krom etal, 1985; Steimle etal, 1982; Battelle, 1996a) as well as
the biological community (Wilber and Will, 1994; Battelle, 1996a).
Generally, increasing levels of organic carbon in the surface sediments correlates with increasing amounts
of fine grained sediment fractions (Figure 3-21). In recently collected sediments from the MDS and Study
Area (Battelle, 1996a), the strength of this correlation was very strong (r2 = 0.92). The lowest organic
matter content in the sediments is associated with sediments having the highest fraction of sand, while the
highest organic matter content correlates to sediments with high fine grained content
Areas of high fine grained sediments are generally located on the eastern side of the MDS and immediately
adjacent areas in the Hudson Shelf Valley and Christiaensen Basin and the shallow basin in the west-
central portion of the Study Area, Generally, the highest organic carbon concentrations in sediments from
the Study Area are found in the topographic lows found in the region (Figure 3-22).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page3-36
Sediment Grain Sizes - October 1995
26'-
4O°25'-<
4O°24'-
4O° 23'-
4O° 22'-
4O° 21 —
4O°20'-
73° 53' 73° 52' 73° 51' 73C 50' 73° 49'
EP*
0 1 km 2 km
0 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 4O
4O to 1OO
2O to 4O
«O to 100
Figure 3-20. Grain size major mode distribution in the Study Area
(Subarea 1) measured in October 1995 (SAIC, 1996).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-37
4.0
3.5-
3.0-
2.0-
1.5-
1.0-
0.5-
n«13
y»0.03B6*+0.1351
r* = 0.8358
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mud(%)
4.0
3.5-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.0
Figure 3-21. Correlation between mud content and organic carbon content of surface sediments (upper 10
cm) from the Study Area (BatteOe, 1996a). The correlation statistics shown are for samples
collected in October 1994. Samples collected in January 1996 are shown as open circles for
comparative purposes.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-38
1 '
73 48' W
1 T
73 55' W
40 27' N
1996, Bathymetry
/\/ <20 meters
/V 20 meters
A./ > 20 meters
Percent TOC
o 0 - 0.25
© 0.25-1.25
• 1.25-2.25
• > 2.25
73 55' W
1
1
40 20' N
73 48' W
J_ .
Figure 3-22. Spatial distribution of total organic carbon in the surface sediments from the Study
Area. Data are from surveys conducted between 1990 and 1995 (Battelle, 1996a; Charles
and Muramoto, 1991; SAIC, 1995d). Results are superimposed on the bathymetry of the
Study Area measured in 1995/1996 (SAIC, 1996a).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-39
MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
for New Jersey
3.3.3 Meteorology and River Runoff [Section 228.6(a)(6)]
The coastal maritime weather of the New York Bight is characterized by a climate of extremes typical of
the Northeast U.S. with hot summers and cold, stormy winters. Offshore air temperatures for the area
range from a mean monthly low in February of 1 °C to a high in July of 22°C; extremes in the collected
hourly temperature range from -19°C to 34°C. Weather conditions are variable in the fall and winter with
a series of storms producing strong winds and high seas; weather conditions are more stable in the summer.
Prevailing winds in the fall and winter tend to be out of the northwest, but stormy northeasterlies are not
uncommon. These two to three-day
northeast storms produce severe
conditions offshore with high winds,
cold rain, and steep seas due to the open
fetch to the northeast. Prevailing winds
in the summer are southerly, increasing
in mid-morning to rarely greater than 20
knots and usually dying down at dusk.
The area experiences considerable
rainfall throughout the year with a slight
seasonal low in the winter months.
Mean monthly precipitation ranges from
about 3 to 4.5 inches (Figure 3-23).
Offshore fog is not common, but can be
produced during spring when a warm
moist southerly flow of air passes over
cold ocean water.
CO
UJ
I
i ii i ini i II
ii ii
m ii ii ii ii ii ii ii n ii
ii n n n n n u n n
n n n i n n n n n
n n u i n ii ii ii ii
n ii n i n n u n u
ii n ii i u n n n u
n n u i nun n n
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
Figure 3-23. Mean monthly precipitation received over New Jersey.
Data are from the National Weather Service.
Winds in the area of the New York
Bight are an important influence on the Study Area since they generate surface waves and affect the water
column characteristics and flow throughout the waters of the continental shelf (Beardsley et al, 1976). For
instance, the breakdown of the water-column thermal stratification, which occurs in the fall, is in large part
forced by the storm winds of the fall. The average current flow over the continental shelf of the New York
Bight is toward the south-southwest at about 5 cm/s near the surface. These currents decrease to about 1
cm/s near the bottom (Mayer et al., 1979). These currents are forced by intense low pressure northeasterly
atmospheric systems in the winter. However, the occurrence of energetic wind-driven transient current
events, primarily during the winter months, significantly alter the mean flow pattern.
The National Weather Service maintains offshore meteorological buoys and platforms throughout the
coastal and offshore waters of the United States. In the New York Bight, four meteorological stations exist
and have been maintained for the last 10 to 20 years. They include weather buoy 44025 at
40.3°N/73.2°W, south of Fire Island, NY; weather buoy 44008 at 40.5°N/69.4°W, south of Nantucket;
weather buoy 44009 at 38.5 "N/74.7 ° W, southeast of Cape May, NJ; and the Ambrose Light platform
ALSN6at 40.5°/73.8°W.
The Ambrose Light platform, located less than 10 km from the Study Area, is the closest weather station.
Data from Ambrose are presented for the period from November 1984 through December 1993 in Figures
3-24 and 3-25. The large-scale wind and wave patterns recorded at the Ambrose Light Platform are similar
to data from the other three meteorological stations. Wind speeds are strongest during the fall and winter
months with winds exceeding 30 knots greater than 5% of the time in November, December, January and
February. Wind speeds peak in December when winds exceed 30 knots more than 6% of the time. During
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-40
MEAN MONTHLY AIR TEMPERATURE
11/1984-12/1993
O
CO 15
IT
CD i
_i in
ni ii in
i u ii ii i
i u u u u n i
m ii ii u ii ii in
i u u u u u u u i
ni u u u u u u u in
I II U II II II II II II II I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MEAN MONTHLY SEA TEMPERATURE
11/1984-12/1993
O
05 15
111
LLJ
IT
310
i n u i
.1 UNI.
_i n n n n L_
ni ii ii ii ii in.
i n IMI n u u in
i n u ii n n u n ii
i mi n u n ii n n ii » »
i u u n u n H n u u n n
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AIK5 SEP OCT NOV DEC
WIND SPEED EXCEEDING 30 KNOTS
11/1984-12/1993
Ill
z"
2
= 6.0%4
111
Uo.
CC JAN
in
n in
n » i
n n i
u ii i
n n i
n n in
n ii ii i
u ii n i
n ii n in
ii n ii n i
n n i
i n n i
i n n n i
ni u u n i
n ii n ii n 11
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
DOMINANT MONTHLY WIND DIRECTION
11/1984-12/1993
315
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-41
AVERAGE WIND SPEED VS AVERAGE WIND DIR
DECEMBER, JANUARY. FEBRUARY
WIND DIRECTION
WIND SPEED (KN)
LESS THAN
AVERAGE WIND SPEED VS AVERAGE WIND DIR
MARCH, APRIL, MAY
WIND DIRECTION
WIND SPEED (KN)
LESS THAN
AVERAGE WIND SPEED VS AVERAGE WIND DIR
JUNE, JULY, AUGUST
WIND DIRECTION
WIND SPEED (KN)
LESS THAN
AVERAGE WIND SPEED VS AVERAGE WIND DIR
SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER
WIND DIRECTION
WIND SPEED (KN)
LESS THAN
Figure 3-25. Comparison of average wind speed and direction by calendar quarter at the Ambrose
Light Platform. Each panel depicts the frequency of occurrence for a given wind speed
and direction.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-42
these months, the predominant wind direction is out of the northwest. During March and April winds are
more southerly but still strong. March winds exceed 30 knots over 4.5% of the time. Resulting waves are
a function of both wind speed and direction as the fetch is limited to the east and north at Ambrose Light
and in the Study Area. With predominant winds out of the northwest during the winter, the average
monthly wave heights are lower than during the spring when predominant winds are weaker but southerly.
The most common occurrence of high waves is in March and December with wave heights exceeding 2 m
greater than 5% of the time. Long period swell (wave periods exceeding 12.5 sec) results from either
severe local storms or storms offshore in the north Atlantic. Long period swell occurs most often in the
spring and in the October to December period.
The Hudson and Connecticut Rivers are the two largest sources of fresh water in the Northeast United
States. Together they significantly affect the salinity distribution and circulation of the apex of the New
York Bight and the Study Area. Ketchum and Keen (1955) showed that the total annual discharge of the
Hudson and other rivers displaces a volume of water equal to 50% of the total volume of the Bight apex.
This is quickly dispersed by active circulation in the Bight (residence time of fresh water equals 6 to 10
days). The mean discharge of the Hudson River at Poughkeepsie is about 560 m3/s (Bowman and
Wunderlich, 1977); about half of the annual discharge occurs between the months of February and March.
Figure 3-26 presents the mean monthly discharges of the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers. The Hudson
River discharge peaks in April, with a monthly mean flow of 750 m3/s, and is lowest in August when the
mean is only 175 mVs. The mean discharge of the Connecticut River at Thompsonville, Connecticut is
about 530 m3/s. The discharge peaks in April, with a mean flow of 1275 mVs, and is lowest in July when
the mean flow is only 200 m3/s. The mean monthly flow on either of these rivers may vary by as much as
a factor of 10 from year to year. The effect of the seasonal variation of the Hudson and Connecticut River
discharge rates on the hydrographic properties in the apex of the New York Bight and the Study Area are
presented in Section 3.3.10.
§600
o
MONTHLY MEAN RIVER DISCHARGE
HUDSON RIVER AT GREEN ISLAND, NY
. ii in
i n n
. .1 n n n
i ii ii ii n n
nn
i n
i n n
i n n n n n inm n n n i
i n n n n n n n H n n n i
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUQ SEP OCT NOV DEC
Jan. 1983 to Jan. 1993
•o1200
§1000
CO
m soo
a.
S eoo
u «x>
•§
O 200
MONTHLY MEAN RIVER DISCHARGE
CONNECTICUT RIVER AT THOMPSONVILLE, CT
I I
I I
I II I
I ii in
i ii ii i
i ii ii i
ii ii ii ii i
i ii ii n ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii
i n n n n n n n n n n n
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Jan. 1989 to Sept. 1993
Figure 3-26. Monthly mean river discharge from the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers. These rivers
together contribute the majority of the fresh water flow into the New York Bight
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-43
3.3.4 Physical Oceanography [Sections 228.6.(a)(l) and 228.6.(a)(6)]
The transport, dispersion, and eventual fate of dredged material released into the marine environment
depends both upon the physical characteristics of the dredged material and the structure and dynamics of
the water column. The physical parameters which are important in the transport and dispersion of dredged
material, either during or subsequent to disposal, include ocean currents, waves (storms), and the density
structure of the water column. Currents (including tides, density-driven, and wind-driven currents) directly
affect the transport and dispersion of dredged material. In shallow water, waves can resuspend sediments
and dredged material particles previously deposited on the sea floor for subsequent transport by local
currents. The density structure of the receiving water, relative to the density of the released dredged
material, influences how long the dredged material remains in the water column. In this section, these
parameters are characterized for the Study Area from historical data.
33.4.1 Regional Circulation Pattern
The Study Area is located on the shallow continental shelf within the New York Bight. The general
structure of current velocity in the Middle Atlantic Bight has been extensively described by previous
investigators (see review by Beardsley and Boicourt, 1981). Beardsley and Boicourt (1981) have shown
that the structure of circulation is quite complex with great temporal and regional variability. Low
frequency meteorological forcing (over 3 to 10 day periods) is responsible for much of the current
fluctuation over the continental shelf. During the spring and summer, when the wind energy is much
diminished and the water column is stratified, the maximum energy in the water column shifts from being
primarily influenced by meteorological conditions to being influenced by inertia! and tidal energy (Mayer,
1982). The amplitude of the semidiurnal forcing also decreases in the offshore direction during this period
(Beardsley and Boicourt, 1981). Generally, the magnitude of the currents increases with distance offshore
and decreases with depth (Beardsley
and Boicourt, 1981).
42
The mean flow of the water column,
based on long-term current meter
moorings on the Atlantic shelf, is
towards the southwest along depth
contours through the New York Bight
(Figure 3-27). Average speeds are 2 to
4 cm/s. Mean water residence time in
New York Bight is approximately 9
months. Figure 3-28, redrawn from
Beardsley, etal. (1976), summarizes
over 20 long-term current meter
mooring instrument records in the
Middle Atlantic Bight Mayer et al.
(1979), using long-term mooring data at
a 47 m water depth, observed that the
mean surface flow in the Bight was 4-6
cm/s, veering to the west with
increasing depth. At 1 m above the
bottom, the mean flow was less than 1
cm/s. Superimposed on slow mean
drift are fluctuations in current speed
and direction caused by storm systems
41
140
3
39
38
TRANSPORT
25 m«g2/s
a"""4 * Proidence •
Newirk
-"•'••'/ "'
'• • >,V^I* ' /• x .'-x"
-.'•/»;/ X /-
-.:•//' ''/^
/ i X
• , , , • t V-
;*'"'
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-44
with peak flows measured at 40cm/s
sustained (Mayer et al., 1979) and by
the regular to-and-fro motions of the
astronomical tides in shallow water. A
significant aspect of the mean flow over
the inner Bight is a shoreward velocity
component in the bottom boundary
layer (Beardsley, et al., 1976).
Numerous current meter measurements
made in the shallow water of the Bight
at heights of 1-5 m above the bottom all
show a shoreward component of the
flow when averaged over the long term.
This is a wind-driven effect which will
be discussed further.
Like all water bodies, the Bight
responds to the frictional drag of local
wind on the water surface. The wind
stress in the Bight tends to be directed
offshore during winter when it is at its
maximum. In summer, the wind stress
is directed more alongshore from the
southwest. These wind-driven flows
are most important to the sediment
transport climate, as the majority of
sediment transport occurs during large
Figure 3-28. Mean current vectors from current meters moored in the Storms when wind Stress is highest and
Middle Atlantic Bight region. Vectors show the direction and speed (cm/s) of wave heights are their largest. It is well
documented (Beardsley and Boicourt,
1981) that the mean south westward
circulation is dramatically altered by weather
events, particularly cyclonic winter storms.
Southwestward flow is greatly enhanced by
winter northeasterly storm events on the shelf.
Beardsley and Boicourt (1981) showed that
strong winter storms could produce along-
isobath currents from 20 to 50 cm/s in the mid-
shelf region. Mayer et al. (1982) found that
during periods of sustained wind stress directed
from the northeast (January 1976 and
November 1976 through January 1977),
upwelling occurred in the apex of the Bight as
the near-bottom water flowed upshelf. This
effect was found to be enhanced in the Hudson
Shelf Valley. Han and Mayer (1981) found
offshore bottom layer flow only in response to
Figure 3-29. Tidal ellipses (Mj) from 17 moorings located in the northward wind Stresses.
New York Bight (Mayer, 1982). Starting phase is indicated with
the single vector. All motions are clockwise.
the currents during the winter (solid arrows) and summer (dashed arrows).
Circles indicate station numbers (figure from Beardsley et al., 1976).
- 39-
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-45
The semidiurnal tidal current energy can represent a substantial percentage (10-80%) of the total energy on
the continental shelf in the New York Bight (Mayer et al., 1982), and the M2 tide (the principal lunar
semidiurnal component of the tidal forces) accounts for approximately 80% of the semidiurnal energy
(Mayer et al., 1979 as cited in Mayer et al. 1982). M2 tidal ellipses are plotted for 17 locations in the
Bight in Figure 3-29 (after Mayer, 1982). Tidal currents associated with the M2 tide are clockwise with
the major axis if the tidal ellipses are oriented roughly perpendicular to the isobaths. The ellipses are
thinner nearer shore and are directed into the mouth of the Hudson. Peak ebb and flood tide flows are
approximately 10-15 cm/s.
3.3.4.2 Study Area Region Specific Currents
SAIC (1995c; 1993b;c), measured near bottom currents at the MDS during the winter (November 1992 to
March 1993) and the summer (June through September 1993) as part of a sediment capping study. The
following discussion, modified from SAIC (1993b;c), summarizes the information relative to observed
near-bottom currents in the Study Area.
Mean currents during the winter deployment at three bottom tripod locations were weak (< 16 cm/s) for the
majority (>78%) of the observations (Figure 3-30). Mean current speeds exceeded 32 cm/s only 1-3% of
the time for all records. The predominant near-bottom flow was northward (300°-30°) SAIC (1993b).
During summer (Figure 3-31) the mean currents were weak, ranging from 6 to 9 cm/s. Less than 3% of the
observed current speeds of all three sites were greater than 20 cm/s, with flow direction variable. The
semidiurnal M2 tidal constituent was responsible for the majority of the fluctuations in the current records
for periods less than 3 days. The oscillatory tidal currents were primarily bi-directional and oriented
northwest-southeast with peak ebb and flood current values of 6-8 cm/s. Low frequency current
fluctuations (greater than 3 days) during winter were probably associated with wind forcing with current
velocities up to 20 cm/s.
3.3.4.3 Wave Climate
Near-bottom currents in the Study Area are rarely energetic enough to initiate the resuspension and
transport of bottom sediment. Large waves, on the other hand, are occasionally large enough and long
enough to penetrate to the bottom. These waves can enhance the bottom shear stress and resuspend the
deposited sediments, but by themselves do not result in net transport of sediments as the to-and-fro wave
motions are essentially closed ellipses. However, when a mean near bottom current velocity is
superimposed on the wave velocities, sediment transport results.
Figure 3-32 summarizes the wave climate in the area of the Study Area. Data are from the National
Weather Service offshore meteorological platform at Ambrose Light (ALSN6) located at 40.5°/73.8°W,
for the period November 1984 through December 1993. Figure 3-32 shows the frequency of occurrence of
waves which exceed 1 meter, 2 meters, and 3 meters in height The highest waves were recorded during
the winter months and in the early spring with waves exceeding 2.0 m about 4% of the time and 3.0 m
about 1% of the time. The most common occurrence of high waves is in March and December with wave
height exceeding 2 m greater than 5% of the time. The prevailing direction of waves in the region follows
the prevailing wind directions, from the northwest in fall and winter and from the south in spring and
summer. Additional data show mean monthly significant wave heights of 0.9 m for the nine year period
ending in December 1993. The maximum recorded waves were measured at a significant wave height of
7.3 m. During the winter months the predominant wind direction is out of the northwest where the fetch
is limited. During March and April winds are weaker but more southerly. The unlimited fetch generates
large waves with long periods. The dominant wave periods exceed 12.5 seconds over 4% of the time in
April as well as October and December.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-46
CURRENT
VECTOR I
(cm/s) -
«%J
WATER E
LEVEL ::
(dbar) «J
WATER
TEMPERATURE
SIG. WAVE HT.
(m)
CURRENT .
VECTOR 2
(cm/s) £
WATER Ei
LEVEL
(dbar) •»-<
SHALLOW
SITE
WATER
TEMPERATURE
SIG. WAVE HT.
(m)
CURRENT
VECTOR
(cm/s)
WATER
LEVEL
(dbar)
WATER
TEMPERATURE
(OQ
SIG. WAVE HT.
(m)
MID-DEPTH
SITE
DEEP
SITE
Figure 3-30. Time series current vectors and hourly bottom pressure, water temperature, and
significant wave height from November 1992 through March 1993 at the MDS. Data
from three depths are shown; upper is shallow; middle is mid-depth; lower is a deep site
(SAIC, 1993b). Northward flowing currents are represented by a stick oriented upward;
the strength of the current is represented by the length of the stick (SAIC, 1993c).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-47
SITE-A
AUGUST
Figure 3-31. Current vectors from June through September 1993 at three sites in
the vicinity of the MDS. Northward flowing currents are represented by a stick oriented
upward; the strength of the current is represented by the length of the stick (S AIC,
1993c).
Of primary concern in this analysis are near-bottom wave orbital velocities, since they provide the energy
to resuspend bottom sediments. In most areas of the continental shelf in the New York Bight, threshold
erosion velocities for sandy substrate, ranging from 12 to 40 cm/s, are only exceeded by the steady
component of flow for relatively short periods during storms. Peak wave orbital velocities just above the
bottom depend upon the water depth, wave height and period. Water depths in the Study Area range from
16 to 40 m. Table 3-5 shows peak near-bottom wave orbital velocities for waves in the height and period
range measured at Ambrose Light over depths found at the Study Area. Waves of height 2.0 m, which
occur over 5% for the time during the winter months, with a 10 second period, will result in 43 cm/s orbital
bottom velocities at 24 m water depth.
Table 3-5. Peak
near-bottom wave orbital velocity.
Peak Near-Bottom Wave Orbital Velocity (cm/s)
Water Depth (m)
Wave Period (sec)
Wave Height (m) 1.0
16 24
24 32
32 40
40 6
8
2.0
52
32
20
12
3.0
78
48
30
19
1.0
31
22
16
12
10
2.0
61
43
32
23
3.0
92
65
47
35
1.0
33
25
19
15
12
2.0
67
50
39
31
3.0
100
74
58
46
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page S-4S
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT EXCEEDING 1.0M
11/1984-12/1993
DOMINANT WAVE PERIOD EXCEEDING 6SEC
11/1984-12/1993
cc
o25*
o
o
U.20%
O
O 15%.
Ill
O"*
01
SE
rni ii n i
i n n ii i
i ii u u in
i n n u n i
i n u n n i
i n ii
i n u u mHHMsi ii ii
i!! B!!!! BBRR i
i:::::: n n in a a 11
n n u n n n n u n n u ii
UJ
O o%4 , - , —-.--,
DC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Q.
75%.
O
070%.
O60%
II II I
II II II
II II II
II II II
II II II IHM II II I
II II II ami II II I
II II II II II HHI II II I
U II II II II IIHI II H II II
n ii ii ii ii irti ii ii ii ii
II II II II II II II II II II II
II II II II II II II II II II II
II II II II II II II II II II II
II II II II II II II II II II II
HI
O40%4
CC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
UJ
Q_
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT EXCEEDING 2.0M
11/1984-12/1993
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
DOMINANT WAVE PERIOD EXCEEDING 10SEC
11/1984-12/1993
cc
330%
O25%
U.
>_20%
O
o
UJ10%
cc
I
I
II II II ir—ir—iBBi ii n u u
II II II II II IMI II II II II
n ii n n n immi u n n n
n II n n n u n II n u n
n n n n n n n n n n
UJ
o o%4
EC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Q.
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT EXCEEDING 3.0M
11/1984-12/1993
u. 2*
MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
DOMINANT WAVE PERIOD EXCEEDING 12.5SEC
11/1984-12/1993
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 3-32. Significant wave heights and dominant wave periods in the vicinity of the MDS from
1984 through 1993. Data is from the National Weather Service's offshore meteorological
platform at Ambrose Light (ALSN6). The first column represents frequency of occurrence
of significant wave heights (percent of all waves that exceed 1, 2, and 3 m height). The
second column represents the frequency of occurrence of the dominant wave period (percent
of all wave periods that exceed 6,10, and 12.5 seconds) during each month of the year.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-49
333 Sediment Transport [Section 228.6(a)(6)]
Dredged material particles may be transported horizontally in one of two ways. They may be carried by
local currents while still in the water column immediately after disposal, or they may be deposited on the
sea floor and then periodically resuspended into the water column and carried by the currents. Near-
bottom currents in the Study Area are rarely strong enough to resuspend and transport deposited sediments.
However, large waves associated with storms are occasionally large enough and long enough to resuspend
the bottom sediments. Conditions which may lead to sediment resuspension and transport are considered
below.
33.6 Plume Transport [Sections 228.5(b) and 22S.6(a)(6)]
During release of a volume of dredged material from a barge into the water column, the behavior of the
plume follows three phases: convective descent, during which the plume settles under the influence of
gravity; dynamic collapse, occurring when the descending plume
impacts the bottom or reaches a neutrally buoyant position in the water
column and diffuses due to its own momentum; and passive diffusion,
beginning when transport and diffusion of the plume are caused more by
the ambient oceanographic conditions (currents and turbulence) than by
the dynamics of the plume body (Scorer, 1957; Woodward, 1959;
Csanady, 1973; Brandsma and Divoky, 1976; Tsai and Proni, 1985;
Ecker and Downing, 1987; Kraus, 1991). This analysis is somewhat
idealized, but it contains all the important hydrodynamic elements of the
physical process. See Figure 3-33.
Convective
Descent
During the convective descent phase, the dredged-material plume
maintains its identity as a single plume by the formation of a vortex ring
structure. This analysis done by Brandsma and Divoky (1976) was
based on Scorer's (1957) and Woodward's (1959) treatment of a
buoyant plume composed entirely of fluid. These studies showed that
once released, the plume will descend due to its initial momentum and
its negative buoyancy. During its descent, it experiences drag from the
ambient fluid that it is displacing. The plume grows as the receiving
water is entrained, and the suspended sediment concentration is reduced
by the drag due to the turbulence and subsequent dilution. The
convective descent phase will typically last only a few seconds to
minutes in shallow water.
If the plume immediately impacts the bottom, the dynamic collapse
phase occurs as the plume impacts the bottom and momentum spreads
the plume horizontally. In shallow water, dredged materials have
sufficient momentum to travel hundreds of meters laterally after impact
with the bottom. If, while mixing with the receiving water the plume's
density approaches the local density, the plume may reach the depth of
neutral buoyancy before hitting the bottom. This is more likely to occur
under conditions of a stratified water column. In this case, the dynamic
collapse phase is somewhat different The plume's downward vertical momentum will tend to make it
overshoot the neutral buoyant depth. The plume will then tend to rise to the depth of neutral buoyancy.
The result is decaying vertical oscillations around the depth of neutral buoyancy. These oscillations
Passive
Diffusion
(Diffusive Spreading
Greater Than
Dynsmic Spreading)
Figure 3-33. Illustration of idealized
dredged material plume behavior.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment ^ Page 3-50
increase the turbulence and increase the speed with which the plume tends to collapse vertically and spread
out horizontally as it seeks hydrostatic equilibrium. Studies have shown that dredged material plumes
released in shallow water (<25 m) usually experience dynamic collapse by impacting the bottom as their
initial momentum is too great to be overcome by the plume buoyancy.
The final phase is the period of passive diffusion which occurs when transport and diffusion of the plume
are caused more by the ambient oceanographic conditions (currents and turbulence) than by the momentum
of the plume itself. Passive diffusion is the long-term dispersion and transport of the plume in which the
cloud is passively carried by the local currents while undergoing gaussian diffusion. It operates on time
scales of hours to days.
Kraus (1991) reported on measurements of 18 disposal events at a dredged material site in the Gulf of
Mexico off Mobile, Alabama. Discharge volumes ranged from 500 to 5,000 cubic yards per release in
shallow depths (15 to 20 m). Plume tracking was conducted using acoustic methods. Discrete water
samples were also collected. Plume spreading during the convective descent phase was typically observed
to be 100 to 200 m; plume spread during the passive diffusion phase was several hundreds of meters.
A field study of the dredged material disposal plume dynamics at the MDS in the New York Bight (water
depth approximately 28 m) was reported by Dragos and Peven (1994). Several plumes from 4,000-6,000
cubic yard discharges were tracked for up to 2*/z hrs. Within approximately 15 min (well past the
convective descent phase), initial dilutions of approximately 3,000:1 to 600,000:1 were reached (based on
dioxin and TSS analyses). At that time, plume spreading was generally less than 500 m. Turbidity from
the plumes was observed in the water column until about 2 hours after the disposal event. During this
period, the plumes were carried by local currents up to about 1 km from the discharge point.
Low concentrations of suspended fine dredged material particles may persist for several hours in the water
column during which they will be passively diffused. Because of the complicated nature of the circulation
in the Study Area (see Section 3.3.4), including the two layer effect of stratified conditions during the
summer, it is difficult to make simple calculations regarding the transport of fine dredged material during
the passive diffusion phase. Since the disposal plume may be buoyant and may be entering a stratified
system, the passively diffusing plume may be trapped below the thermocline or at the surface. The water
above and below the thermocline may be moving in two different directions. However, considering the
results of the field observations of disposal plume dynamics reported above, it is unlikely that fine particles
from discharge events will extend beyond 1 km from the discharge point
33.7 Sediment Resuspension and Transport [Section 228.6(a)(6)]
The transport of bottom sediments in the New York Bight primarily occurs when occasional storm events
generate near-bottom oscillatory currents which, combined with the mean currents, produce conditions
under which bedload and suspended-load transport can occur. In the vicinity of the Study Area, a few
annual storm events account for the major transport of bottom sediments (Manning et al., 1994; Vincent et
al, 1981). When these infrequent, storm driven events occur, they lift deposited sediments and inject them
into the water column forming a turbid, near-bottom layer. This turbid layer can be several meters thick
and is the layer in which sediment transport occurs.
Manning et al. (1994) documented storm-driven resuspension and transport of sediments in the vicinity of
the New York Bight 12-Mile sewage sludge dump site, which included the northeast portion of the Study
Area. Current meter moorings were deployed in water depths ranging from 20 m to 53 m from July 1986
through June 1989 (Figure 3-34). Eight usable near-bottom current records ranging from one month to one
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-51
year in duration were analyzed. The
continental shelf bottom boundary layer
model of Glenn and Grant, 1987, was
used to estimate resuspended sediment
transport based on the measured near-
bottom currents and wave data recorded
at the Ambrose Light Platform. Results
indicated that sediment resuspension
occurs at the current meter sites
approximately 5% of the time, primarily
during winter months. Deposition and
erosion varied primarily with depth;
areas of erosion were generally
shallower than 20 to 25 m and
depositional areas associated with the
deeper depressions of the Hudson Shelf
Valley and the Christiaensen Basin (see
Figure 3-35). Quarterly side scan and
bathymetry studies conducted by
Stubblefield et al. (1977) from the New
Jersey shore across the northern third of . f
, , i_ „ , ,- ,„,,.,„ (Manning et aL, 1994). Moonng location No. 2 was located within borders of
the MDS to the former 12-Mile Sewage ^ Study ^^
sludge Disposal Site in 1974 and 1975
tend to confirm these results. This study found that the sea floor in this area showed a "remarkable degree
of bottom stability" which persuaded these investigators to conclude that the bottom in the area is in a state
of textural equilibrium with the hydraulic climate (wave and current fields). They concluded that muddy
sediments, those most likely to be transported by bottom currents and resuspension events, can only exist at
depths greater than 24 m in this area.
Vincent et al. (1981) estimated the potential sediment transport rate from current meter records in the
vicinity of the Study Area. Their findings are summarized in Figure 3-36. The role of oscillatory currents
in the resuspending sediment was considered but not explicitly included in the sediment transport
calculation. However, since transport of material suspended in the water column is only through mean
currents, the potential sediment transport pattern shown in Figure 3-36 is illustrative of the overall
movement of fine bottom sediments in the area of the Study Area. The transport potential shows a
bidirectional character consistent with the mean currents. The average transport shows two distinct
transport patterns: net northward transport in the Hudson Shelf Valley and net southward transport
everywhere else. This effect, combined with the depth of the Hudson Shelf Valley and Christiaensen Basin
means that the Shelf Valley acts as a sink for the general net southwestward transport of sediment along
the shelf in the area of the Study Area. Vincent found that up-valley transport events were associated with
northeastward currents on the shelf, but also occurred during quiescent periods.
33.8 Depth of Sediment Resuspension [Section 228.61 a )(6l]
Butman, Noble, and Folger (1979) observed sediment resuspension of fine material by storm-generated
surface waves in depths to 85 m in the Middle Atlantic Bight Wave heights at the Study Area are
somewhat lower than on the open continental shelf due to shoaling and the restricted fetch. Manning et al.
(1994) estimated that deposition/erosion varied with depth with areas of erosion aligned with areas
shallower than 20 to 25 m and depositional areas associated with the deeper depressions of the Hudson
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-52
ORBITAL VELOCITY (cm/tec)"
35-40
(a)
New Jcney
2 meter 20 second wave
(c)
One Cruise 4/87
73.55 w
MICROMETERS (order of magnitude)
Fttimafcrt Dcposilkto/Eraacoc]
May 17-24. 1987 Storm
Figure 3-35. Spatial estimates of erosional conditions in the vicinity of the Study Area (Manning
etaL, 1994). Panel (a) shows distribution of the orbital wave velocity for a 2 m/20-sec
wave; panel (b) shows the estimated deposition/erosion under these velocities coupled
with a circulation model for May 24,1987; panel (c) shows sediment type in the Study
Area in April 1987; panel (d) shows the amount of fine grained sediments averaged over
six surveys.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-53
Shelf Valley and the Christiaensen Basin (> 40
m). In the absence of long-term direct
observations of sediment resuspension we can
estimate the potential for resuspension from
wave measurements.
Resuspension of noncohesive sediments is
determined by the bottom shear stress and the
size and density of the sediment particles. The
bottom shear stress is a function of the current
speed, wave height, wave period, water depth,
and bottom roughness. A simple way to
determine the potential for resuspension of
noncohesive sediments by waves and currents
is to compare the critical threshold velocity
required for initiation of sediment motion for
the local sediments and the maximum near-
bottom shear stress exerted by the waves. For
a given water depth, the maximum near-bottom
shear stress increases with increased wave
height and period. Combined analyses of the
critical threshold velocity for sediment
movement, the maximum near-bottom velocity,
and the percent occurrence of wave height and period, can be used to determine the potential for sediment
resuspension or containment throughout the Study Area.
For wave induced shear stress the modified Shields diagram (Figure 3-37 from Grant and Madsen, 1979)
gives the condition for incipient sediment motion in terms of the dimensionless parameters:
7«tX>'
TS-S5'
T3-SO'
73MO'
Figure 3-36. Representation of the potential sediment
transport rates under a 16 cms"1 transport threshold in
10°-segments for stations in the New York Bight [Vincent
et aL (1981)]. Solid arrows show the average transport rate.
and
where
TO = bottom shear stress
s = sediment density relative to water
g = acceleration due to gravity
d = particle diameter
v = kinematic viscosity of water
p = density of water
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-54
5-
TIC"
V)
10*
-i —r-r-r
NO MOTION
L'-J-'.'' . ' 1 1 L.
10' 2
d
J I L.
Figure 3-37. Modified shields diagram for the initiation of sediment
motion (Grant and Madsen, 1979).
The bottom shear stress is given by
£/.=
1
T sinh(2u/i/L)
where f is determined from the friction factor diagram (Figure 3-38 from Johnson, 1966), and Ub is the
bottom orbital velocity and Ab is the orbital excursion. From linear wave theory and
where T, L, and H are the wave period, length, and height respectively and h is the water depth.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-55
For a given particle diameter, the bottom shear stress required for initiation of sediment motion can be
determined from Figure 3-38. Using a fixed particle density of 2.57, representative for quartz sands, the
corresponding wave velocity can be determined using the appropriate friction factor diagram. Then, using
linear wave theory, the corresponding wave height and period can be determined. Wave heights needed
for resuspension of 1.0 mm diameter sediment at the Study Area are presented in Table 3-6 for water
depths from 15 to 35 m. Table 3-6 shows that for storm generated waves with a period of 10 seconds,
critical wave heights increase from 1.5 m in 20 m depth to 2.7 m in 35 m depth. These are typical of
conditions in the Study Area. Smaller wave heights are required for longer period waves.
2
2
IU '
5
2
irV
\J
5
2
in3
i | . ijini
=— -— .»
' """*"*•-••*
>v^-.
: "*^t
:
-
-
1 1 1 1 1 Mil
— r-| — . i i me
\
\
\
\
\
N^~->
^^sT~-
^*^~-.
7s"
LAMINAR '
1 1 1 1 1 INI
1 | V IjIMI
f ROUGH
\
\
\
~'>.^
^ *>"*>
"~^^-
^**^^^
SMOOTH n
, 1 , ,1,,,,
— r-| — 1.1 [ mi
TURBULENT
'""•—.
l— .^^
.^^^ *•
IRBULENT-^
1 1 1 1 1 1 Ml
f\.
" - -
kb i -
.- 2 -
5 '
IO -
20 —
50 I
IOO
zoo —
50O -
IOOO
, \ , ll-,,,,*
IO2 2 5 IO3 2 5 10" 2 5 IO5 2 5 IO6 2 5 IO7
Figure 3-38. Wave friction factor diagram (Johnson, 1966).
Table 3-6. Critical wave heights (m) needed for
resuspension of 1.0 mm diameter sediment.
Water Depth (IT
15
20
25
30
35
i)
6 sec
1.9
3.2
5.5
*
*
Wave Period
8 sec
1.3
1.8
2.4
3.2
4.3
10 sec
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.7
(sec)
12 sec
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.2
Msec
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-56
SAIC (1995c), measured waves at the MDS intermittently over a 2 year period in 1993 and 1994 and
compared them to wave measurements from Ambrose Light. They concluded that wave records from
Ambrose Light closely resembled the wave characteristics at the Mud Dump Site, allowing the use of the
long-term wave statistics from Ambrose for the present analysis. Long term statistics of the wave
conditions at the Study Area are needed to determine reliable statistical estimates of the frequency of
occurrence of dredged material resuspension.
Records of significant wave height and period at the Ambrose Light National Weather Service
Meteorological Station for the period November 1984 through December 1993 were analyzed to determine
the frequency of occurrence of different wave heights and periods. Table 3-7 presents the percent
frequency occurrence of significant wave height vs wave period of the winter, spring, summer and fall
seasons. The largest waves in the apex of the Bight are generated by winds blowing from the northeast to
east (maximum fetch) during winter. The highest waves recorded were between 6.5 and 7.4 meters and
occurred during winter 0.1 % of the time. Waves between 2.5 and 3.4 m occurred 2.1% of the time in
winter, but waves of that height that coincided with periods greater than 11.1 sec occurred only 0.6 % of
the time.
Comparing Tables 3-6 and 3-7 shows that waves high enough and long enough to lift 1.0 mm diameter
sediment from the bottom in 35 m of water will occur 1.2% during winter, 0.5% of the time in spring and
not at all in summer and fall. Waves large enough to resuspend 1.0 mm diameter sediment from the
bottom in 30 m of water will occur 1.5% during winter, 0.7% of the time in spring and not at all in summer
and fall. For 25 m depth, waves large enough occur 4.0% of the time in winter, 1.6% of the time in spring,
not at all in summer, and 1.6% of the time in fall. Finer sediments will be more easily resuspended. These
estimates, however, will tend to be high given other factors which affect the potential for resuspension,
including the presence of cohesive clumps in the dredged material, bioturbation, and the armoring of the
bottom which occurs when fines are removed from the top layer. Note that the wave statistics for Ambrose
Light in Table 3-7 are based on nearly ten years of data; the largest waves are not necessarily recorded each
year.
Small sized sediment (<0.05 mm), mainly silt and clay, tend to become cohesive over time. The critical
velocity for initiation of motion is therefore dependent on the time elapsed after deposition. Erosion of
cohesive sediment is an area where considerable uncertainty remains. For short consolidation times, the
critical velocities for smaller size sediments would be on the same order as those obtained for d = 0.05 mm.
After longer times, higher near-bottom velocities would be required to initiate motion.
The most recent and pertinent evaluation of sediment resuspension in the Study Area has been done by
Clausner et al. (1996), who evaluated storm-induced erosion frequency at the MDS using data from the
1977-1993 data, and SAIC 1996c, who model sediment resuspension and erosion using data from the
1992-1993 time frame. In general, there is an absence of fine-grain sediments at depths shallower than
65 ft (approx. 20 m) in the Bight Apex. Sediments shallower than 65 ft (e.g., on top of inactive dredged
material disposal mounds) consist primarily of coarser/sandy material. Correspondingly, sediments in
deeper waters are more heterogeneous. The fine-grain areas are apparently depositional zones for small
particles winnowing from nearby dredged material mounds and other fine-grain sediments entering the
Bight Apex from other sources, including sediments transported into the Apex by the Hudson River plume
(see image page 3-13). Both studies find that storm induced erosion can be significant at depths shallower
than 65 feet These findings were the basis of the 65-ft "management depth" for Category n dredged
material disposal in the current MDS (USAGE NYD/EPA Region H, 1997).
-------
Table 3-7.
Percent
frequency
(40.5N/73.8W).
MONTH(S)
WAVE PERIOD
< 0.5
0.5 - 1
1.5 - 2
2.5 - 3
3.5 - 4
4.5 - 5
5.5 - 6
6.5 - 7
7.5 - 8
8.5 - 9
9.5 - 10
10.5 - 11
12.5
14.3
16.7
TOTAL
TOTAL
(* <
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.1
%
N
0.
MONTH(S):
WAVE PERIOD
< 0.5
0.5 - 1
1.5 - 2
2.5 - 3
3.5 - 4
4.5 - 5
5.5 - 6
6.5 - 7
7.5 - 8
8.5 - 9
9.5 - 10
10.5 - 11
12.5
14.3
16.7
TOTAL %
TOTAL N
(* <
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.1
of significant wave height (meters) vs. dominant wave period (seconds) at Ambrose Light
November
: DECEMBER, JANUARY,
0.0- 0
0.4
.1
2.6
.6
.4
.4
.3
1.3
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.0
.5
.1
12.7
942
05%)
.5- 1
1.4
6.7
12.7
8.3
6.3
5.0
7.5
5.9
6.1
6.6
5.4
1.3
.1
71.8
5341
.5-
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
.
.
1.
.
12.
2.
4
4
3
9
1
6
7
7
9
2
8
*
5
926
5-
3.4
*
.3
.5
.2
.3
.1
.2
.4
*
2.1
154
1984 through December 1993.
FEBRUARY
1 WAVE HEIGHT
3.5H 4.5- 5.5- 6.5- 7.5- 8.5- 9.5- 10.5- 11.5- 12.5-
4.J4 ! 5.4 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.4 10.4 11.4 12.4 13.4 >13.4
i
1
i
i '
| |
I !
.1
.1
.1 *
.1 .1 *
.2 .1 .1
*
.6 .1 .2 .1
43 10 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOT
9.
13.
10.
8.
7.
11.
8.
9.
9.
8.
3.
100.
%
1
3
6
0
7
7
9
8
2
3
1
1
2
0
TOT N
6
0
0
690
1014
741
644
572
884
655
685
694
603
229
17
7434
MARCH, APRIL, MAY
0.0- 0
0.4
*
1.1
.1
.3
.3
.6
1.3
1.2
.8
.7
.6
.3
.1
7.5 79.8
553
0.
5918
05%)
.5- 1
1.4
3.7
6.1
7.8
6.9
7.5
13.4
8.4
10.2
8.9
4.8
1.8
.3
11.2
829
.5-
2.
.
2.
2.
1.
.
1.
1.
2.
4
1
8
3
0
8
8
0
6
4
2
5-
3.4
*
.1
.3
.1
.2
.1
.2
WAVE HEIGHT
3.5- 4.5- 5.5- 6.5- 7.5- 8.5- 9.5- 10.5- 11.5- 12.5-
4.4 5.4 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.4 10.4 11.4 12.4 13.4 >13.4
*
*
*
.1 *
.1
*
.1 .1
1.1
80
3 .1 * 100.0
24 11 100000000
TOT
4.
6.
9.
9.
10.
16.
10.
12.
11.
6.
2.
%
*
7
3
0
5
2
8
6
3
5
1
5
4
TOT N
1
0
0
352
470
665
708
755
1243
785
915
853
453
186
30
7416
tS;
!» §
£» §0
§§
I §
a.
a
s.
§
3
a
5|
i? •%
-------
Table 3-7.
MONTH(S):
WAVE PERIOD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
< 0.5
.5-1
.5-2
.5-3
.5-4
.5-5
.5-6
.5-7
.5-8
.5-9
.5 - 10
.5 - 11
12.5
14.3
16.7
20.0
TOTAL
TOTAL
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.1
%
N
Percent
73.8W),
frequency of significant wave height (meters) vs. dominant wave
November 1984 through December 1993 (continued).
JUNE, JULY
0.0- 0
0.4
.1
.8
.6
.5
1.1
1.4
2.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
.7
.5
*
.1
12.3
970
.5-
1.4
2.3
6.2
11.0
14.0
15.1
14.9
7.8
4.7
3.5
1.9
.8
.8
.2
83.3
6587
period (seconds) at Ambrose Light (40.5N /
, AUGUST
1.5-
2.4
.4
1.3
.9
1.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
4.2
335
WAVE HEIGHT
2.5- 3.5- 4.5- 5.5- 6.5- 7.5- 8.5- 9
3.4 4.4 5.4 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.4
*
*
*
.1
*•
.2
13 0 0 0 0 0 0
.5- 10.5- 11.5- 12.5-
10.4 11.4 12.4 13.4 >13.4 TOT
3
6
11
16
17
18
9
6
4
2
1
100
00000
%
.1
.0
.8
.9
.4
.5
.7
.5
.2
.8
.7
.4
.8
.3
.0
TOT N
6
0
0
241
538
937
1299
1380
1481
748
491
376
212
107
67
22
7905
Chapter 3,
;&.
t
s.
5
3
a
re
a
1
C/3
§
(* < 0.05%)
MONTH(S): SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER
WAVE HEIGHT
WAVE PERIOD
2.5 - 3.4
3.5 - 4.4
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
5 - 5.4
5 - 6.4
5 - 7.4
5 - 8.4
5 - 9.4
5 - 10.4
5 - 11.1
12.5
14.3
16.7
TOTAL %
TOTAL N
(* < 0
0.0-
0.4
1.2
.5
1
1
1
1
1
10
.4
.5
.6
.8
.2
.1
.3
.2
.4
.1
.4
787
.05%)
0.5-
1.4
4.3
7.6
9
8
5
11
9
7
7
5
2
79
.5
.4
.7
.9
.1
.9
.2
.3
.5
.1
.5
6042
1.5-
2.4
.1
1
1
1
8
.7
.5
.3
.8
.8
.8
.7
.7
.1
.2
.7
662
2.5- 3.5- 4
3.4 4.4
*
.4
.5
.1 *
.1 *
.2 *
.1
*
.1
1.4 *
109 3
.5- 5.5- 6.5- 7.5- 8.5- 9.5- 10.5- 11.5- 12.5-
5.4 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.4 10.4 11.4 12.4 13.4 >13.4 TOT
5
8
10
10
8
16
11
9
9
7
3
100
0000000000
5
2
6
4
0
0
2
9
4
3
.1
4
0
TOT N
417
623
805
790
612
1215
854
749
717
556
235
30
7603
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-59
In summary, resuspension of 1.0 mm dredged material deposited in the Study Area will occur infrequently
at depths greater than approximately 20 m (65 ft), and very infrequently below 30 m (100 ft) (probably less
than 1% of the time over the course of 10 winter seasons). In shallow areas (< 20 m), recently deposited
sediments that are less than 1.0 mm are readily resuspended and moved to deeper waters by storm events.
This removal of fine sediments gradually causes shallow-water areas to become progressively sandy,
armoring the seabed and making it less prone to erosion. Seabed armoring can also result when fine-grain
sediments lay relatively undisturbed for lengthy periods and consolidate and compact Under certain
conditions (including above 20 m), compact, cohesive fine-grain sediments can become as resistant to
erosion as sandy, unconsolidated large-grain sediments.
33.9 Contaminant Distributions and Concentrations
The distribution of metals and organic contaminants within the Study Area is described in the following
sections. The quality of the sediments is also discussed.
3.3.9.1 Metals Distributions
Metals concentrations in the sediments of the New York Bight have been measured during several
programs over the past 25 years. One of the most comprehensive compilations and reviews of metals data
for the New York Bight was published by Krom et aL (1985). This compilation includes trace metal, grain
size, and total organic carbon (TOC) data obtained between 1973 and 1978 from over 8,000 analyses for
16 elements from about 1,000 stations in the greater New York Bight. This study shows the sediment of
the Bight to be extremely varied. The heterogeneity is related in part to a series of ridges (up to 10 m in
height) and swales (2-4 km wavelength) on the continental shelf. These ridges and swales form the major
topographical features of the Bight seaward of the Hudson Shelf Valley and Christiaensen Basin. Seaward
of the these areas, surface sediments of the shelf are primarily composed of coarse to medium sand with
swales tending to have higher mud content relative to other areas. Physical and biological reworking of the
sediments of the shelf and inner Bight resuspends fine grained sediments, causing redistrubution within the
Bight. The sandy sediments in the area also appear to be mobile with sand ridges forming that may have a
relatively short duration (Krom et aL, 1985).
According to Krom et aL (1985), sediments from the New York Bight Apex consist of two distinct types:
(1) sandy sediments low in organic matter content and with relatively low amounts of leachable metals
(metals stripped from the substrate when treated with weak acid solutions) and (2) silt-clay sediments high
in organic matter and high in leachable metals content The highest metal concentrations were consistently
found in the MDS, Christiaensen Basin and, to a lesser extent, the Hudson Shelf Valley. Within these
regions, the highest metal concentrations were found in the MDS and vicinity. The sediments of these
areas were also found to be distinct in that they had from 9 to 80 times more fine-grained sediments than
found on the continental shelf. Metals in the sediments from the continental shelf were generally low,
except for those in the Christiaensen Basin and Hudson Shelf Valley.
Within the New York Bight Apex, metals (Zn, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Fe, Hg, and Cd) are highly intercorrelated
(Krom et aL, 1985). These metals correlate strongly with the organic matter content of the sediments and
to a lesser extent with the silt-clay component Zdanowizc (1991) and others report similar findings from
spatial sampling of the inner New York Bight including the MDS.
Historically, Dayal et aL (1983) found the "spatial distribution of heavy metals such as Pb, Cu, Ag, Hg,
Cd, Fe, and Mn in the dredged material deposit exhibit highly variable and considerably elevated
concentrations over those observed in sediment outside the deposit and in underlying sediment." He also
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-60
noted that organic matter significantly influences the distribution of metals in the dredged material mound
and that iron and manganese oxides exert a lesser control on the metal distributions.
To appropriately evaluate trace metal contamination of sediments in the Study Area, background
concentrations and distributions within the area must be characterized. Further, because the sediments of
the Bight include areas of naturally sandy and naturally fine grained sediments, information on background
metals levels in both types of sediment are necessary. Such information is available from several studies
conducted from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s (Table 3-8).
The data from the studies listed in Table 3-8 show
that the metal concentrations in sandy sediments
that have very low amounts of fine grain
sediments and organic matter concentrations are
similar across the various studies and analytical
methods used to generate the data. For example,
the background concentration of Cu in sandy
sediments ranges from 2 to 10 ppm (dry weight)
across these studies (Table 3-8), while that of Pb
ranges from 8 to 13 ppm and is more likely near
10 ppm based on the majority of these studies.
Background metal concentrations in the silt clay
fraction of the sediments is notably higher (i.e., 37
ppm for Cu and 23 for Pb) than that in the sandy
sediments.
Surface sediments collected from depositional
areas of the New York Bight Apex region have
higher metal concentrations than the sandy
sediments (Table 3-9). Metal concentrations in the inner Bight are also highly variable. Results
summarized in Table 3-9 also show that in general, the highest metals concentrations are for samples
collected in the 1970s (see Krom etal, 1985 in Table 3-9). Samples collected in the 1980s (see NOAA,
1982a; JRB, 1984; Lewis et al., 1989 in Table 3-9) have a relatively wide range in metals concentrations.
Correspondingly, the highest metal concentrations in sediments collected in early 1990 surveys (see
Charles and Muramoto, 1991; McFarland et al., 1994; Battelle, 1996a in Table 3-9) are consistently lower
than those collected in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, surface sediment copper concentrations for
over 200 samples collected between 1973 and 1978 ranged from 330 to 590 ppm2 while surface sediment
copper concentrations collected in the inner Bight between 1983 and 1986, including the MDS, ranged
from 0.2 to 530 ppm. The upper end of the concentration range was clearly similar between these two
periods of data. However, the lower-end of the range was substantially lower in the 1980s relative to
earlier years.
Problem of Data Comparability Among
Sediment-Metals Studies
Note that investigations have used several methods to extract
the metals from sediment samples. Some of these methods
extract the metals from the mineral phases more efficiently
than others. Thus, incomplete recovery (lower
concentrations) of some metals may occur depending on the
digestion technique employed. This can cause poor
comparability in the amount of total metal measured by the
various procedures. However, in contaminated sediments
the partial digestion procedures remove the majority of
anthropogenic mobilized metals associated with the solid
phases and these phases are generally much greater than in
the mineral phases left undigested. Thus, reasonably
comparable qualitative information can be obtained
regarding contaminant variability and general distributions,
such that areas with high and low metals concentrations can
be described.
2 Note that metal concentrations in sediments from within the disposal mound are even higher (up to 2,200 ppm) than
in the surface sediments collected during a similar time period (Dayal, et al., 1983).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-61
Table 3-8. Background contaminant metal concentrations in uncontaminated sandy and silty
sediments of the New York Bight and Bight Apex (in ppm dry weight).
Study
Metal
As
Ag
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sn
Se
n
Zn
Krom et aL
(1985)
Silt-Clay
NA
NA
NA
NA
46
37
NA
53
23
NA
NA
NA
NA
130
Sandy
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
2
NA
3
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
Dayalef
aL (1981)
Sandy
NA
<0.2
NA
<0.2
NA
4.4±0.3
<0.2
NA
6±2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Young
(1982)
Sandy
NA
NA
NA
6
4
NA
6
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
SAIC
(1992)
Sandy
(meanofSMDS
reference site
samples)
6.9
<0.2
<0.4
<0.1
8
8
0.2
<0.8
9
<1.2
NA
<0.2
<0.1
18
Battelle
(1992a)
Sandy
(alternate dredged
material disposal
sites n = 6)
1.8-10.4
<.001-0.083
NA
0.004-0.047
15-26.4
4.7-7.6
0.001-0.028
2.5-5.3
2.0-13.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.8-35.9
Battelle
(1996a)
Sands
(from regression
analysis, sands
only n = 45)
3-5
<0.2
NA
<0.1
20-180
5-10
<0.1
<12
5-10
0.05-0.4
<0.5
<0.05
NA
15-30
-------
Table 3-9.
Metal/Study
Region
Year Collected
As
Ag
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sn
Se
Tl
Zn
Ranges in metal concentrations [ppm Cug/g) dry weight] in sediments from the New York Bight Apex, Study Area, and
Mud Dump Site. Except for Dayal et al. (1983), results are for surface samples (2 to 10 cm).
Krom et al.
(1985)
Bight Apex
n = -200
1973-1978
NA
NA
NA
NA
380-570
329-590
NA
72-160
370-610
NA
NA
NA
NA
660-1020
Dayal et al.
(19831)
MDS
Multiple depths
from 10 cores
1978
NA
<0.2-27
NA
0.2 to 151
NA
2-2,200
<0.2-7
NA
2-1,527
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOAA JBR
(1982) (1984)
Inner Bight Apex Inner Bight
and upper Hudson
Shelf Valley
n = 27 n = NA
1980 1984
NA ND-21
NA ' 0.2-14
NA NA
<0.25-3.7 0.2 - 1 1
2.3-75 12-430
0.8-120 ; 12-460
<0.04k).45 0.4 - 38
1.9-17.6 NA
' 4-135 14-527
; NA NA
NA NA ;
NA NA !
NA NA
7-230 20-940 1
'Data are from cores that penetrated through the dredged material mound into strata below
Lewis el al.
(1989)
Inner Bight
n = NA
1983-1986
<3-42
<0.002-76
NA
<0.008-25
2.5-530
0.2-530
<0.008-17
• NA
2-580
NA
N-A
NA
NA
7-939
SAIC McFarlandefal
(1992a) (1994)
Study Area and
MDS
n = 35
1990
2.8-25.4
1-8
0.2- i.l
0.5-7
6.6-263
3.4-325
0.1-8.7
4-51.7
5.4-347
NA
NA
NA
13.7-510
Some subsurface strata composed
MDS Reference
(Sandy)
n = 5
August 1991
NA
NA
NA
<0.01
NA
3.5±1.6
<0.10
NA
21.6±3.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.8±2.8
Battelle
(1996a)
Within the
MDS only
n=ll
October 1994
3.7-16
<0.04-5.1
NA
<0.03-3.1
16-182
5.1-145
<0.3-2
12-99
10-155
0.04-0.6
0.3-15
<0.03-0.8
NA
29-272
Within the
Study
Area
only
n = 22
October 1994
3-30
<0.04-7.3
NA
<0.0-3.2
7.7-187
3.5-178
<0.3-2.5
<3-89
15-194
0.04-1.4
0.5-19
<0.03-I
NA
27-329
fine grained sediment fraction.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChupterS, Affected Environment Page 3-63
The range in copper concentration observed in samples collected from the Study Area in 1991 was also
large. However, the highest concentrations observed for this survey was 45% lower than that reported by
Krom et al. (1985). Data from 45 stations in the MDS and Study Area in 1994, displayed a large range in
the measured copper concentrations. The highest Cu concentration measured from this survey was 178
ppm, about 70% lower than the highest concentration reported in the mid 1970s. While a systematic,
repeated sampling design is the only way to determine if the apparent decreases in the highest of the high
concentrations over the past few years is real or related to differences in the station locations among the
surveys, the consistency in the decrease for copper and other metals (e.g., Pb and Zn) suggests that surface
sediment contamination in the MDS and Study Area has probably decreased relative to the 1970s. Such
decreases probably are correlated with improved evaluation of dredged material for ocean disposal (i.e.,
EPA/US ACE, 1991, "The Green Book"), Region 2/NYD disposal restrictions for Category H and m
material, removal of sewage sludge and acid iron waste disposal from the region in the mid 1980s, and the
continued winnowing of fine-grained particles from surface sediments by natural transport processes.
The distribution of metals concentrations in the MDS and Study Area are represented in Figure 3-39a and
3-39b. These figures include data from surface sediment samples collected and analyzed between 1991
and 1996. The relative distribution of the data for each metal is generally consistent among the three
metals shown. In general, three regions within the Study Area have relatively elevated metal
concentrations compared to estimated pre-disposal background values. These include the shallow basin
west of the dredged material mound (see figure 3-4 in Section 3.1 for topographic data), the northeast
quadrant of the Study Area including the Hudson Shelf Valley, and the eastern portion of the MDS
including contiguous areas outside of its eastern border. Mercury measurements comprise the largest set of
metals data measured by consistent analytical methods. These data show that a large area including the top
of the historical disposal mound and the southern portion of the Study Area have low Hg concentrations
(<0.15 ppm dry weight). Areas with concentrations above 0.70 ppm dry weight include the deeper areas
described above. The Hg data suggest that the flanks of the historic and current dredged material mound
have the highest Hg concentrations. ~ - -•
In summary, trace metal concentrations in the surface sediments of the Study Area and MDS can be
segregated into areas of high and low concentrations. Areas of highest concentrations are generally
correlated (positive) with areas containing high amounts of fine grained sediments and also high organic
matter content as observed for the greater New York Bight and most other coastal sediments (Krom et al.,
1985; Zdanowicz, 1991). The association of metals to these bulk sediment parameters (shown in Figure
3-40a and 3-40b) are representative of these correlations and demonstrate that metal concentrations are
relatively predictable based on the grain size distribution or organic carbon content of the sediments (see
Battelle, 1996a for a complete discussion of these correlations in the Study Area and MDS). Such
correspondence provides a mechanism by which metals concentrations in unsampled sediments can be
predicted.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-64
Figure 3-39a. Distribution of metals in surface sediments of the Study Area (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Data are from surveys completed between 1991 and 1995.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-65
1996 Bathymetry
/\/ < 20 meters
/\/ 20 meters
/\/ >20 meters
Mercury (ppm)
O 0-0.15
© 0.15-0.70
• > 0.70
Figure 3-39b. Distribution of Mercury in surface sediments of the Study Area. Data are from
surveys completed between 1991 and 1995.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-66
200
0 102030405060708080100
Figure 3-40a. Correspondence between the fraction of mud in surface sediment samples from the
Study Area and the copper concentrations. This type of correspondence is found for
most of the metals in the Study Area (figure from Battelle, 1996a).
200
Figure 3-40b. Correspondence between total organic carbon concentration in surface sediment
samples from the Study Area and the copper concentrations. This type of
correspondence is found for most of the metals in the Study Area (figure from Battelle,
1996a).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-67
3.3.9.2 Organic Contaminants
Compared to the information on the trace metals in the New York Bight, relatively few recent organic
contaminant data are available (Table 3-10). Though limited, the available data demonstrate that
background organic compound concentrations in New York Bight sediments are generally low (Boehm,
1983) and are strongly associated with the amount of fine grained sediment in a given sample.
Sandy sediment collected recently from the MDS and Study Area have organic contaminant concentrations
in the range found in the greater New York Bight (Table 3-10). As observed in the metals data, both
historical and recent organic contaminant data in surface sediments of the Study Area are characterized by
a large range in concentrations (Table 3-10). As observed in the metals data, the higher organic
contaminant concentrations appear to have decreased since the 1980s.
The majority of recent organic contaminant analyses of surface sediments from the Study Area have
focused on dioxin and to a lesser degree PCBs (Table 3-10). The observed range in the concentrations of
these contaminants is strongly related to the amount of fine grained sediments in the sample. For example,
Figure 3-41 shows the concentration of total PCB to the amount of fine grained sediment in samples
collected in 1994 and 1996. As in the case of the metals, the highest organic compound concentrations are
associated with the fine-grained, organic carbon-rich sediment located in the deeper, hydrodynamically
quiet regions of the Study Area.
The distribution of high and low organic contaminant concentrations in the MDS and Study Area closely
parallels that of the metals. The distribution of selected organic contaminants is presented in Figure 3-42;
the distribution of the contaminants included in this figure is representative of other compounds measured
in samples collected in October 1994 (Battelle, 1996a). Other recent data for organic contaminants for
surface sediments from the Study Area are limited except for 2,3,7,8 TCDD data. Data on this
contaminant are available from surveys conducted in 1991 (Charles and Muramoto, 1991) and from
monitoring of the Port of Newark disposal project (SAIC, 1995d) and provide an extensive set of data from
areas that are not actively used for dredged material disposal. Combining the 1991 through 1994 data sets
enables better resolution of the dioxin distribution in the surface sediments (Figure 3-43). The spatial
distribution and concentrations developed from these combined data sets are similar to those described
previously for metals and other organic contaminants.
These similarities increase the confidence that the areas of high and low contaminant concentrations within
the Study Area and MDS identified from the 1994 sediment collection are adequately described.
Comparison of the 1991 and 1994 dioxin data also demonstrates that sediments from outside the active
disposal locations within the MDS are relatively stable with respect to contaminant concentrations, and that
large changes in concentrations have not occurred since the samples were collected. This information, in
combination with the strong correlations between grain size, TOC, and other contaminants (Battelle,
1996a) in the region, indicate that regions within the Study Area that have elevated contaminant
concentrations are accurately described.
-------
Table 3-10
Reference
Region
Year
No. Samples
PAHT
PCBT
DDTT
OrganotinsT
Dioxin
(2,3,7,8-
TCDD)
PAH, PCB, DDT, and organotin concentrations [ppb (ng/g) dry weight] and
[pg/g] dry weight) in surface sediment samples in the New York Bight Apex
Boehm (1983)
and
SAIC (1992)
New York
Bight
Background
1985/1993
n = NA
50 - 500"
0.01 -0.1"
NA
NA
0.00 - 2.8"
Boehm
(1983)
NY Bight
MDS
(Christiaensen
Basin)
1981
n = NA
7,200 - 30,700
3-400
(50-1,500)
NA
NA
NA
Lewis et al.
(1989)
Bight Apex
1983-1986
n = 50
1
'NA
<2.4 - 500
NA
NA
NA
Prodi et at.
(1990)
NY Bight
Apex
1989
n = 4
NA
2.7-1,290
NA
NA
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-69
800
= 45
= 4.481x-19.09
r2 = 0.7689
i i i i i i i r
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mud (%)
'Stations overlapping near intercept include:
Stations 1,4, 5, 6, 8, 9,12,13,16,20,24,25, 31,34,
35. 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 41,42,44, and 45.
Figure 3-41. Relationship between the mud fraction in sediments of the Study Area and MDS and
total PCBs (data from Battelle, 1996a).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-70
Total PCB's
678.41
ug/kg
Total DDT
150.96
ug/kg
Figure 3-42. Total PCB and total DDT distributions in the Study Area (data from Battelle,
1996a).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-71
1996 Bathymetry
/. V < 20 meters
/V 20 meters
/XY > 20 meters
TCDD pptr. dry wt.
O 0
0 0-80
80- 160
>160
Figure 3-43. Regional distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pptr dry weight). Distributions were
developed from surface sediments collected between 1990 and 1994 using the most
recently available MDS data.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-72
3.3.9.3 Sediment Quality
The concentration of a contaminant in a sediment does not in and of itself define whether a sediment is
degraded or presents potential impacts to ecological or human health. Sediment quality depends on the
availability of the contaminants to organisms (Brungs and Mount, 1978; Spacie and Hamelink, 1985;
Dickson et al, 1994) and the potential for impact to the larger ecosystem. Contaminant availability is
influenced by many factors including sediment carbon content and quality, organism feeding modes,
kinetics of transfer, uptake and elimination rates, and partitioning into lipid material.
There are few direct methods for establishing whether a contaminant presents a direct threat to marine
organisms or their predators. One means of directly estimating the potential environmental impacts of a
sediment is to measure its toxicity to marine organisms by using the toxicity tests developed to evaluate
dredged materials. There are also indirect methods used to estimate whether sediments potentially might
cause impact to biological communities, which include calculations involving equilibrium partitioning,
empirical bioassay and bioaccumulation studies, and comparison of contaminant concentrations to
published sediment quality guidelines such as the NOAA ER-L (Effects Range-Low) or ER-M (Effects
Range-Median) (Long and Morgan, 1991; Long et al, 1995). Although these sediment quality indexes do
not carry regulatory authority, the generated data can be synthesized by site managers and provide relevant
information when assessing overall sediment quality. In particular, the comparison of ER-L and ER-M
thresholds and guidelines, derived from a broad range of synoptically collected biological and chemical
data from field and laboratory experiments, provide useful information for generally estimating potentials
for impact The ER-L and ER-M guidelines are based on the responses of multiple species to simple and
complex mixtures in sediments from several geographic locations, and offer non-specific indicators of
toxicity. ER-L guidelines encompass the lower 10 percentile of the effects range data; the ER-M
guidelines are the median value of the effects range. Some limitations to the ER-L/ER-M approach are
that is an indirect method, not all chemical mixtures interact similarly, and not all species react to
contaminants in the same manner. Both direct and in direct methods were investigated under this SEIS to
estimate areas within the Study Area might be degraded (Battelle, 1996a).
Chemical Degradation: Measured concentrations of individual contaminants or contaminant classes at
53 stations in the Study Area were compared to ER-L/ER-M values. The results showed three distinct
station groupings: 1) stations with no exceedances of ER-L or ER-M values, 2) stations that had some
chemicals exceeding ER-L guidelines but no ER-M values, and 3) stations that had chemicals exceeding
both ER-L and ER-M guidance values.
No ER-L or ER-M values were exceeded at twelve stations (Figure 3-44). These stations are in the
southern most part of the Study Area, south of the MDS and along the top of the historic dredged material
disposal mound in the north central portion of the Study Area (Battelle, 1996a).
The second set of data (ER-L guideline exceedances but no ER-M exceedance) grouped into stations with
only a few ER-L exceedances (1 to 6) and ones with numerous ER-L exceedances (7 or more) but no ER-L
exceedances . Stations with only one chemical above the ER-L guideline were adjacent to areas on the
historical mound with no ER-L exceedances and in the southern third of the Study Area (Figure 3-44).
One station was located on the eastern boarder of the MDS. Of the 12 stations that had only 2 to 6 ER-L
values exceeded (no ER-M exceedances), two were on the historic mound, four were in the MDS or
immediately adjacent to it, one was southeast of the MDS in the Hudson Shelf Valley, and one was on the
western most boundary of Subarea 2 (Figure 3-44). These locations were generally in the vicinity of the
stations with no more than one chemical exceeding an ER-L value.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-73
I
73 48' W
1996 Bathymetry
< 20 meters
20 meters
> 20 meters
ER-L/ER-M Exceedance
0 No Exceedance
+ 1-6ERL
El >6ERL
• >1ERM
73 55' W
I
I
I
I
40 20' N
73 48' W
Figure 3-44. Spatial distribution of sediments exhibiting exceedances of NOAA ER-LAER-M
guideline values. Symbols represent the number of chemicals or compound classes
exceeding the Long et al. (1995) marine ER-L values O^l;^2to6;S>6 with no
ER-M exceedance; and • > 1 ER-M exceedance.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-74
The set of data with seven or more contaminants exceeding ER-L guidelines (but no ER-M exceedances)
were found in three regions of the Study Area: east of the historic dredged material mound in the northeast
quadrant of Subarea 1, in the Hudson Shelf Valley on the eastern side of the Study Area, on the western
slope of the historical dredged material mound, and the western slope of the shallow basin in Subarea 2.
The third data grouping (at least one chemical above its ER-M value) also had large numbers of ER-L
values exceeded. Regions in the Study Area that fit this characterization are located in two areas: the MDS
and contiguous areas to the east and northeast and the basin west of the historic dredged material disposal
mound. Mercury, total DDT, or total PCB were the chemicals that most frequently exceeded ER-M
guidelines. One location [Station 28 in the eastern portion of the basin west of the MDS (Battelle, 1996a)]
was distinct in that the combination of contaminants exceeding ER-M guidelines differed from the
combinations found at most other stations in the area. At this location contaminants exceeding the ER-M
values were more associated with petroleum and petroleum combustion products.
Generally, stations with very few ER-L exceedances are sandy in nature. Stations with large numbers of
ER-L exceedances generally coincided with the muddier, organic-rich areas.
Using the number of ER-L exceedances, sediments from sampled stations in the Study Area were assigned
one of three chemically based sediment quality classifications: degraded, marginally degraded, and
nondegraded (Battelle, 1996a). Stations with only 0 to 1 ER-L exceedances were assigned "nondegraded",
Stations with 2 to 6 exceedances were assigned "marginally degraded", and stations with 7 or more ER-L
exceedances were assigned "degraded". The distribution of sediments fitting these chemically based
classifications are shown in Figure 3-45. Chemically degraded sediments were generally found in the
MDS and areas immediately outside its eastern boundary, and the two basins within the Study Area.
Sediments of the shallow basin in the western portion of the Study Area consistently fell into the
chemically degraded classification. Sediments in the northeast quadrant of the Study Area seaward of the
23 m depth interval also classified as degraded. Marginally degraded sediments are evident in shallower
areas contiguous to the degraded sediments in both basins and near the top of older dredged materials in
the MDS.
Toxicological Degradation: Toxicological testing of the sediments in the Study Area with Ampelisca
abdita found a wide range in percent survival (0% to 99%) (Battelle, 1996a). Following toxicity testing
guidance in the dredged material testing manual or "Green Book" (EPA/USACE, 1991), sediments that
meet two criteria are considered biologically significant. The first criterion is that the toxicity measured in
a test sediment be statistically different than that in a reference sediment for the disposal site; the second
criterion is that the survival be at least 20% lower than in the reference sediment For the tests performed
on the sediments of the Study Area, survival of <75% was found to exceed these criteria. The two criteria
for significant toxicity were met in all nine MDS sediments sampled and in 19 of the 42 sediments located
outside of the MDS. Sediments exhibiting significant toxicity were generally located across the middle of
the Study Area (Figure 3-46). Areas that did not elicit a significant response relative to the reference
sediment included the northwestern region (Subarea 1) and the northern and southern most portions of
Subarea 1.
Statistical examination of the sediment toxicity results identified three levels of lexicological response in
these sediments: "high" (s20% survival), "moderate" (>20% to 75% survival), and "low" (>75%
survival). Sediments exhibiting high toxicity were observed in the northeast corner of the MDS and
immediately adjacent areas and in the southern most portion of the shallow basin located west of the
historical disposal mound (Figure 3-47). Sediments exhibiting moderate toxicity are located in the
northwest and southeast quadrants of the MDS and contiguous stations immediately outside of the MDS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-75
Chemical Quality
Nondegraded
3 Marginal
Degraded
1996 Bathymetry
< 20 meters
20 meters
/V5" 20 meters
Figure 3-45. Spatial distribution of sediments in the Study Area exhibiting low, moderate, and
high chemical degradation. A = 0 or 1 ER-L exceedance,O = 2 to 6 ER-L exceedances,
and • = >6 ER-L exceedances.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-76
Biologically Significant
Toxicfty
1996 Bathymetry
/ < 20 meters
20 meters
/V>2° meters
Figure 3-46. Spatial distribution of biologically significant toxicity in sediments in the Study
Area. Toxicity results that are both statistically different and ^20% less than reference
sediments for the MDS (Station 43, see Battelle, 1996a) are shown as •; those that are not
significantly different are shown as >.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-77
73 55' W
40 27' N
LEGEND
1996 Bathymetry
A/ < 20 meters
20 meters
> 20 meters
Ampelisca Survival
* >75%
E > 20 to 75%
< 20%
I
I
I
I
40 20' N
73 48' W
I i
Figure 3-47. Spatial distribution of sediments haying low, moderate, and high toxicity in the
Study Area. Symbols represent 4- >75% survival, H £20 to 75% survival, and
• = ^20% survival for a given station.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-78
Low toxicity was identified in sediments from the northern most portion of the Study Area including all of
Subarea 2. Sediments located to the south of the MDS had low toxicity.
By combining the ER-L classification and the lexicological classification data, a simplified sediment
quality classification scheme was created. In this procedure, each of the two sediment quality
classifications was given a rating of 0 (nondegraded), 1 (marginally degraded), or 2 (degraded). For each
station, the rating for the two classifications was summed and the combined score used to determine
degraded areas. Stations receiving a total score of 0 were classified as nondegraded; those receiving a
score of 4 were classified as degraded. The other stations scored between 1 and 3 depending on the sum of
two scores. A total score of 3 (tending towards degraded) occurs only when the rating combination comes
from the degraded and marginal classifications; a total score of 1 (tending towards nondegraded) occurs
only when the score comes from a combination of nondegraded and marginal classifications. A score of 2
can occur from one degraded and one nondegraded rating or from two marginal ratings. An example of
the scoring method is shown below:
Example of the scoring system used to determine the degree of sediment degradation in the Study Area
Station
A
B
C
D
Undegraded
Chemical
0
" 0
Toxicologies]
0
Marginally degraded
Chemical
1
ToxicologicaJ
1
Degraded
Chemical
2
Toricological
2
2
Score
0
2
2
4
Under this scheme, stations classified as nondegraded are primarily located in the southern third of the
Study Area and an area immediately north of the MDS on the historic mound (Figure 3-48). Areas
classified as degraded are located in the eastern most portion of the shallow basin on the west side of the
historic dredged material disposal mound and the northwest corner of the MDS and contiguous areas. The
sediments in the basin in Subarea 2 are marginally degraded as are the areas contiguous with the degraded
area in the northeast quadrant of the Study Area and those immediately outside the southeast corner of the
MDS. Isolated areas of marginal sediment quality are found along the southern border of the Study Area
3.3.10 Water Quality [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(9)]
Water quality is generally based on the amount of particles in the water column (turbidity), dissolved
oxygen levels, nutrient and chlorophyll levels, and contaminant concentrations. These water quality
parameters can be affected by direct inputs (e.g., continuous and aperiodic point source discharges, ocean
disposal activities), indirect inputs (e.g., atmospheric, nonpoint sources), and secondary processes (e.g.,
remobilization from the seafloor, primary production by marine plants and animals). Within the New York
Bight, a dominant influence on water quality is the Hudson River discharge (see Section 3.2.1). This
influence is most significant in the inner Bight and coastal New Jersey. The discharge of the river is easily
seen in satellite images of sea surface temperature, chlorophyll, and turbidity (Fedosh and Munday, 1982).
As a consequence, the concentrations and spatial and temporal distributions of particles, nutrients, and
contaminants in the Study Area respond to the outflow of the Hudson River which results in a decreasing
offshore gradient for many of the above parameters. The Hudson River plume also strongly influences the
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-79
1996 Bathymetry
/'••„•'" < 20 meters
/V/20 meters
/\/> 20 meters
Figure 3-48. Spatial distribution of areas considered degraded in the Study Area. Results are
derived from combined chemical and lexicological quality classifications (Battelle,
1996a).® = nondegraded; • = tending towards nondegraded; 3 = marginally degraded;
O = moderately degraded; and • = degraded.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3. Affected Environment Page 3-80
salinity and density structure of the water column in the Study Area (see section 3.3.10.1). In turn, these
physical gradients influence the spatial and temporal variability in turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrient,
chlorophyll, and contaminant concentrations in the water column of the Study Area.
33.10.1 Temperature, Salinity, and Density
The hydrographic structure of the New York Bight, including the influence of the Hudson River estuary,
has been well documented (e.g., Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977; Durski, 1996). Temperatures in the New
York Bight have a seasonal cycle that is well defined and with little year-to-year variability. There is
seasonal evolution from a vertically homogeneous temperature structure in winter to weak stratification in
summer. Salinity follows a similar pattern due to the runoff from area rivers including the Hudson and
Connecticut Rivers, and several smaller tributaries. In general, freshwater discharges to the Bight and
Study Area peak in April and are at their lowest in August.
Bight water reaches its maximum density during the winter (January, February, March) when temperatures
are at their lowest and salinity reaches the annual maximum (Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977). During this
period, the lowest temperatures occur near the coast, increasing offshore. There is little river runoff and
strong vertical mixing, leading to an almost completely unstratified water column. Bottom temperature
tends to be slightly warmer than surface temperature. While the water column is well-mixed there is deep
wave penetration and the currents essentially act as a single one-layer flow (i.e., near bottom and near
surface flows are coupled).
River runoff reaches its maximum at about the same time that wanning begins (April, May). In near
coastal waters, the entire water column warms while bottom temperatures remain unchanged on the inner
and central shelf at the annual low. Strong thermal stratification begins to develop in May resulting in a
warm surface layer. In addition, the plume of low salinity water from the Hudson River is strongly evident
in the apex of the Bight during this period. This plume generally follows the New Jersey shore to the south
and frequently extends into the Study Area and across the MDS (see Figure 3-49). This often results in
trapping of a band of high-salinity water between the NJ coast and the river plume to the east.
The thermocline intensifies during summer (June, July, August) while bottom temperatures remain
unchanged. ..Close to the coast, where bottom depth is less than the depth of the thermocline, rapid
wanning occurs. The surface temperature gradient and depth of the thermocline reach their maximum in
early August and remain so for the month. The salinity distribution during low river discharge in summer
is characterized by a weak plume around Sandy Hook and patches of surface water of variable salinity are
spread throughout the inner shelf of the Bight (Figure 3-49). The two layer water column structure in the
summer has a substantial impact on the energy that reaches the sediments of the Study Area, The layering
particularly prevents the wind energy from reaching the bottom, effectively decoupling the bottom current
velocities from the surface velocities. This decoupling substantially reduces the potential for wave induced
sediment resuspension and transport during this period.
During the fall (September, October) and early winter (November, December) the thermocline breaks
down due to surface cooling and the increase in wind stress. The vertical overturning deepens the
isothermal layer and warms the bottom water. Eventually the shelf waters are almost entirely isothermal.
Destabilization of the water column by surface cooling and wind stress is usually stronger than buoyancy
from river runoff which breaks down the vertical salinity gradient and leads to a steady increase in surface
salinity. Strong winter vertical mixing dissipates any isolated patches of low-salinity water present during
the summer. It is during this period and the subsequent winter months that the potential for storm induced
resuspension of sediments is at its greatest
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-81
SPRING
Surface
Vertical
o
10
20
30
4O
so
1- 20
Q
30
4O
SO
6O
O
1O
2O
30
4O
SO
6O
,7«°00
C
D
SUMMER
Surface
Vertical
10
20
30
•-•••-.• ~. •ii^3g*'V*gT.-- •''-'- • J?-^JvV*^*^'-*fl^r" -' '*••' I
1 31.75
AA
Sourc*: After Knchum «t •! 19S1
Units are °/
Figure 3-49. Representative surface and vertical salinity features in the inner New York Bight
Surface features represent the typical offshore salinity gradient resulting from high flow
(April) and low flow (August) conditions of the Hudson River. Vertical sections for the
same conditions are also shown.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-82
3.3.10.2 Water Column Turbidity
Water column turbidity (clarity) can be affected by many factors including growth of phytoplankton, river
plumes, and energy events that resuspend sediments. In addition, stratification can affect the vertical
structure of turbidity in the water column. All of these factors can be important in the Study Area. For
example, satellite imagery of the sea surface can be used to detect levels of surface turbidity in the New
York Bight. These images of the New York Bight have been used to show the Hudson River Plume
extending southward and close to shore under the influence of southerly nearshore currents and coriolis
forces (Fedosh and Munday, 1982). Winds from the northwest followed by southwesterly winds cause the
plume to move offshore by as much as 27 Km. Estimates suggest that the plume can override the MDS
area approximately half of the time. The frequency that the plume is in the MDS area is higher when the
winds are from the southwest
Turbidity below the surface can be measured using in situ instruments. Such instruments were used to
map background turbidity in the MDS and to follow the fate of dredged material plumes in the MDS
(Dragos and Peven, 1994). The hydrographic surveys conducted in June of 1994 included high resolution
vertical profiling of water column turbidity. Results from this survey showed low turbidity throughout the
water column with a small mid-depth maximum in the central portion of the Study Area. This feature
appears to extend from the north and west into the Study Area (Figure 3-50) but did not extend to the east
of this area (east side of the Study Area). Turbidity in the water column on the east side of the Study Area
did not show any distinguishing vertical features during the survey. Contouring the data from the 8 m
depth (Figure 3-51) clearly shows this mid-depth turbidity maximum from coastal New Jersey into the
MDS. The data did not reveal elevated turbidity in the vicinity of the MDS that might be attributable to
dredged material disposal, but did show the Hudson River discharge or coastal currents exerting significant
influence on the turbidity in the Study Area. Time series tracking of individual dredged material plumes
demonstrated that turbidity associated with disposal events in the MDS (Figure 3-52) quickly reach
background levels within a few hours (Dragos and Lewis, 1993; Dragos and Peven, 1994). These data
indicate that dredged material disposal in the MDS has transient impact on the water clarity.
Resuspension of surface sediments during high energy events can also effect the turbidity of the water
column.
33.10.3 Dissolved Oxygen
Prior to the transfer of sewage sludge disposal to the 106-Mile Site, the disposal of sludge occurred at the
12-Mile Site. This discharge substantially enriched nutrients and increased phytoplankton productivity in
the Bight Apex area, contributing to unacceptably low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the water and
sediments of the New York Bight (HydroQual, 1989b). As a result, low summer dissolved oxygen
concentrations were routinely observed during the late 1970s and mid-1980s in the bottom waters
(HydroQual, 1989b). These annual depressions in bottom water dissolved oxygen were most notable along
the New Jersey Coast and in the vicinity of the dumpsites in the Bight Apex. Dissolved oxygen levels
inshore of the 20 m depth interval were often below 1.5 mg/1 along the New Jersey coast and less than
3 mg/1 inshore of the 40 m contour of both the New Jersey and Long Island shores. Areas of DO were
lowest along the northern one-third of the New Jersey Coast (lowest mean concentrations of 4.0 mg/L)
with levels often dipping below 1 mg/13 between Mansquan and Bamegat Inlets and between Little Egg
and Absecon Inlet
DO levels <2 mg/1 are defined as hypoxic and are considered to impair biological function; conditions of zero DO level are
termed anoxic and kill organisms that depend on oxygen for survival.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-83
1
IffTSffV
-a- .-a-
.-or l-cr .-cr
•cs-
•car •en*
Sta "Cll"
5
10
15
20
25
Beam Attenuation (1/m)
"C8" "C5"
I
II II "J i11 [ ''I
"C2"
Sta "CIO"
Beam Attenuation (1/m)
*C7" "C4"
•cr
Sta "C6"
Beam Attenuation (1/m)
"C7"
"C83-
Figure 3-50. Vertical sections of beam attenuation (a measure of water clarity) for the
Study Area and MDS in June 1993 (from Dragos and Peven 1994). Panel 1
shows the location of the hydrographic stations sampled. The lowest beam
attenuation (clearest water) is along the eastern most side of the MDS (Panel 2).
Slightly higher beam attenuation (less clear water) was found in the center of the
Study Area (Panel 3). A plume of higher turbidity water emanated from the New
Jersey Coast (Panel 4).
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-84
40-35-N
40*30* h
40-25' h
40*20'
Beem Atteaoadoa (1/m)
40-15'
74'05-W 74*00'
73*55' 73*50' 73*45'
73*40' 73*35'
40'35-N
40*30'
40-25'
40*20'
40*15'
Becm Attnonariop (1/m)
74*05-W 74*00' 73*55' 73*5O' ' 73*45' 73*4O' 73'35'
Figure 3-51. Horizontal contours of beam attenuation at 2 m (Panel 1) and 8 m (Panel 2) depths in
the Study Area in June 1993 (from Dragos and Peven 1994). Surface water shows
increasing water clarity in the offshore direction. The water clarity at 8 m also shows an
offshore gradient of increasing water clarity.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-85
Hours After Release
200
150
i
CO
CO
H
50
30 «0 90
Time (mint post release)
Figure 3-52. Dissipation of total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations of dredged material plumes
surveyed in the MDS in (Panel 1) June of 1992 [from Dragos and Lewis (1993)] and
(Panel 2) June of 1993 [from Dragos and Peven (1994)].
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-86
Moving sewage sludge disposal from the 12-Mile Site to the 106-Mile Site in 1986-1987 measurably
improved both the water and sediment quality of the inner Bight (Studholme et ai, 1995). Data collected
between 1987 and 1989 to evaluate the response of the Bight to reductions in sewage sludge loading
showed that summer water column dissolved oxygen levels in previously impacted areas rose after the 12-
Mile Site was closed. In particular, measurements of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters of the inner Bight
demonstrated rapid recovery of DO to values above 4 mg/1 from 1986 through 1988 (minimum values in
1989 were about 2.5 mg/1). This compared to values below 0.5 mg/1 at the previously most heavily
impacted station during the summer months from 1983 through 1985 (Mountain and Arlen, 1995).
Dissolved oxygen levels measured by EPA Region 2 in the coastal waters (original data from EPA Region
2 STORET database) off New Jersey and New York (to depths of 40 m) between May and October from
1985 through 1994 also show DO concentrations consistently above 2 mg/1 (data from EPA Region 2
environmental database). Of the 3,888 data points included in an area extending eastward from the shores
of New Jersey to 73° 38W Longitude and bounded by latitude 39° 55"N (near Seaside, NJ) and 40 33'
36"N (near Atlantic Beach, Nassau County, NY), only 26 (0.7%) were less than 2 mg/1. These low values
were measured in the early to mid 1980s. Only 102 (2.6%) of the samples were less than 3 mg/1. Within
the entire data set, dissolved oxygen levels from depths below 12m were consistently lower than for
surface waters, ranging between 3 and 10 mg/1. No trends towards lower DO as depth increased were
evident in this data set. Further, DO levels below 2 mg/1 were not measured after 1988.
33.10.4 Nutrients
The two major nutrients essential for primary production in the ocean are phosphorous and nitrogen. Other
major nutrients, notably silicon, as well as many micronutrients and metals, are also necessary for plant
growth and may enhance or retard production based on local conditions. Most aquatic and marine systems,
however, are dominated by the availability or unavailability of phosphorous and nitrogen, usually present
in water and taken up by plants as phosphate and nitrate.
Globally, the major source of phosphorous is land drainage, with the ocean acting as vast reservoir of these
nutrients. Nitrogen compounds also enter the sea from land runoff, but a large proportion also enters the
marine environment through the atmosphere. Marine algae require sufficient quantities of both
phosphorous and nitrogen in order to grow and reproduce. The vast majority of these algae are
microscopic phytoplankton that live in the surface of coastal waters which are rich in nutrients and receive
sufficient light for primary production (i.e., plant growth).
As phytoplankton species populations and communities grow, they assimilate the nutrients from their
environment and deplete the local supply of nitrogen and phosphorous. The ratio at which phytoplankton
uptake nitrogen and phosphorous is 16:1, and the ratio that these nutrients naturally exist in the sea is about
15:1 (Redfield, 1958). The consequence of these two ratios is that most marine systems are nitrogen
limited. In the immediate vicinity of a single phytoplankton cell, if all of the available nitrogen is
exhausted, growth ceases, even if ample supplies of phosphorus and other nutrients (e.g., silicon for diatom
phytoplankton) are available. Equivalent limitations can be created if other essential nutrients or minerals
or vitamins become unavailable by biotic or abiotic processes. Usually, however, nitrogen is the limiting
nutrient
On a population and community-wide scale, the depletion of nitrogen in surface waters means that the
numbers of phytoplankton cells reach a steady state. The community gets no larger, and no new
phytoplankton cells grow or develop until nitrogen becomes available to them through (1) death and
decomposition of other phytoplankton, (2) release of nutrients from the sediments or from ocean waters
below the photic zone, or (3) addition of nitrogen sources from the land or atmosphere.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-87
In the waters of the New York Bight and at the Study Area, the major concern is nutrient over-enrichment
from land-based nitrogen sources. Over-enrichment from land-based nitrogen allows the area's
phytoplankton communities to grow unchecked during the summer, leading to eutrophication and
depletion of oxygen in the water column and other deleterious effects. The great majority of nitrogen
entering the Bight and Study Area originates from sewage discharges that enter the area through the
Hudson River plume. In the early 1980s, Malone (1984) calculated that sewage-nitrogen supports an
average of 54% of new production in the Hudson river plume during the spring bloom March-May period,
121% during the June-October stratification period, and 221% during the November-February winter
period. Malone calculated that, on an annual basis, sewage-nitrogen increases baseline phytoplankton
production by approximately 30%. HydroQual (1989a) recently affirmed that the nutrient flux of the
Study Area is dominated by the Hudson River plume.
The biological reactivity of nutrients, seasonal physical structure of the water column, currents and wind
conditions, and remobilization from sediments all affect the distribution and concentrations of nutrients in
the water column (Stoddard et al., 1986). The dominant factor affecting nutrients in the Study Area is the
flux associated with the Hudson River outflow (Stanford and Young, 1988). This flux dominates the
loading of nutrients to the inner Bight (HydroQual, 1989a; Stoddard et al., 1986). Stoddard et al. (1986)
summarized data from over 3,000 stations occupied between 1973 and 1981 in the greater New York
Bight. This summary indicates that nutrients in the Bight typically show a winter maximum (period of
lowest productivity) and summer minima. The amplitude of this cycle decreases seaward. Primary
production is highest in the spring with a summer minima and secondary fall maxima. Most of the
productivity occurs in the surface waters with decomposition of organic matter occurring in the bottom
waters.
Generally, nutrient enrichment in the offshore coastal waters of New Jersey routinely causes elevated
phytoplankton levels (HydroQual, 1989b). Stoddard et al. (1986) indicate that the enrichment could
increase primary productivity by as much as 30%. Annual monitoring of the coastal waters off the eastern
seaboard by EPA Region 3 clearly shows the effect of coastal outflows on chlorophyll enrichment (EPA
Region 3,1992a) and decreasing levels with increasing distance offshore including coastal New Jersey
(Figure 3-53). Such enhancements are generally confined to the surface waters as the source of nutrient for
phytoplankton growth are added above the seasonal pycnocline and density stratification limits exchange
of nutrient rich bottom waters with surface waters. Under typical conditions, this same phenomena limits
the availability of nutrients regenerated in the sediments from reaching the light-rich surface layer, thereby
limiting the impact of sediment regeneration on coastal productivity during the summer months (Kelly,
1993;1995; Kelly and Turner, 1995).
In the past 10 years, nutrient loading to the Bight has decreased resulting in improved water quality.
Evidence of this is the increase in dissolved oxygen levels in the Bight waters. Disposal of dredged
material in the Study Area remains, as in the past, a minor source of nutrients to the Bight (see Section
3.2.1). Continued dredged material disposal in the Study Area is not expected to significantly affect the
concentrations of nutrients in the Bight or the response of phytoplankton.
3.3.10.5 Contaminants
Contaminant concentrations in the water column of the inner New York Bight are generally low (Hanson
and Quinn, 1983) and do not exceed marine water quality criteria. The low total suspended solids content
(TSS) in the waters of this offshore region causes most contaminants to be present in the dissolved phase
(EPA, 1992b; EPA Region 2,1991). Recent data also show that the concentrations of metals (and by
extension organic contaminants) in the water column decrease offshore from the mouth of the Harbor
(Figures 3-54a and b).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page3-8S
Figure 3-53. Spatial distribution of chlorophyll a in surface waters in the Mid-Atlantic Bight from
New Jersey to Virginia Beach, VA from 1989 through 1992 (EPA Region 3,1992a).
Average summer concentrations show a consistent decreasing gradient in the offshore
direction.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-89
s
0.12
an -
0.1 -
0.09 -
O.OB-
0.07-
0.06-
0.05-
aix-
0.01
SURFACE LAYER SAMPLES
EPA Uorin* Chronic Water Quality Criterion - 9.3 ugA
A2-
-A15 B10 82 CIS—
STATION
C1
PYCNOCUNE DEPTH SAMPLES
0.03
0.02
0.01
A2-
-A15 B10 B2 C15--
STATION
Figure 3-54a. Total recoverable cadmium concentrations in the surface and mid-depth water of
the New York Bight in July 1988 (from HydroQual, 1989b). Stations A2 to A14 are
along the outer boundaries of New York Bight; Stations BIO to B15 are along the
boundaries of the New York Bight Apex; Stations C15 through Cl form a transect from
the Apex into inner New York Harbor, Stations CIO through CIS are in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-90
4 -
3-
n.
S 2
SURFACE LATER SAMPLES
EPA Marine Chronic Water Quality Criterion
••......•iMllll
A2-
-A15 810 82 CIS
STATION
8-
u
PYCNOCLINE DEPTH SAMPLES
EPA Marine Chronic Water Quality Criterion
A2-
•A15 BIO -82 CIS-—
STATION
Figure 3-54b. Total recoverable copper concentrations in surface and mid-depth water of the New
York Bight in July 1988 (from HydroQual, 1989b). Stations A2 to A14 are along the
outer boundaries of the New York Bight; Stations BlOtoBlSare along the boundaries of
the New York Bight Apex; Stations C15 through Cl form a transect from the Apex into
inner New York Harbor; Stations CIO through C15 are in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-91
The decreasing offshore gradient (EPA Region 2,1991; EPA Region 3,1992a; HydroQual, 1989b; EPA,
1992b; Hanson and Quinn, 1983; Klinkhammer and Bender, 1981) directly reflects dilution of the
contaminant concentrations in the Hudson River plume with seawater from the Bight region. Variations in
this gradient may occur as the flow of the river changes and in response to other climatological factors that
affect the mixing and transport regimes of the inner bight The seasonal stratification of the water column
also affects the vertical distribution of contaminants. For example, metals concentrations in surface waters
are consistently higher than in waters from below the pycnocline. This reflects both the influence of the
Hudson River outflow on the surface waters of the Bight and natural geochemical processes that transport
metals through the water column. Repeated sampling of the water column in the vicinity of the MDS
(Table 3-11) shows that metal concentrations in this area are low and reasonably constant. Thus, while the
concentrations of contaminants in the Bight Apex and Study Area can range widely, their spatial and
temporal distributions are reasonably predictable.
Table 3-11. Representative recent total metal concentrations measured in the water column of
the New York Bight Apex and MDS. Concentrations are in ppb (Mg/1).
Year/
Location
1988/
Bight Apex*
19917
Bight Apexb
1992/
MDSC
AgT
NA
0.0004-
0.012
NA
As,
NA
1.4-1.7
NA
CdT
0.034-
0.087
0.025-
0.087
NA
CuT
0.39 - 2.3
0.37-
0.70
0.33-
0.51
NiT
0.35 - 1.9
0.25-
0.29
0.30-
0.39
HgT
0.0011-
0.010
0.005-
0.009
NA
Pbr
0.045-
0.87
0.046-
0.11
NA
Zn,
1.7-9.3
1.0-2.0
NA
"EPA, 1992b: Surface concentrations were higher than subsurface samples
""EPA, 1991: Single depth only; samples from January
TDragos and Lewis, 1993
HydroQual (1989b) summarized water column PCB concentrations as falling in the range of 0.33 to 0.6
ppb in the late 1970s, but suggested that the levels might be high due to analytical artifacts. The measured
background concentration of dioxin in the water column of the MDS is extremely low (<0.013 ng/1 or
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-92
20
Cu
10
Hoots After Release
Figure 3-55a. Dissipation of contaminants after dredged material disposal. Time series show rapid
decrease in copper following disposal in the MDS in June of 1992 (from Dragos and
Lewis, 1993).
1
20 30 40—50
Time (min post release)
60
Figure 3-55b. Dissipation of contaminants after dredged material disposal. Time series show rapid
decrease in dioxin concentration following disposal in June of 1993 (from Dragos and
Peven, 1994).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-93
3.4 Biological Environment
Understanding the inter- and intra-relationships of the affected biological environment is necessary before
effective decision making can take place with regard to dredged material management in the New York
Bight Apex. Similar to most other dredged material sites around the United States, the primary impacts of
concern at the MDS and Study Area are those related to the benthic environment. In general, water
^rtlnmn iTrmsif^tc atv» minimal anH cHnrf-li\7*=k/l
column impacts are minimal and short-lived.
As discussed in Section 3.3.10, water quality in the Study Area/MDS is good and meets applicable marine
water quality criteria. Contaminants of concern which are detected in the water column are at low
concentrations and/or are associated with suspended sediment resulting from the Hudson River outflow or
dredged material disposal events. By all measures, background exposure for pelagic organisms to
anthropogenic contaminants in the Study Area and MDS is low (refer to Section 3.3.10.5).
SEIS Chapter 3 Sections Characterizing Elements of the
Biological Community
Plankton Community (Section 3.4.1)
Benthic Invertebrates (Section 3.4.2)
Fish and Shellfish (Section 3.4.3)
Marine and Coastal Birds (Section 3.4.4)
Marine Mammals (Section 3.4.5)
Other Concerns (Section 3.4.6)
The information in Section 3.4 characterizes the
present benthic biological environment at the
MDS and Study Area. The benthic environment
is the portion of the ecosystem most likely to be
affected by current dredged material disposal and
management and by the possible remediation of
bottom areas found to be degraded by historic
disposal activities. Section 3.4 primarily focuses
on the current condition of benthic infauna and
epifauna and recreational and commercially
important fish and shellfish — the two main
ecological and socioeconomic categories of concern within the Study Area. Particular attention is paid to
the possible effects bioaccumulation and toxicity found in the surface sediments of the Study Area,
including the potential for transfer of bioavailable contaminants to higher trophic levels.
The biological environment in the New York Bight Apex can be divided into two components: (1) the
water column or pelagic system and (2) the benthic system associated with the seafloor.
Water Column/Pelagic System. Communities that inhabit the water column over the Mud Dump Site and
the Study Area range from innumerable species of phytoplankton and zooplankton, to schools offish and
squid, to occasional marine mammals and reptiles. In general, pelagic organism distribution is determined
by temperature, water currents, light penetration, and food/nutrient availability. The dynamics of these
factors and the resulting regional and local distribution of pelagic organisms in the New York Bight Apex
varies through the course of a typical year. However, all available data on the water-column environment
indicate that pelagic organisms of the MDS and Study Area are more affected, both positively and
negatively, by large-scale coastal processes rather than by existing benthic conditions or management of
the MDS. The exceptions are semi-demersal fishes (e.g., silver hake) whose distributions are loosely
correlated to bottom type. These fish and others are discussed further in Section 3.4.3.
Benthic System. The benthic biological system is composed of infauna and epifauna. Infauna are
organisms such as worms and clams that live within the sediments. Epifauna are organisms such as crabs,
lobsters, and mussels that live on the sediment surface or attached to hard substrates (e.g., rocks and reefs),
or demersal fish which are strongly associated with the bottom. In the Study Area, distinct areas of sand
and sandy mud sediments predominate, with distinctive infaunal and epifaunal communities associated
with each sediment type. Most species comprising the infaunal communities are small burrowing or tube-
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-94
dwelling organisms that live in very close association with the sediment. These organisms are often
important prey for large epifauna and finfish.
Benthic infauna of the Study Area are generally well known, having been sampled and analyzed by
numerous studies. Motile sediment epifauna (crabs, lobster and bottom fish) are somewhat less well
known, as the data for these organisms are primarily from fishery statistics collected and compiled by State
and Federal agencies. Least known, in the quantitative sense, are the epifauna that are attached or
otherwise strongly associated with the rocks, reefs and other hard substrates in the Study Area. These
hard-substrate organisms are found only in the relatively few (and understudied) hard substrate areas of the
Mud Dump Site and Study Area,
3.4.1 Plankton Community [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(9)]
Plankton are small free-floating organisms that primarily drift with ocean currents, in contrast to fish and
marine mammals that actively swim. Although most plankton are microscopic and short-lived, they play
an important role in the ocean as the base of the food chain for all of the ocean's larger herbivores and
carnivores. Plankton also have key ecosystem roles in the distribution, transfer, and recycling of nutrients
and minerals in the ocean. The major processes that control plankton distribution, particularly
phytoplankton distribution, are water currents, temperature, nutrients, and light penetration.
The New York Bight is characterized by temperature extremes that result in a mixed water column during
the winter and a stratified water column in the summer. These distinct seasonal differences are responsible
for the seasonal changes in phytoplankton
abundance (Yentsch, 1977). During the winter,
when the water column is cold and vertically
homogenous, nutrients in the bottom waters are
mixed into the surface waters which have become
depleted during the previous summer months. In
the spring, the redistribution of nutrients and
increasing daylight periods produce phytoplankton
blooms, followed shortly afterwards by increases in
the local zooplankton populations that graze on the
phytoplankton. Correspondingly, in the fall and
early winter, nutrients in the upper zones of the
water column are depleted, photoperiod shortens,
and the plankton abundance decreases throughout
the Bight (see Figure 3-56).
The following summary of phytoplankton and
zooplankton distribution in the New York Bight and
the New York Bight Apex is based on studies
conducted in the late 1960s to early 1970s, as
described by Malone (1977).
CO
CO
O
ffl
J FMAMJ J A SOND
MONTH
Figure 3-56. Seasonal cycles of phytoplankton (solid line)
and zooplankton (dashed line) community biomass in the
North Atlantic (modified from Parsons et aL, 1977).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-95
3.4.1.1 Phytoplankton
Malone (1977) lists 36 species of phytoplankton as abundant in the New York Bight Apex during the
course of a typical year. Total phytoplankton densities in the apex are highest in July and lowest in
November, with diatoms dominating in cold weather months and chlorophytes dominating in the warm
weather months. In July, the chlorophyte, Nannochloris atomus, is dominant with the largest abundance at
the mouth of the Hudson River and the southern shore of western Long Island.
Nuisance Species [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(10)]. Nuisance algae in the waters of the New York Bight
can include a number of phytoplankton species that can cause "red tide" outbreaks in shellfish and fish,
discoloration of water, and other undesirable effects (Anderson, 1994). There are no documented incidents
of dredged material disposal causing a bloom of nuisance algae at any open water disposal sites in U.S.
waters.
HydroQual (1989b) conducted a study which included a review of nuisance algae in the greater New York
Bight, and summarized reported red, green, and brown tides in the coastal regions. As with blooms in
other coastal regions, nuisance algae blooms in the Bight are generally confined in coastal lagoons and
embayments that are subject to eutrophication and restricted exchange with low-nutrient ocean water.
When information is available on these outbreaks, it is most often qualitative and generally includes only a
description of water color (i.e., greenish, yellowish brown). The furthest offshore reports of nuisance algae
blooms in the Bight are about three miles (4-5 km) offshore (Table C-l in HydroQual, 1989b).
The nuisance algal species most frequently identified in the coastal waters of the Bight are Gymnodinium
sp., Katodinium rotundum and Prorocentrum redfieldi, and Nannochloris sp. Other species that are
common to temperate waters that may occur in the area include Ceratium longipes, Gyodinium spirale,
Dinophysis spp., and Protoperidinium (HydroQual, 1989b).
Nuisance algae blooms occur primarily in the summer (May through October) when coastal waters are
warm and the photoperiod is long. Anderson and Keafer (1995) evaluated the distribution of the red tide
species Alexandrium and the factors that can affect bloom outbreaks and concluded that the locus of red
tide outbreaks is primarily in the shallow embayments. Anderson and Keafer (1995) also concluded that
blooms of the toxic Alexandrium species are driven by event-scale variability (i.e., wind and rainfall/runoff
variability), which plays a significant role in the yearly response of this organism. More specifically,
localized blooms are largest when physical forcing functions in the system are weak and embayment
flushing is reduced. These observations and conclusions are generally supported by the reported timing,
distribution, and abundance of nuisance algae in the coastal New York Bight, conditions that are not
typically found in the offshore waters of the Bight. In general, the potential for nuisance algae blooms in
the Study Area have been significantly reduced since the mid 1980s. Nutrient loading to the Bight has
been significantly reduced (see Section 3.2.1) with the cessation of sewage sludge disposal, increased
treatment of permitted sewage discharges, and increased control of runoff in the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area. Dredged material is not a significant contributor of nutrient loading in the Bight
(Section 3.2.1).
3.4.12 Zooplankton
Malone (1977) found that very few comprehensive studies have been conducted on zooplankton in the
New York Bight In general, zooplankton populations in the inner New York Bight are dominated by four
genera of copepods: Oithona, Paracalanus, Pseudocalanus, and Centropages. Oithona and
Pseudocalanus are abundant year round, whereas Centropages and Paracalanus are seasonally abundant.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-96
Other categories of zooplankton that are abundant seasonally or at low densities throughout the year
include, chaetognaths, bivalve larvae, tunicates, and siphonophores. Chaetognaths are present throughout
the year, with peak abundances in near-bottom water during May through July. Bivalve larvae populations
peak in the inner Bight in January through March, and again in August through November. Tunicates are
most abundant in the fall. Siphonophores are abundant during all seasons, except for winter. In general,
inner Bight zooplankton abundance peaks approximately one month after the inner Bight phytoplankton
communities.
Ichthyoplankton and Other Meroplankton. Fish and shellfish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton and
meroplankton) comprise a large component of the zooplankton community in the New York Bight and are
directly related to the presence and health of the area's fish and shellfish stock. As can be expected,
ichthyoplankton and meroplankton abundance is directly linked to the spawning cycles of the adult
populations. Since most fish and shellfish spawn in the Bight between the spring and summer (with peak
"pawning in the spring), egg abundance during this period is relatively high. The transition period from
egg to fish larvae varies by species. However, in general, fish and shellfish larvae abundance peaks in the
Bight during the late spring (NOAA, 1988b). Fish larvae feed on copepods, which are herbivors, which
links fish stocks to phytoplankton production. Even though this linkage is present, NOAA (1988b)
concluded that standing stocks of fish are rarely related to the abundance of zooplankton and
phytoplankton prey.
Ichthyoplankton and other meroplankton can be herbivorous, carnivorous, or omnivorous; some species
subsist entirely on their larval yolk sacs (lecithotrophic) until they reach juveniles stages. Ichthyoplankton
typically feed on smaller zooplankton, particularly copepods, such as Calanus finmarchicus and
Pseudocalanus minutus (NOAA, 1988b). Because copepods.are herbivores4 that feed on phytoplankton,
adult year classes offish stocks are indirectly linked to their Year-0 regional phytoplankton productivity
(NOAA, 1988b).
3.4.2 Benthic Invertebrates [40 CFR Sections 228.6(a)(2) and 228.6(a)(9); 228.10(b)(2),
228.10(b)(3), and 228.10(b)(5)]
Most benthic invertebrates of the Study Area are small-bodied infaunal species, which quickly respond to
changes in physical and chemical conditions. In contrast, some larger sized epifauna (e.g., lobsters and
crabs) are generally more motile, migratory, and resilient to local or small scale physical and chemical
changes because of their habitat range, feeding behavior, or biology.
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, benthic infaunal. communities of the Study Area may have been adversely
affected in the past by dredged material disposal, historical disposal of other wastes (e.g., sewage sludge),
and pollutant discharges through the Hudson River plume and from coastal New Jersey and Long Island.
However, conditions in the Study Area could not be strongly correlated to any of these sources. While
disposal of dredged material has caused direct mortality of individual organisms by burial (this will be
discussed in Section 3.4.2.4), it also is important to recognize that this disposal has caused persistent long-
term changes to sediment character in the Study Area, which, in turn, has affected recruitment and
recolonization of infaunal communities.
Some copepod species are omnivores (e.g., Acartia sp.)
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-97
Recent data from the Study Area5, indicate there
are two generally distinct infaunal communities
composed of different species of small bivalves
(clams), polychaetes (worms), echinoderms (sand
dollars), and crustaceans (amphipods). The major
habitat features of the two benthic communities
(referred to as Community Groups "A" and "B,"
and discussed in detail in Section 3.4.2.2) appear
to be water depth and sediment grain size. The
mean total abundance of the benthic infauna
ranges from 4,325 to 128,233 m2 and the mean
total number of species per station ranges from
11.0 to 34.7 species (Battelle, 1996a). While
there are non biological measures and lines of
evidence to qualify some areas of the Study Area
as impacted by anthropogenic activities (see
Section 3.3.9) and labeled as "degraded," data on
the two infaunal communities do not definitively
show that either community is adversely affected
by sediment quality. Both infaunal communities
are generally abundant and have relatively rich
species diversity.
A useful method for understanding the present infaunal communities of the Study Area is to compare data
collected by recent and historical studies. By characterizing the previously existing infaunal communities
to that of the recent communities, one can correlate the approximate type and degree of community
responses to physical and chemical changes that have occurred in the Study Area benthos. Unfortunately,
direct quantitative comparisons between historical studies and current studies of the Study Area are not
possible because of substantial differences in the focus of the past studies, the variety of sampling and
analytical methods used, and the availability of original data (as opposed to available data summaries).
Many of the historical studies focused on Bight-wide and Bight Apex infaunal communities and typically
included very few stations within the borders of this SEIS's Study Area. However, despite these
differences, the historical studies allow general, qualitative comparisons to be made that are useful for
understanding how the current infaunal communities in the Study Area developed.
Utility of Benthic Invertebrate Communities for
Environmental Monitoring
Of the many aquatic communities that can be studied
in conjunction with environmental monitoring, benthic
invertebrates are particularly useful for evaluating
anthropogenic impacts. As stated by Bilyard (1987),
study of the benthos affords a monitoring program
with relatively easily obtained quantitative data, the
variability of which can be estimated. Because many
benthic invertebrates are not highly migratory, the data
are site-specific. This is important in assessing
impacts caused by specific types of disturbances.
Additionally, many benthic community constituents
are very sensitive to anthropogenic impacts (Thomas,
1993; Conlan, 1994). The benthos also represents an
important biological community that interacts not only
with communities in the overlying waters via food
chains (e.g., Steimle et aL, 1994), but also with the
physical environment, especially in the case of
infaunal communities (e.g., Rhoads and Boyer, 1982).
Note to Readers: The Battelle (1996a) study of infaunal communities was limited to samples obtained from the
approx. 23-nmi2 rectangular box that encompasses the current MDS (Subarea 1 in Figure 3-3). After the infauna
sampling of this 23-nmi2 box was conducted for the Battelle study, the Study Area for this SEIS was enlarged by the
addition of a 7-nmi2 rectangular box (Subarea 2) to the northwest All references to the Study Area in Section 3.4.2
of this SEIS refer to only the original 23 nmi2 SE box.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-98
3.4.2.1 Studies of Infaunal Communities in
the New York Bight Conducted
Before 1990
Prior to 1960, most studies conducted within the
New York Bight were concerned with inshore
environments and are not directly relevant to the
MDS (Pearce et al, 1981). In the late 1960s,
intensive studies of the New York Bight began,
largely under the sponsorship of NOAA/NMFS.
These studies continued into the 1970s and 1980s
and, although not an integrated monitoring
program, provided insights into historical patterns
of abundance, diversity, and taxonomic
dominance within the infaunal communities of the
Bight
NMFS studies completed between 1968 and 1971
(summarized in Pearce et al., 1981) concluded
that disposal of sewage sludge and dredged
material had impacted habitat quality in the Bight
Apex, and that an area in the center of the
Christiaensen Basin was "devoid of benthic macrofaunal species." Stations with reduced numbers of
infauna also were found where there were high levels of chemical contaminants.
During the Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program conducted by NOAA from 1973 to 1976,
benthic samples were collected from a grid of 65 stations in the New York Bight Apex; six of these were
located within the boundaries of the present SEIS Study Area. The MESA studies led to the conclusion
that species diversity was very low in areas of highly organic sediments. These sediments were generally
thought to be heavily impacted by sewage sludge and dredged materials deposited in the Bight. Most of
this region of reduced diversity was located in the Christiaensen Basin, but extended westward to include
the northeastern portion of the Study Area. Pearce et al. (1976) also reported that amphipods were absent
from these carbon-rich sediments, although certain deposit-feeding, "pollution-tolerant" species were
present.
Data Comparability Problem Among
Infaunal Community Studies
Substantial methodological differences among the various
studies conducted in the Bight [summarized in Wilber and
Will (1994)] preclude direct comparisons of the data from
many of the studies. For example, during studies conducted
prior to 1979, sediment samples were rinsed over 1.0 mm-
mesh sieves, whereas during most studies conducted after
1979, samples were rinsed over 0.5 mm-mesh sieves. The
use of smaller mesh sieves typically results in the retention
of more infaunal animals (and probably more species) than
the use of larger mesh sieves. Also, samples obtained during
most studies conducted before 1994 were collected by using
0.1-m2 Smith Maclntyre or modified Van Veen grab
samplers. During surveys conducted in 1994,0.04-m2
Young-modified Van Veen samplers were used. Finally,
since most of the studies conducted in the Bight focus on the
entire New York Bight or the New York Bight Apex, they
do not tend to have enough stations within the boundaries of
the MDS/Study Area to provide a precise characterization of
the area.
Caracciolo and Steimle (1983) used the same MESA data set to construct contour diagrams showing the
distributions of various sedimentary and infaunal characteristics within the Bight. These contour diagrams
implied that the entire MDS area had moderately low species diversity and low infauna abundance,
features often interpreted as evidence of an impacted benthic environment. Among the species reported to
occur at relatively high densities in the MDS/Study Area were the polychaetes Nephtys incisa, Prionospio
steenstrupi, and Pherusa, and the nutclam Nucula proximo. The sand dollar Echinarachnius parma and
the amphipod Pseudunciola obliquua were not abundant in the area. Based on these observations,
Caracciolo and Steimle concluded that the infaunal communities in the vicinity of the sewage-sludge and
dredged-material disposal sites were adversely altered.
Four stations that were part of the Northeast Monitoring Program (NEMP) conducted by NOAA from the
late 1970s through the mid 1980s were located within the Study Area (Reid et al, 1982). Reid et al.
(1991) included data from only one station (Station 4), which is located in the northwestern comer of the
Study Area and provides some degree of historical reference for that area. Reid et al. reported that during
the period from 1979 to 1985 there was no consistent pattern of taxonomic dominance, and infaunal
abundance varied temporally. Reid et al. concluded that the fauna at this station was variable but not
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-99
altered compared to that of the sewage dumpsite. They also remarked that the infauna variability might
have been related to the substantial sediment heterogeneity observed in the area.
In the late 1980s, the NMFS designed and implemented a study to monitor habitat changes within the
Bight in response to the cessation of sewage sludge disposal at the 12-Mile Site. Two sets of stations were
incorporated into the design (Studholme et al., 1995). Broadscale stations provided for Bight-wide
coverage and replicate stations focused on monitoring the response in the Christiaensen Basin close to the
sewage disposal site. Three of the broadscale stations were located within the Study Area, but data
collected from them have not been presented in summary reports on the infauna (Reid et al., 1991;!995).
Analysis of infauna data from the replicate stations revealed that some attributes of the benthos responded
to the cessation of sludge disposal, whereas others did not (Reid et al., 1995). Significant increases in the
numbers of species, numbers of amphipod species, and numbers of amphipod individuals at the station
closest to the sludge disposal site (NY6) were detected following the transfer of sewage sludge disposal to
the 106-Mile Site. Furthermore, an expected decrease in the abundance of an opportunistic polychaete
worm Capitella [often considered an indicator of organically enriched sediments (Pearson and Rosenberg,
1978)] was detected. Even though these changes implied improved habitat conditions, several other
measures of benthic conditions (e.g., biomass of certain species such as the worms Pherusa affinis and
Nephtys incisd) did not increase in the Christiaensen Basin following phaseout of sludge disposal (Reid et
al., 1995). While Reid et al., (1995) suggested that there was some indication that recovery of the benthos
in the vicinity of the 12-Mile Site had started, they drew no conclusions that were specifically related to the
MDS.
Mud Dump Site Infaunal Community Before 1990
The original site-designation EIS (EPA, 1982)
characterized the MDS as having "low absolute
numbers of individuals" of infaunal animals as a
result of disposal activities. This conclusion was Based on studies Ducted before 1990, the MDS infaunal
r communities were characterized as:
reached, at least in part, because of the historical
generalizations of the area provided by Pearce et
al. (1976) and Caracciolo and Steimle (1983) that
were based on limited sampling in the vicinity of
the site. The EIS also assessed the effects of sediments.
Having low infaunal species diversity and abundance,
and
Consisting of a single community type that was
associated with fine, highly organic, contaminant-laden
dredged-material disposal on the benthos by
analyzing two sets of unpublished data. Each of the two sets included data from about 8 to 10 stations that
were within the present boundaries of the Study Area. The analysis and subsequent presentation of these
data sets was restricted to infaunal species associated with "fine-grained sediments with high organic
carbon content" (EPA Region 2,1982). The first data set was derived from samples collected by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science during surveys of the New York Bight conducted between 1973 and
1976. The EIS reported that the highest densities of the species that were analyzed occurred along the axis
of the Hudson Shelf Valley extending northward between the MDS and the sewage sludge disposal site.
One species, the nutclam Nucula proximo, was abundant along the eastern boundary of the Study Area.
The second data set was taken from the results of surveys conducted at the MDS in 1979 by EPA and
Interstate Electronics Corporation. From this analysis, the EIS reported that low species density occurred
within the boundaries of the MDS and extended north and south of the site. Densities increased to the
west and east of the site and were highest in the Hudson Shelf Valley and Christiaensen Basin. Based on
these two studies, the EIS concluded that there was temporal consistency in the distribution of dominant
taxa and the effects of dredged-material disposal were generally restricted to the MDS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment PageS-WQ
3.4.2.2 Characterization of the Study Area Based on Studies Conducted After 1990
In August 1992, EPA conducted a rapid bioassessment of the benthic resources at several areas in the New
York Bight Apex that were being considered as replacement sites for the MDS (Battelle, 1993). This
survey used trawls to collect qualitative data on epibenthic crustaceans and grab samples for a qualitative
analysis of the infauna. Trawls were also used to collect fish for analyses of the relationship between fish
diets and the benthos. Three trawl transects, along each of which three infaunal grab stations were placed,
were located in the southwest part of the Study Area Two additional trawl transects were located south of
the southern boundary of the Study Area. The study concluded that the area encompassing the southern
part of the Study Area had a Nucula proxima-Nephtys incisa infaunal community at most stations and that
amphipods were not among the dominant taxa. Thus, the community type found in the southern part of the
Study Area was characteristic of that found in fine-grained sediment areas.
High-resolution sampling of the Study Area conducted in October 1994 (Battelle, 1996a) revealed several
major differences relative to the historical picture of the MDS area. Perhaps the most striking result of this
study was that the infaunal community in the Study Area was biologically heterogeneous and, in general,
was abundant and diverse. Several biological features showed considerable variability on relatively large
(i.e., among-stations), as well as relatively small (i.e., within-station) scales. Total infaunal abundance
among stations varied from slightly more than 4,000 to more than 128,000 individuals/m2 (Figure 3-57).
Annelids and molluscs were the dominant major taxa, respectively representing about 71% and 18% of all
individuals collected in the Study Area. The range of total species per station ranged from about 11 to 35
(Figure 3-57). Of these species, 62% were annelid worms, 17% were crustaceans, and 11% were
molluscs. Species diversity per station, as measured by the Shannon-Weiner index (#'), ranged from very
low (mean values <1.0) to moderate (mean values between 3.0 and 3.5; Figure 3-57).
Delineation of Infaunal Community Groups A and B. In addition to varying in numerical properties, the
infaunal communities within the Study Area also differed substantially in composition. The strongest
evidence for this observation was provided by the Bray-Curtis similarity analysis that revealed two primary
infaunal communities (termed Group A and Group B; Figure 3-58) that bore little taxonomic resemblance
to each other.
Infaunal Community Group A. The general
biological features of Group A (Table 3-12; Figure
3-59) were high infauna abundance, moderate
numbers of species per sample, and moderate «..,.«,_ „ Jf, j ,
r r Based on the October 1994 study, the MDS and Study Area
species diversity. Dominant taxa included the
nutclam Nucula proximo, and the polychaetes
Prionospio steenstrupi and Pherusa (Figure 3-60).
Other polychaetes also were prevalent.
Abundances of the polychaete Polygordius, the
sand dollar Echinarachnius parma, and the
amphipod Pseudunciola obliquua were low.
Though variable, chemical contaminant levels, as
indicated by the number of ER-L exceedances (see
Section 3.3.9.3), were high (Table 3-12) at Group
A stations. Group A samples were collected at 22
stations that were located in two noncontiguous
areas of the Study Area (Figure 3-61). One set of Group A stations was located along the west-central
boundary of the Study Area; the second set was located along the eastern half of the Study Area and
included stations in the eastern part of the MDS. Li general, Group A samples were collected from
Infaunal Community at the Mud Dump Site and
Study Area
infaunal communities can be characterized as:
Having a high degree of spatial heterogeneity;
Consisting of a community type "Group A" that is (1)
associated'with relatively deep, muddy sediments of high
organic carbon and high chemical contaminant content,
and (2) consisting of a community that is generally
abundant and relatively species rich; and
Consisting of a community type "Group B" that is (1)
associated with relatively shallow, sandy sediments of
low organic carbon and low chemical contaminant
content, and (2) consisting of a community that is
generally abundant and relatively species rich.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
ChapterS, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-101
Abundance
128,2,
3
Number of Species
34.7
Figure 3-57. Geographic distribution of mean total infaunal abundance, numbers of species per
replicate, and species diversity per replicate in the October 1994 Study Area
(Subarea 1) (from Battelle, 1996a).
-------
0.1
0.3
.5 0.5
CO
0.7
0.9
Station
Subgroup
U» l/i KJ •-•
N)
B2
00 KJ l*» K> Ul
Bl
i—> -J Wl DO «J i—•
A4
O N> 0\ -C. 00
A3 A2 Al
II
8.
s
Figure 3-58. Dendrogram resulting from clustering of stations based on Bray-Curtis similarity (from Battelle 1996a).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-103
Table 3-12. General geophysical and biological properties of the two main cluster groups
resulting from Bray-Curtis similarity analysis (from Battelle 1996a). The mean (±
standard deviation) for each value are provided for each group.
Cluster
Groop
A
B
- Geophysical
Depth
(m):
27
(±4)
20
(±4)
Mud
(%)
42
(±29)
3
(±5)
Properties
Sand
(%)
58
(±29)
97
(±5)
TOC
•(*>)
1.4
(±1-0)
0.04
(±0.12)
Biological Properties
AmpeKsca
Survival
(%)
33
(±36)
68
(±29)
Total
Abundance
(Wu?)
25,489
(±13,870)
24,753
(±27,612)
Species
(WSample)
25
(±6)
23
(±4)
Species
Diversity
or>
2.6
(±0.5)
2.0
(±0.7)
Faunal Characteristics
Nucula, Prionospio, and
Pherusa dominant;
Monticellina, Polydora
quadrilobala, Cossura, and
Phoronis common;
amphipods moderately.
common.
Polygordius, and
Echinarachnius dominant;
Pseudunciola, Prionospio,
and oligochaetes common;
amphipods common.
relatively deep areas, and were mostly composed of muddy sediment with high organic content
(Table 3-12; Figure 3-62).
Infaunal Community Group B. The general biological features of Group B (Table 3-12; Figure 3-59)
were high infaunal abundance, moderate numbers of species per sample, and moderately low species
diversity. Dominant taxa included the polychaete, Polygordius, the sand dollar, Echinarachnius parma,
and the amphipod, Pseudunciola obliquua (Figure 3-63). Also common was the polychaete Prionospio
steenstrupi, although it was much less abundant at Group B stations than it was at Group A stations.
Chemical contaminant levels, as indicated by the number of ER-L exceedances, at Group B stations were
low (Table 3-12).
Group B samples were collected at 18 stations that were located in relatively shallow waters, with sandy
sediments that had very low organic content (Table 3-12; Figure 3-62). Stations comprising Group B were
located in a band that extended from the northwest corner of the Study Area, through the center of the
Study Area (including the western side of the MDS), to the southern boundary of the Study Area
(Figure 3-61). The grouping of these stations into a relatively contiguous north-south band through the
Study Area is coincident with the top of the historic disposal mound and natural sediment in the southern
part of the Study Area. The southwestern corner of the MDS, a region that had a considerable area of fine
sediments (Figure 3-16) and had recently received capped dredged material, was not sampled in October
1994. Because of the strong association between infauna cluster groups and sedimentary characteristics,
the infauna of the southwestern part of the MDS might be expected to be more similar to that of Group B
than that of Group A once deposited sands are recolonized.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-104
Total Abundance
140000 •
120000 •
8 looooo •
c
CO
c 80000-
3
.0
< 60000-
c
OS
0)
2 40000 •
20000 •
n .
A
'
-
r— i
1 '] 1 — 1 I — 1 ^""^
r~i 1^1 yA./\
P n n OD A AAA
P! c? rO r^-f A A^ AA ^
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
Total Species
3t> •
CO
.530 •
o
0)
Q.
CO
.a
§20-
2
c
CO
J15-
10 .
i i
n
D Q Q
CJP- - - 43.
D
-a -A- AA- -^V"A
^D AAA A A
D D r^ A
•p-°- ^ A -A- ^'
b- A
a
1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I IT*I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
3^
2.5-
i 2-
c
CD
J1.5-
1 •
0.5-
0-
cn a A A "A
. .a. -P PD- Q- -A -A-
n CD [— i A
b- Cfa. ° A - -A .
AA AAA;
.0. A. A"
A
A
'A
i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r i i i i i i i i i i
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
Figure 3-59. Mean total infaunal abundance (number/m2), numbers of species, and species
diversity in the October 1994 Study Area (Subarea 1) (from Battelle 1996a). Stations
are arranged by cluster group. (Q Cluster Group A; A: Cluster Group B).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-105
Nucula proximo
>3WUU "
25000-
0>
C20000-
CD
1
E 15000-
<
c
S 10000-
^
^
5000-
0-
n
n
n
P. °
P.
D D n
D D
n a " d
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
16000-
(D
S
•§ 12000 •
c
rj
_a
c 8000-
CD
CD
Prionospio steenstrupi
-n
D
4000- -n
o mT1! 111111111111 icETii 11 Ai^£A
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
6000
Pherusa
5000 •
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-106
Community Group
• Group A
Group B
No Data
1996 Bathymetry
'. < 20 meters
20 meters
A/> 20 meters
Figure 3-61. Locations of cluster groups within the October 1994 Study Area (Subarea 1)
(Battelle 1996a). (•: Cluster Group A; •: Cluster Group B; •: no data)
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-107
100
80--
r? so--
-o
40-:
20-
a
a.
A
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
3--n-
02
o
1 •
111111111111
a
a
a
i i i i i i
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
35
30-
£25
Q_
20
a
n
a- o
-A-AA.
A A
A^
15 MI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l^| | | | | [A| | I I I I I I I I
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
Figure 3-62. Mud (%), TOC (%), and water depth (m) at stations included in the infaunal
analyses. Stations are arranged by cluster group. (D: Cluster Group A; A: Cluster
Group B).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-108
30000
25000 •
2000-
Pseudunciola obliquua
o o 1111 oi i^i 1111 iani 111111111 ifrifri 11
14 46 30 26 2 9 19 31 28 27 11 25 24 22 20 16 6 45 12 13
18 32 33 3 29 4 49 17 15 7 10 34 37 8 5 44 42 41 35 1
Station
Figure 3-63. Mean abundance (number/m2) of Polygordius, Echinarachnius parma, and
Pseudunciola obliquua in the Study Area. Stations are arranged by cluster group.
(D: Cluster Group A; A: Cluster Group B).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-109
3.42.3 Comparison of Study Area Benthic Infaunal Communities Before and After 1990
The data gathered from the recent studies provide an image of the Study Area (see text box at beginning of
next section) that differs with historical characterizations. Most obvious is the finding that the infaunal
communities in the region, while heterogeneous, can be classified into two distinct community patterns.
Consequently, historical generalizations that the MDS had low infaunal diversity and abundance and was
associated with contaminated fine sediments (Pearce et al, 1976; Caracciolo and Steimle, 1983), probably
were not entirely accurate, although, there was some evidence, which was not fully recognized at the time,
that the area was heterogeneous. The 1982 EIS mentioned a region to the north and south of the MDS
boundaries, but presumably still within the Study Area, that consisted of sandy, low-organic sediments
(EPA, 1982). Although the 1982 EIS did not characterize the community inhabiting this sandy region, it
mentioned that the low densities of the indicator species (i.e., those associated with fine-grained, high-
organic sediments) in that area were probably because those species were not typically found in sandy
sediments. Furthermore, grain-size data taken from Table B-2 and B-3 in the EIS revealed a band of sandy
sediments extending southward from the northwest corner of the Study Area along the western boundary
of the MDS to the southern part of the Study Area (EPA Region 2,1982), a pattern that is strikingly
similar to that found in October 1994. Later, Reid et al. (1991) described a community in the northwestern
part of the Study Area that consisted primarily of animals associated with sandy sediments. Thus, some
historical evidence suggests that the community patterns found in 1994 may have been present, at least in
some form, for at least 20 years, but were only made clear by the intensive sampling performed in 1994.
3.42.4 Are the Study Area
Infaunal Communities
Impacted?
The 1982 EIS conclusion that the area
chosen for the MDS had been adversely
affected by dredged material disposal is
based on the presumption that species
found where chemical contaminants are
high are "pollution tolerant," whereas
taxa not found in such areas are
"pollution sensitive." Such judgements
have been made by simple comparisons
of the distributions of various infaunal
species to those of organic and
contaminant content (e.g., Pearce et al.,
1976; Caracciolo and Steimle, 1983;
Weisberg et al, 1996) and by the use of
multdvariate statistical techniques
(Walker et al, 1979; Chang et al,
1992). There are two problems with
this approach: (1) there is a strong
positive relationship between the
sedimentary mud fraction and organic
content and contaminant load, and (2)
the absence of a species from
contaminated areas is assumed to mean
that there was a contaminant-related
effect Attempts to separate the effects
of sediment texture from contaminant loads were made by constructing various sedimentary strata (Walker
etal., 1979; Chang et al, 1992) followed by multivariate analyses. Hypothetically, these techniques
Differences in Infaunal Community Distribution
within the Study Area
Previous studies that used distributional comparisons concluded that the
nutclam Nucula proximo and the polychaetes Prionospio steenstrupi and
Pherusa qffinis, among others, were insensitive to contaminants. Because
these (Group B) species characterized the infaunal community found in
muddy, contaminant-laden sediments in the Study Area in 1994, it might
be concluded that this community was a result of the presence of the
contaminants.
Previous similar comparisons concluded that the sand dollar
Echinarachnius parma and the amphipod Pseudunciola obliquua, among
others, were sensitive to contaminants. Because these (Group B) species
characterized the infaunal community found in sandy, relatively
contaminant-free sediments in the Study Area in 1994, it might be
concluded that this community was a result of the absence of the
contaminants.
Alternatively however, it can be hypothesized that community Group A
and B distributions are governed by factors other than the contaminant
levels found in the sediments of the Study Area. Group A species may
simply have strong affinities for muddy sediments, inhabit regions of the
Study Area where these sediments are found, and are unaffected by the
relatively high contaminant levels found in these areas. Correspondingly,
Group B species may have affinities for sandy sediments and not muddy
sediments areas, regardless of their contaminant levels. If either
hypothesis is true, categorizing portions of the Study Area as degraded on
the basis of infaunal distribution data alone cannot be supported.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment fage 3-11Q
would permit the classification of taxa according to contaminant sensitivity or tolerance. However, they do
not alleviate the second problem. Hypotheses other than sedimentary contaminant load could explain the
absence of species from an area. For example, many studies [including the October 1994 MDS study by
Battelle (1996a)] have noticed that the distributions of some taxa are strongly associated with sediment
texture, although this relationship may not necessarily be one of cause and effect [see Snelgrove and
Butman (1994)]. In the case of the Study Area and other regions in the New York Bight, so-called
sensitive species typically have been associated with sandy, but not muddy, sediments. Therefore, the
absence of such taxa from contaminant-laden sediments, which are typically muddy, may be related to
sediment texture, not contaminant load. Furthermore, biological interactions such as predation (e.g.,
Commito and Ambrose, 1985; Ambrose, 1991; Wilson, 1990) or competition (e.g., Hughes, 1985; Wilson,
1990) may offer alternative explanations for the distribution of species. The potential importance of such
interactions has not been considered in most studies of infaunal communities in the Bight. Without direct
supporting evidence, it is misleading to conclude that the distributions of infaunal species in the New York
Bight, including the Study Area, can be explained primarily by the distributions of sedimentary organic
content or contaminant load. Therefore, it cannot be definitively concluded that either the Group A or
Group B community type found in the Study Area was the result of contaminated sediment
3.43 Fish and Shellfish of the Study Area
The New York Bight is considered a transitional region for many species of fish and shellfish. This region
is occupied by many fish species, few of which are considered year-round residents. Most fish species in
the Bight are transient and are classified as either summer or winter residents because they migrate through
the area on a seasonal basis. These migrations are in response to the dramatic variations in water
temperature in the New York Bight, on both temporal and spatial scales. Temporal variations in the
inshore region of the New York Bight range from boreal-zone conditions in the winter to tropic zone
conditions hi the summer (refer to Section 3.3.3). Wide-ranging conditions such as these cause the New
York Bight to be a seasonal habitat for many commercially and recreationally valuable fish species
(Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). Conversely, the same conditions are ideal for only a few year-round
resident species.
The Bight is an import economic resource for both commercial and recreational/sport fishermen.
Economic data from the area encompassing the inner Bight indicate that in 1993 commercial fishermen
harvested 148 million Ibs offish and shellfish worth over $24 million. This volume included about 50
species (NEFSC, 1995a). In addition to commercial fishing, NMFS (1995) reports that in 1994 there were
almost two million marine recreational anglers in New York and New Jersey. As of 1993, economic
impact data on the New Jersey sport fishing industry shows almost 9 thousand jobs and total revenues of
$703 million for this industry (ASA, 1995). The economic value of the industry was estimated at $343
million. Fishing activity in the New York Bight and within the Study Area is clearly of significant socio-
economic importance and is examined in detail in this section of the SEIS to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the regional commercial and recreational fishing industries and how they might be
affected by placement of dredged material. Further socioeconomic information on commercial and
recreational fishing and catch value is contained in Section 3.5.1.2.
Important fish and shellfish in the Study Area are evaluated relative to (1) the seasonal distributions,
spawning habits, habitat preferences, and food habits offish and shellfish in the Bight, (2) the overall
health and ecological importance of these stocks, and (3) how changes in dredged material placement
might impact the end-users of these stocks, including human beings.
As previously described, the New York Bight is a prominent feature of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and
is often referred to as a part of the Middle Atlantic Bight (south of Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras). The New
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-111
York Bight extends seaward between 150 and 180 km to the edge of the continental shelf (Gross, 1976),
and is bounded by land to the north and west and influenced by the Gulf Stream to the south and east. The
southern coast of Long Island, New York is the northern boundary; the coast of New Jersey is the western
boundary. The latitude and longitude boundaries of the New York Bight correspond with National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) commercial Statistical Areas 612 - 616 (Figure 3-64).
The New York Bight Apex is a smaller region within the New York Bight that shares the boundaries of
NMFS commercial Statistical Area 612, as illustrated in Figure 3-64. The Apex includes the Study Area
and is the focus of the fish and shellfish resources discussion in this Chapter. In some cases, if data or
information are not available for the Bight Apex, data from the New York Bight or a larger geographic
area (i.e., Southern New England or Middle Atlantic Bight) are used to evaluate the resident fish and
shellfish communities, as appropriate to the SEIS goals.
100 o 100
•i
Kilometers
Figure 3-64. National Marine Fisheries Service commercial fisheries
statistical areas, Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-112
Data Sources Used in SEIS Section 3.43 to
Characterize Fish and Shellfish Resources in the Study Area
To comprehensively describe the fish and shellfish that occupy the Study Area, field studies and
other data sources were reviewed. Data on fish and shellfish were obtained from five major
sources, plus personal communication with scientists at relevant federal and state laboratories.
The data sources include commercial catch statistics, recreational catch statistics, federal
laboratory resource trawl surveys, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
resource trawl surveys, and peer-reviewed journal and federal laboratory scientific literature.
Commercial Catch Statistics. Commercial catch data are reported by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) port agents'when fish and shellfish are landed at port. The catches are
reported by pre-defined Statistical Areas. Statistical Area 612 (Figure 3-64) encompasses the
Study Area and covers about 90% of the New York Bight Apex. The value and volume of fish
and shellfish caught in this statistical area provides information on their relative importance to
the commercial fishing industry.
Recreational Catch Statistics. TheNMFS annually publishes reports on recreational fishing
along the eastern coast of the United States (example: NMFS, 1995). These publicly available
data are summarized by state and region and do not identify the discrete locations within a region
where the fish were caught Consequently, these "coarse" data were augmented for this SEIS by
information provided by anglers during telephone interviews.
Federal Resource Trawl Survey. The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) also
conducts bottom trawl surveys along the east coast of the United States from Cape Hatteras north
during the spring, fall, and summer. Sampling is conducted within strata bounded:by depth
zones in the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 3-65). Feeding habits data from fish collected in offshore
(Le., Strata 1) and inshore (i.e., Strata 8-14) strata were used to describe the prey selected by fish
nicely to be found in the Study Area.
State Resource Trawl Surveys. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) conducts trawl surveys throughout the year of fish inhabiting nearshore areas from
Sandy Hoot, NJ to Cape Henlopen, DE. Surveys are conducted annually during January, April,
June, August, and October and date back to 1988. Sampling is conducted within strata whose
boundaries are approximated by depth contours (30,60,90 m) and longitudinal lines. Each
strata is comprised of several sampling blocks mat are 2° latitude in width and 2.5° longitude in
height The outermost Strata 14, is bounded on the east by the 73°50' and the west by the
73"56' longitudinal lines. The eastern boundary passes directly through the middle of the MDS
as illustrated in Figure 3-66. Data from Strata 13, which is shoreward of 14, were also evaluated.
Figure3^67.shows the NJDEP sampling strata and blocks for Strata 13 and 14, with the Study
Area overlain for comparison. Data from these strata are used to characterize the fish and
shellfish likely to be found within the Study Area. In comparison to NMFS resource trawl
surveys and commercial catch data, theKJDEP resource trawl survey data provide the finer scale
fish community information.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-113
\
Vo
Figure 3-65. National Marine Fisheries Service
bottom trawl survey strata in the vicinity of the Study
Area.
Figure 3-66. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection fisheries trawl survey sampling Strata
Nos. 13 and 14.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-114
Lower New Yoix Bay
40 3D' N
Figure 3-67. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection fisheries sampling Strata
No. 14 and blocks nearest the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-115
Species of Fish and Shellfish Found in the Study Area. Over 300 species of fish and shellfish are
permanent or migratory residents in the Middle Atlantic Bight (Conner et al., 1979). Of these,
approximately 36 species, as listed in Tables 3-13 and 3-14, are considered commercially, recreationally,
and ecologically important6 within the New York Bight based on (1) a species list presented in Wilk et al.
(1992) collected during a study of the 12-Mile Dump Site and (2) consultation with Federal and state
personnel familiar with fish and shellfish of economic and ecological importance that are found in or near
the Study Area.
Tables 3-13 and 3-14 classify fish and shellfish, _.„.,,_ , .
The following three key factors were used to characterize
respectively, according to their primary
importance in the Study Area (i.e., commercial,
recreational or ecological significance) and their
habitat. The importance of commercially or
recreationally harvested fish and shellfish is self ' Food and Habitat R^uirements
fish and shellfish of the Study Area:
• Spatial and Temporal Distribution
• Spawning Strategies
These factors provide important information about each
species that can be used to predict potential effects
associated with remediation of the HARS.
evident — these species are human food sources
and are either consumed by the anglers or sold for
direct (e.g., fish market) or indirect (e.g. processed
into fish meal) consumption. The fish and
shellfish classified as ecologically significant in
this SEIS are either known major prey of commercial or recreational species in the Bight region, or have
been determined by scientists to be integral components of the general ecosystem around the Study Area
(S.Wilk, NMFS, pers. comm., 1995). In general, fish species, including those in the Study Area, are
classified according to their habitat — demersal or pelagic. Demersal fish species make up the largest
percentage offish species found in the Study Area. These 21 species spend most of their lifecycle on or
near the bottom. The seven pelagic fish species reside and feed within the water column of the Study Area
at some time during the year. Three anadromous fish species (which live in the ocean and spawn in
freshwater) commonly found within the Study Area are discussed with the pelagic fish.
3.43.1 Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Fish in the Study Area
Characterization of the seasonal distribution of fish communities in and near the Study Area are drawn
primarily from NJ DEP resource trawl surveys in Strata 14 for 1993-1995 (refer to Figure 3-67). Data
from Strata 13, which is shoreward of the Study Area, are discussed in comparison to Strata 14.
Comparisons of peak periods of abundance to relative differences in catch weights between Strata 14 and
13 provide information on the temporal occurance of the species in the Study Area and their relative
abundance.
Appendix A of this SEIS contains summaries of two major sets of Study Area fish resource data. NMFS
commercial catch data are presented in Figure A-l. NJDEP relative monthly abundance data are presented
in Figure A-2. The graphs of the NMFS data show species that are targeted seasonally by the commercial
fishing industry. In general, commercial catches are based on seasonal abundance of the target species and
the fishers' effort to catch individual species, the later of which is driven by the market values (the
The classification of 12 fish and the horseshoe crab as ecologically significant does not exclude the ecological
significance of other fish and shellfish discussed in this SEIS, nor the ecological significance of the other species of
fish and shellfish that have been documented in the region of the SEIS Study Area. All organisms present in the
Study Area, including man, contribute to the regional environment and ecology. The 36 species discussed in Section
3.4.3 have been determined during the development of this SEIS to be those of concern and/or those potentially
affected by placement of dredged material in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
Table 3-13. Fish inhabiting the
Fish Species — Common & Scientific Names
Demersal Species (21)
Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis)
Yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferrugineus)
Red hake (Urophycis chuss)
Scup (Stenotomus chrysops)
Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)
Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)
Tautog (Tautoga onitis)
Cod (Gadus morhua)
Black sea bass (Centropristis striata)
Little skate (Raja erinacea)
Wincbwpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus)
Fourspot flounder (Paralichthys oblongus)
Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus)
Gunner (Tautogoiabrus adspersus)
Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
Spotted hake (Urophycis regius)
Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus)
Striped searobin (Prionotus evolans)
Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons)
Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus)
Longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus
octodecimspinosus)
Pelagic Species (4)
Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)
Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus)
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
Weakfish (Cynosion regalis)
Pelagic/ Anadromous Species (3)
American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
Alewife (Pomolobus pseudoharengus)
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)
Study Area and the New
May 1997
Page 3-1 16
York Bight
Classification/Regional Significance Regional Frequency
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial, Recreational
Commercial, Recreational
Commercial, Recreational
Commercial, Recreational
Commercial, Recreational
Commercial, Recreational
Recreational
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Commercial
Commercial
Recreational, Commercial
Recreational
Commercial
Commercial
Recreational
Common
Infrequent
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Rare
Common
Very Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Infrequent
Rare
Rare
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Source: S. Wilk, NMFS, pets, comm., 1995; B. Halgren, NJDEP, pers. comm., 1995.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-117
Table 3-14. Shellfish in the Study Area and New York Bight
Shellfish Species—Common & Scientific Names
ClassificationVRegional Significance Regional Frequency
Pelagic Species (2)
Long-finned squid (Loligo pealei)
Short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus)
Benthic Species (6)
Rock crab (Cancer irroratus)
Jonah crab (Cancer borealis)
American lobster (Homarus americanus)
Surf clam (Spisula solidissima)
Sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus)
Horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus)
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial, Ecological
Common
Infrequent
Very Common
Infrequent
Common
Very Common
Infrequent
Common
Source: S. Wilk, NMFS, pers. comm., 1995; B. Halgren, NJDEP, pers. comm., 1995.
industry does not fish species that cannot be sold). The NMFS data are valuable primarily because they
quantity the amount of fish harvested from the statistical area encompassing the Study Area. However,
these data do not show the socioeconomic value of fish primarily targeted by recreational fishermen, or the
ecological importance of fish that are not harvested or are discarded at sea (i.e., unrecorded bycatch).
The NJDEP data in Figure A-2 of Appendix A quantify State fish resources, regardless of whether the
species are targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen. The NJDEP data has been generated from
scientific trawls of State offshore waters; the data is not a calculation of total catch weights from a
particular strata. The data evaluators and authors of this SEIS determined that the NJDEP data was
particularly useful for evaluating commercial fishing in the Study Area because the NJDEP data are at a
finer scale than the NMFS data which include more non-Study Area habitat.
Evaluated together, the NMFS data in Figure A-l
and the NJDEP data in Figure A-2 provide an
overview offish species composition and
distribution of the Study Area region. The two
data sets also show the relative importance of
specific species to the coastal New Jersey
commercial fishing industry.
3.43.1.1 Commercially Important Fish
Distribution
Thirteen species of commercially important fish
are found in or near the Study Area.
Demersal Species
All of the demersal species (except for yellowtail
flounder) that are commercially important are also
Commercially Important Fish Species,
in Decreasing Order of Commercial Catch Volume and
Landed Value for NMFS Subarea 612 (1993)
Species
Summer flounder
Bluefish
Silver hake
Red hake
Winter flounder
Atlantic herring
Tautog
Scup
Butterfish
Cod
Yellowtail flounder
American shad
Volume
(1,000 Ibs)
842
794
787
331
282
190
117
93
66
42
40
37
Value
($)
1 ,218,496
263,915
385,974
155,288
299,061
9,689
107327
44,511
48,221
52,111
62,689
24,597
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-118
targeted by the recreational anglers in the Study Area. Many of the eight demersal species (silver hake,
summer flounder, red hake, winter flounder, scup, tautog, yellowtail flounder, and cod) are caught
throughout the year in NJDEP Strata 14. However, catches of each species peak at various times of the
year. Species most abundant in January are silver hake, red hake, and cod. These species are often
referred to as cold-water or winter species. Warm-water or summer demersal species (i.e., species most
abundant between June and October) include winter flounder, summer flounder, tautog and scup.
Comparison Between NJDEP Strata 13 and 14. All of the demersal species, except for yellowtail
flounder and cod, which are rare in the New York Bight, are caught in both Strata 13 and 14. A
comparison of the catch weights in Strata 13 versus 14 show that five of the demersal species (silver hake,
red hake, winter flounder, scup, cod, and yellowtail flounder) are more prevalent in Strata 14. Summer
flounder and tautog are the only species that are more common in Strata 13. The differences in tautog
catch weights in these two strata are insignificant because tautog are rarely caught in bottom trawls because
they prefer hard-bottom habitats (i.e., rock, reefs, wrecks) that are not effectively sampled with the bottom
trawl fishing gear used by the NJDEP.
For most species, the period of peak abundance in Strata 14 coincides with the period of peak abundance
in Strata 13. The one exception to this is summer flounder, which has the highest catch weights in August
in Strata 13 and October in Strata 14. This difference may be attributable to the concentrations of summer
flounder the in shallower water of Strata 13 from late spring to early autumn and the offshore migrations
through Strata 14 in the fall (NOAA, 1995a).
Pelagic Species
Five pelagic species are commercially important — butterfish, Atlantic herring, bluefish, American shad,
and alewife. In comparison to demersal species, these pelagic species are highly migratory and pass
through the Study Area at various times of the year. Butterfish are warm-season fish (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953) that migrate through the Study Area in late May or early June from deep warm waters off
the continental shelf toward inshore waters.
During the winter, primarily in January and February, herring moves through the Study Area while
migrating south (D. Stevenson, pers. comm., 1996). This is confirmed by NJDEP data which indicate that
Atlantic herring have been collected near the Study Area in January. Herring move offshore, out of the
Study Area, in April as they begin their migration northward.
In the spring, alewife move through the Study Area on their northerly migration from southern Atlantic
waters, where they overwinter, to the Hudson River for spawning. Alewife are abundant in the Study Area
in April (G. Shepherd, pers. comm., 1996).
Like alewife, American shad spawn in freshwater rivers and pass through the Study Area during the
spawning season on their way to and from the Hudson River. American shad are most prevalent in the
Study Area in June (G. Shepherd, pers. comm., 1996).
Bluefish also migrate through the Study Area during the summer months, with peak abundance in June.
Bluefish are prolific in coastal and offshore waters from the Chesapeake Bay to Maine during the summer,
before migrating south hi the fall (M. Terceiro, pers. comm., 1996).
Comparison Between NJDEP Strata 13 and 14. In general, more pelagic species are caught in Strata 14
than in Strata 13 throughout the year. For some species, however, the peak period of abundance in Strata
13 and 14 do not coincide. For example, more alewife and American shad are caught in January in Strata
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-119
13 than in any other month. This is not consistent with the period of peak catches in Strata 14. The
highest catches of these two species in Strata 14 are in the second quarter (April - June) of the year. This
difference may be due to the migratory behavior of these fish species (which is based on water temperature
and other environmental factors).
3.43.12 Recreationally Important Fish Distribution
The ten recreationally important (seven are also commercially important) fish species are discussed in this
section. In 1994, these ten species comprised 80% of the total number and total weight of fish harvested
(brought ashore in whole form) by New York and New Jersey anglers.
Demersal Species
All recreationally important demersal species (except for black sea bass) are also important to the
commercial fishing industry. In 1994, black sea bass catches (1.5 million) by recreational anglers were
second only to summer flounder catches (3.1 million). Catches of black sea bass by NJDEP (mostly in
October) do not accurately reflect the relative abundance of black sea bass because of the habitat in which
this species resides. Black sea bass prefer hard-bottom substrates (e.g., rocky outcrops, reefs, wrecks)
which cannot be effectively sampled by trawl gear. However, hook and line recreational anglers
successfully fish black sea bass in these habitats.
Pelagic Species
Three pelagic species that migrate through the Study Area are recreationally important — bluefish,
weakfish, and striped bass. Of these, bluefish is the most frequently caught by recreational anglers; it is
also commercially important as described previously.
In general, weakfish migrate inshore during the spring and offshore during the fall (G. Shepherd, pers.
comm., 1996). Migration patterns are related to spawning which occurs in estuaries from April to June.
Weakfish migrate out of the New York Bight estuaries after spawning and remain in the Bight from spring
through the fall where they undergo localized coastal migrations. Although annual peaks in abundance
near the Study Area may fluctuate due to these local migrations, weakfish catches generally peak in
October near the Study Area. These differences in peak times may be due to the onset of offshore
migration in October to overwintering areas.
There are three distinct populations of striped bass that may periodically occupy the environment in and
around the Study Area (G. Shepherd, pers. comm., 1996). The first population of striped bass spawn in
the Hudson River and tend to remain in the New York Bight all year. Separate populations spawn in the
Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River. After spawning, these two distinct populations pass through the
New York Bight during northerly migrations in the spring and southerly migrations (from the north) in the
fall.7 All three striped bass populations are caught as they migrate through the Study Area Catches of
striped bass are caught near the Study Area from the spring through the fall.
3.43.13 Ecologically Important Fish Distribution
As previously defined, fish classified as ecologically significant in this SEIS are either known major prey
of commercial or recreational species in the Bight region, or have been determined by scientists to be
integral components of the general ecosystem around the Study Area (S. Wilk, pers. comm., 1995). These
Note that not all striped bass migrate to southern locales. Sex, age, water temperature, and food availability are
some of the factors that influence their movements.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-120
species may have relatively large abundances, but are not targeted by commercial or recreational
fishermen. The twelve ecologically significant fish species listed in Table 3-13 are demersal. No pelagic
species have been identified by fishery resource managers as being ecologically important in the Bight.
Of the twelve ecologically important species, little skate is the most common (i.e., highest commercial
catch weight) of these species. Skate (non-species specific) are frequently caught as bycatch (T. Helser,
pers. comm., 1996). Longhom sculpin and sea raven are the least common of these species. Most of the
species are prevalent between April and September and, with a few exceptions, are more prevalent in
Strata 14 than Strata 13. Windowpane and the searobins (striped and northern) have higher catches in
Strata 13. Spiny dogfish are ubiquitous; they are caught in equal amounts in both strata.
3.432 Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Shellfish in the Study Area
Shellfish described in this section are either benthic epifauna or infauna. Squid, a pelagic
macroinvertebrate, is also included in this section. All of the shellfish species (Table 3-14) are
commercially important for either domestic or foreign markets. Many species are also prey items for
demersal fish species found in or near the Study Area.
Some Study Area shellfish migrate through the
region in response to changes in water
temperature. Others do not exhibit any significant
seasonal migration. Characterization of the
seasonal distribution offish communities in and
near the Study Area are drawn primarily from NJ
DEP resource trawl surveys in Strata 13 and 14 for
1993-1995 (refer to Figure 3-66) and commercial
catches recorded by NMFS in Statistical Area 612
(refer to Figure 3-64) for 19938. Data from Strata
13 and 14 are compared to commercial catch data
to identify temporal distributions and the relative
abundances. Appendix A includes figures
displaying quarterly catches by NJDEP and
commercial fishermen.
Squid. Squid are pelagic macroinvertebrates that spend most of their life in the water column. These
organisms are highly migratory and the most mobile of the shellfish discussed in this SEIS. Because of
their mobility in the water column, they are often caught in trawls with pelagic fish, such as butterfish.
The long-finned squid, Loligo pealei, exhibit seasonal migrations. They migrate offshore to canyon
mouths along the continental shelf in the winter and inshore on the shelf in the late spring (Lange and
Sissenwine, 1980; Macy, 1982). Spring inshore migrations occur in April in the Long Island area. Based
on trawl surveys by NJDEP, catches of L. pealei become more abundant in August in Strata 13 and 14.
During this time they may be very abundant in or near the Study Area.
Shellfish hi Decreasing Order of Commercial Catch
Volume and Landed Value for NMFS Subarea 612.
Species
Surf clam
Sea scallop
American lobster
Long-finned squid
Rock crab
Horseshoe crab
Short-finned squid
Jonah crab
Volume
(1,000 Ibs)
53,485
1607
948
518
66
661
No data available
No data available
Value
($)
3,901,399
1,181,810
3,377,561
313,605
68,404
70
o
Although NJDEP collects shellfish during its sampling operations, the gear used is not efficient for sampling
shellfish, and does not provide an accurate representation of abundance. Peak periods of abundance based on
NJDEP data are different from peaks based on commercial catch data. For many species, catches by NJDEP
precede periods of peak commercial shellfish catches. This may be related to the locations of NJDEP sampling
areas, which are often in areas inshore of commercial fishing activity, and the migratory behavior of many of these
species.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-121
In comparison to L. pealei, the short-finned squid, Illex illecebrosus, undertake long-distance seasonal
migrations and are associated with cooler water temperatures. During the spring, juvenile /. illecebrosus
migrate northward (from spawning areas in the south Atlantic) along the edge of the continental shelf. The
adults then migrate inshore to feed and, by summer, have become dispersed across the continental shelf.
Peak abundance of /. illecebrosus in the New York Bight occurs during this time. In the fall, /.
illecebrosus migrate back offshore, to the shelf-slope convergence zone in waters of greater than 185 m,
and south to spawning grounds. Because the continental shelf and slope waters are their primary habitat, /.
illecebrosus are not as abundant as L. pealei in the Study Area and New York Bight (Hendrickson et al.,
1996).
Rock Crab. Distributions of rock crab are apparently controlled by seasonal cooling and wanning (Stehlik
et al., 1991). In the New York Bight and the Study Area region, rock crabs move inshore in the fall and
remain until the spring when they migrate offshore (Stehlik et al., 1991). Migrations occur across the
continental shelf. Sampling by NJDEP indicate that rock crabs are collected near the Study Area in the
spring and early summer (April in Strata 13; June in Strata 14) before they migrate offshore. Commercial
fishermen harvest rock crabs between July and September when they are further offshore on the
continental shelf.
The results of sampling by trawls indicate that females may bury into the sediment more than males.
Burial appears to occur during daylight hours when they are inactive (Stehlik et al., 1991). Therefore, this
species may be more susceptible to burial during daylight hours, a possible issue of concern for dredged
material managers.
Jonah Crab. Jonah crabs are less abundant and conduct less extensive migrations in the New York Bight
than rock crabs (Stehlik, 1993). Jonah crab migrations extend from the outer edges of the continental
shelf in the winter to the central portions of the shelf in the summer (Stehlik etal., 1991). Notably, Jonah
crab and rock crabs are in the Bight at different times of the year. As mentioned above, rock crab
abundance is highest between April and June. According to NJDEP trawl surveys, abundance of Jonah
crab is highest in June and August There are no commercial catches of Jonah crab in the Study Area.
Lobster. Lobster is probably the second most motile of the shellfish addressed by this SEIS. Seasonal
distribution of lobsters is directly influenced by water temperature. Lobsters migrate inshore to shallow
waters in the New York Bight in the spring and summer to spawn and migrate offshore in early winter
(Uzmann etal, 1977). However, not all lobsters migrate inshore to spawn. There are two populations of
lobsters in the Study Area region: (1) an offshore population that either conducts extensive migrations
from the continental shelf to inshore waters to spawn or does not migrate inshore and spawns on the
continental shelf, and (2) an inshore population that conducts localized inshore migrations (Uzmann et al.,
1977).
Generally, individual lobsters migrate at different times (i.e., there are no simultaneous mass migrations
that periodically occur as with the Caribbean spiny lobster). Lobster tend to congregate in submarine
canyons during the winter and early spring as evidenced by the concentration of the lobster fishery (Cobb
and Phillips, 1980). In addition to onshore/offshore migrations, lobsters move laterally east or west along
the outer shelf and upper continental slope. Near the Study Area, lobsters are present year round, but more
lobster are collected by NJDEP in January. The lobsters caught by the NJDEP most likely belong to the
inshore population, since the offshore population is not found in the Study Area in January. Catches by
commercial lobstennen are highest between July and September before the organism migrates offshore.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment ^ Page 3-122
Surf Clam. The surf clam is a sedentary mollusc which spends most of its life buried in the substrate of
the ocean floor (Ropes and Merrill, 1973). The surf clam only buries to a depth equal to its shell length to
allow its short siphon to extend above the sediment (Ropes, 1980). Burrowing is inhibited in high water
temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels. Because this species is sedentary, it is vulnerable to year-
round fishing activity. Although trawl survey data from NJDEP indicate that the species is more prevalent
between April and June, this species is caught by commercial fishermen year round.
Sea Scallop. Sea scallops, like surf clams, are relatively sedentary. According to NJDEP, sea scallops are
present in the Study Area region from April to June. However, commercial catches peak between July and
September. Commercial catches of sea scallops near the Study Area are approximately 5% of the volume
of surf clam catches.
Horseshoe Crab. Horseshoe crabs undergo a seasonal onshore-offshore migration (Shuster, 1950).
During cold weather months, horseshoe crabs are found on the continental shelf (Shuster, 1979). Catches
have been reported in water depths of 30 - 60 m (Shuster, 1960; Shuster, 1979). Because the animals are
poikilothermal (Frankel, 1960) they bury into sediments for protection against low water temperatures.
Triggered by the wanning water temperatures in the spring, horseshoe crabs migrate inshore to sandy
beaches to spawn. They begin to migrate offshore at the end of the spawning season (Shuster, 1950). The
largest NJDEP collections of horseshoe crabs are in October as they migrate offshore following spawning.
This corresponds with commercial catches of horseshoe crabs near the Study Area.
3.4.33 Spawning Strategies of Fish and Shellfish in the Study Area
Understanding spawning strategies is important to identifying potential impacts to the reproductive success
and subsequent population growth of shellfish species. Spawning strategies are characterized by the type
of eggs produced (i.e., demersal, pelagic) and the spawning periods. Both of these are major factors in
reproductive success. Environmental conditions influence the number of eggs that hatch and the success
of larvae that grow into adults. The predominant environmental condition in this regard at the Study Area
is seasonal water temperature.
Most fish species spawn either demersal or planktonic eggs that hatch into larvae in 1 day to 6 weeks,
depending on the species, time of year, and water temperature (W. Morse, pers. comm., 1996). Loligo
pealei is the only shellfish discussed in this SEIS that spawns demersal eggs. Demersal eggs are laid on or
buried in the bottom sediment. They remain on the bottom until the larvae hatch. Very often, demersal
eggs are sticky and adhere to surfaces (e.g., rocks) until larvae are hatched. Because these surfaces may be
located on the ocean floor, the reproductive success rate of fish that produce demersal eggs (Table 3-15)
may be lower, due to burial of eggs, than fish that produce planktonic eggs. Demersal eggs placed in
shallow-water areas are also at risk from disturbances to the substrate to which they are attached. In the
Study Area, these benthic disturbances include occasional storm resuspension of sediment and, within the
disposal site boundaries, placement of dredged material.
Most of the fish species listed in Table 3-15 and the shellfish listed in Table 3-16 (except for Loligo
pealie) and discussed here spawn planktonic eggs. Planktonic eggs float in the water column and are often
referred to as buoyant Buoyancy of eggs varies among different species and the eggs may or may not
contain an oil globule. Oil globules cause eggs to be more buoyant (i.e., specific gravity is reduced),
especially if the oil globule is large in comparison to the size of the egg. Neutrally buoyant eggs have a
specific gravity close to that of seawater, thus are more readily mixed deeper into the water column by
waves and other turbulence. Most planktonic eggs are found in the upper 40-50 m of the water column
and are frequently collected during plankton sampling. Eggs with oil globules are usually located in the
upper 15 m of the water column, closer to the surface than other planktonic eggs.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-123
Table 3-15. Egg type and characteristics of fish species that occupy the New York Bight
Fish Species [d = demersal; p = pelagic]
Egg Characteristics
Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)[d]
Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus)[p]
Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus)[d]
Longhom sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecimspinosus)[d]
Little skate (Raja erinacea)[d]
Ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus)[d]
Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis)[d]
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)[p]
Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)[d]
Scup (Stenotomus chrysops)[d]
Red hake (Urophycis chuss)[d]
Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)[p]
Black sea bass (Centropristis striata)[d]
Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus)[d]
Fourspot flounder (Paralichthys oblongus)[d]
Spotted hake (Urophycis regius)[d]
Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus)[d]
Striped searobin (Prionotus evolans)[d]
Cod (Gadus morhua)[d]
Yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferrugineus)[d]
Tautog (Tautoga onitis)[d]
Weakfish (Cynosion regalis)[p]
Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys arctifrons)[d]
Gunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus)[d]
Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) [d]
American shad (Alosa sapidissima)2
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)3
Alewife (Pomolobus vseudohareneus)2
demersal eggs: sticky, deposited on sandy bottoms in estuaries
demersal eggs: sticky, adhere to ocean bottom sediments
demersal eggs: sticky, may adhere to ocean sponges
demersal eggs: sticky, lose stickiness after 24 hours, then lay
on ocean bottom
demersal eggs: partially buried in sandy ocean sediments
demersal eggs: egg masses deposited on ocean bottom among
rocks and stones
plankton!c eggs:1 contains oil globule
planktonic eggs:1 contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: contains oil globule
planktonic eggs: no oil globule
planktonic eggs: no oil globule
planktonic eggs: no oil globule
planktonic eggs: no oil globule
planktonic eggs: no oil globule
planktonic eggs: no oil globule
live birth
demersal eggs: not sticky
planktonic eggs: contains oil-globule
demersal eggs: indiscriminant adhesion on stones
'These eggs are more buoyant than other planktonic eggs listed in the table.
'Anadromous fish, spawns in fresh water
'Anadromous fish, spawns in brackish water or fresh water
Sources: Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; P. Berrien, pers. comm., 1996.
Table 3-16. Egg type and characteristics of shellfish species that occupy the New York Bight
Shellfish Species Egg Characteristics
Long-finned squid (Loligo pealei)
Short-finned squid (lllex illecebrosus)
Rock crab (Cancer irroratus)
Horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus)
Jonah crab (Cancer borealis)
American lobster (Homarus americanus)
Surf clam (Spisula solidissima)
Sea scallnn (PlacoDecten maeellanicus)
demersal eggs; deposited in clusters
unknown, egg characteristic data are inconclusive
eggs carried by female until hatched
eggs buried in sand on beaches, intertidal areas
eggs carried by female until hatched
eggs carried by female until hatched
planktonic eggs
rlanktonic eees
Sources: S. Murawslti. pers. comm., 1996; M. Dawson, pers. comm., 1996; L. Stehlik, pers. comm., 1996; L. Hendrickson, pers. comm., 1996.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-124
Although eggs may be found in the surface layer, they do not remain there for extended periods of time
because of detrimental effects from ultraviolet light on the eggs (P. Berrien, pers. comm., 1996). In
addition, sea-surface turbulence causes eggs to be mixed down into the water column. Because surface
waters of the ocean are relatively turbulent, planktonic eggs are usually mixed into the water column to
some degree. This mixing usually does not cause detrimental effects to the eggs (W. Morse, pers. comm.,
1996).
The spawning period as well as the type of egg (Tables 3-17 and 3-18) should be considered in
determining possible impacts of dredged material to fish and shellfish in the MDS and Study Area. During
spawning periods, fish and shellfish are physiologically stressed because energy is focused on
reproduction. Some fisheries are closed during spawning periods to protect the spawning females and the
future fish stocks, (e.g., harvesting of egg-bearing lobster females is not allowed). Spawning periods for
demersal and pelagic fish species are illustrated in Figures 3-68 and 3-69, respectively. Spawning periods
of shellfish are illustrated in Figure 3-70. These figures also include the quarterly distribution of fish and
shellfish in the Study Area. Fish and shellfish whose spawning periods coincide with periods of
prevalence in the Study Area may be more vulnerable to potential impacts during placement of dredged
material, especially if demersal eggs are spawned. However, it should be noted that spawning during these
periods can occur over a wide geographic area (south of Cape Cod to northern New Jersey) that includes
the Study Area. This is especially true for fish and squid which are widely distributed. In the following
text, spawning and quarterly distribution in and near the Study Area are compared to identify potential
periods when species are vulnerable.
3.4.3.3.1 Demersal Fish Spawning Strategies
All 21 demersal species listed in Table 3-13 produce either planktonic or demersal eggs (Table 3-15).
Demersal Eggs, Five of the 21 demersal species listed in Table 3-13 produce demersal eggs. Of these
species, winter flounder is the only commercially important species. Notably, winter flounder migrate to
estuaries to spawn, while the other four demersal species (sea raven, longhom sculpin, little skate, and
ocean pout) spawn offshore, laying their eggs on the bottom or on objects resting on the ocean floor. Eggs
from these species are vulnerable to burial by dredged material or effects from resuspended sediments
(e.g., from storm events).
Planktonic Eggs. Sixteen demersal species produce planktonic eggs. The most buoyant eggs (large oil
globule in relation to egg size) are produced by the commercially important silver hake. Because of their
large oil globule, silver hake eggs are found near the air/water interface in the upper surface layers of the
ocean. Black sea bass, summer flounder, scup, and red hake, all of which are valuable to the recreational
fishery, produce eggs that contain an oil globule. The eggs of these recreationally important species and
the eggs of the remaining demersal species (windowpane flounder, fourspot flounder, spotted hake,
northern and striped searobin, cod, yellowtail, tautog, and cunner), however, are consistently found deeper
in the water column than silver hake eggs. Because planktonic eggs drift in the water column, and disposal
events at the MDS are infrequent and impact the water column for only short periods, planktonic eggs are
much less likely to be impacted by dredged material placement than demersal eggs.
Demersal Fish Spawning vs. Peak Abundance Periods at the Study Area (Figure 3-68). Cod, winter
flounder, longhom sculpin, and spiny dogfish spawn in the first two quarters of the year. The spawning
periods of cunner, silver hake, gulf stream flounder, northern searobin, and windowpane flounder begin in
early spring and continue into the late fall. Late spring - summer spawners include two commercial and
recreational species (tautog and scup), one commercial species (yellowtail flounder), one recreational
species (black sea bass), and two ecological species (striped searobin and fourspot flounder). Summer
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter3, Affected Environment
Table 3-17. Primary and secondary
Fish Species
Cod
(Gadus morhua)
Yellowtail flounder
(Pleuronectes ferrugineus)
Summer flounder
(ParaUchthys dentatus)
Winter flounder
(Pleuronectes americanus)
Windowpane flounder
(Scophthalmus aquosus)
Fourspot flounder
(ParaUchthys oblongus)
Gulf Stream flounder
(Citharichthys arctifrons)
General Prey
Characterization
clams, crabs, mussels,
fish
worms, shrimp
fish (scup), squid,
rock crabs, shrimp,
bivalve molluscs,
polychaetes
small crabs, annelid
worms, bivalves
mysids, planktonic
shrimp, epibenthic
shrimp
small fish, squid,
crabs, shrimp,
molluscs, annelids
worms, sand dollars,
fish
May 1997
Page 3-125
prey species of fish occupying the Study Area.
Primary Prey Species
Arctica islandica
Cancer irroratus
Cancer borealis
Decapod crab
Clupea harengus
Ammodytes sp.
Urophycis chuss
Raja sp.
Pleuronectiformes
Polychaeta
Amphipoda
Loligo sp.
Stenotomus chrysops
Pisces
Gammaridae
Etrumeus teres
Ceriantheopsis
americanus
Pherusa affinis
Nephtys sp.
Cancer irroratus
Asabellides oculata
Scoletoma sp.
Polychaetes
Gammaridea
Mysidacea
Crangon
septemspinosa
Ammodytes sp.
Decapoda shrimp
Pisces (e.g.,
Merluccius bilinearis)
Cephalopoda (e.g.,
Loligo sp.)
Decapoda shrimp
Pandalidae
Mysidacea
Polychaete
Amphipoda
Decapoda crustacean
Echinodermata
Pisces (e.g., Gadidae)
Secondary Prey
Species
epibenthic
crustaceans
Pisces
epibenthic
crustaceans
Pisces
Nucula proximo
Anthozoa
Sipunculida
Crustaceans
Pisces
miscellaneous
worms
Typical Prey
Habitat
sand, gravel,
water column
mud, sand
sand, near-
bottom water
column
mud, sand
sand
near-bottom
water column
sand, near-
bottom water
column
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-126
Table 3-17. Primary and secondary prey species of fish occupying the Study Area.
Fish Species
Little skate
(Raja erinacea)
Ocean pout
(Macrozoarces americanus)
Gunner
(Tautogolabrus adspersus)
Spiny dogfish
(Squalus acanthias)
Scup
(Stenotomus chrysops)
Silver hake
(Merluccius bilinearis)
General Prey
Characterization
sand shrimp,
amphipod
sand dollars, shrimp,
crabs, and possibly
sea stars
mussels, worms,
epibenthic shrimp,
small fish,
ctenophores
crustaceans, worms,
molluscs, vegetable
debris
fish, crustaceans,
squid
Primary Prey Species
Caprellidae
Gammaridae
Decapoda crab
Polychaete
Crangon
septemspinosa
Decapoda shrimp
Crustacea
Cancer irroratus
Ammodytes sp.
Echinarachnius parma
Echinoidea
Amphipoda
Decapoda
Aphroditidae
Mytilus edulis
Crangon
septemspinosa
Polychaete
Decapoda crab
Ctenophora
Pisces (Scombridae)
Polychaeta
Bivalvia
Amphipoda
Ammodytes sp.
Scomber scombrus
Secondary Prey
Species
Pisces
Anthozoa
Pisces
brittle star
Polychaete
Echinarachnius
parma
Molluscs
epibenthic
crustaceans
Pisces (e.g.,
Peprilus
triacanthus)
Peprilus
triacanthus
Typical Prey
Habitat
sand, epizoic
sand, rocks
rocks, sand
water column
sand, rock
sand, water
column
Merluccius bilineris
Crangon
septemspinosa
Mysidacea
Decapoda shrimp
Pandalidae
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-127
Table 3-17. Primary and secondary prey species of fish occupying the Study Area.
Fish Species
Red hake
(Urophycis chuss)
Spotted hake
(Urophycis regius)
Black sea bass
(Centropristis striata)
Tantog
(Tautoga onitis)
Northern sea robin
(Prionotus caroKnus)
Striped sea robin
(Prionotus evolans)
Sea raven
(Hemitripterus americanus)
General Prey
Characterization
shrimp, worms, fish,
amphipods, crabs
shrimp, crabs,
amphipods
crabs, squid, mussels
mussels, crabs, sand
dollars
crabs, worms,
epibenthic shrimp,
fish
crabs, epibenthic
shrimp
shrimp, crabs, fish
(cunner, ray)
Primary Prey Species Secondary Prey
Species
Crangon Pisces
septemspinosa
Dichelopandalus
leptocerus
Cancer irroratus
Pherusa affinis
Nephiys incisa
Polychaeta
Amphipoda
Decapod shrimp
Pandalidae
Ammodytes sp.
Pandalidae
Merlucdus bilinearis
Pisces
Decopoda shrimp
Decapoda
Euphausiidae
Amphipoda
Decapoda Mytilus edulis
Cancer sp.
Cephalopoda
Mytilus edulis
Cancer sp.
Echinarachnius parma
Polychaete
Cancer irroratus
Crangon
septemspinosa
Pisces
Decapoda
Cancer irroratus
Crangon
septemspinosa
Cancer irroratus
Tautogolabrus
adspersus
Pisces
Raja erinacea
Crangon
septemspinosa
Dichelopandalus
leptocerus
Typical Prey
Habitat
sand, mud
sand, near-
bottom water
column
sand, water
column
rocks, sand
mud, sand, water
column
mud, sand
mud, sand rocks,
water column
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-128
Table 3-17. Primary and secondary prey species of fish occupying the Study Area.
Fish Species
Longhorn sculpin
(Myoxocephalus
octodecimspinosus)
General Prey
Characterization
crabs, epibenthic
shrimp, worms, fish
fry (e.g., alewives,
cunners, eels, herring,
mackerel, silver hake,
sculpin)
Primary Prey Species
Cancer irroratus
Dichelopandalus
leptocerus
Crangon
septemspinosa
Cancer sp.
Secondary Prey
Species
polychaete
Pisces
Typical Prey
Habitat
mud, sand
Butterfish
(Peprilus triacanthus)
Atlantic herring
(Clupea harengus)
Bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix)
copepods, small fish,
polychaete, gammarid
amphipod, crabs,
bivalves
Copepods,
euphausiids,
pterodpods
fish (e.g., windowpane
flounder, anchovy)
shrimp, squid, crabs,
mysids, annelid
worms
Tomopteridae
Copepod
Decapoda
Axiidae
Amphipoda
Chaetognatha
Anchoa mitchilli Cephalopoda
Pisces
Amphipoda
Decapod crab
Scophthalmus aquosus
Gammaridea
Engrauh'dae
sand, water
column
water column,
sand
water column,
sand
American shad
(Alosa sapidissima)
zooplankton (large
copepods, mysids,
euphausiids),
Meganyctiphanes
norvegica, fish larvae
(e.g., silver hake)
Euphausiacea copepods
Merluccius bilinearis
water column
Weakfish
(Cynosion regatis)
Striped bass
(Morons saxatilis)
Alewife
(Pomolobus
pseudoharengus)
fish (e.g., anchovy),
shrimp, squid, crabs,
worms, clams
fish (e.g., red hake),
crabs, shrimp, squid,
clams
fish (e.g., sand lance),
cyclopoid copepods,
cladocerans
Fish (e.g., Anchoa
mitchilli) ~
Engraulidae
Cephalopoda
Brevoortia tyrannus
Urophycis chuss
Ammodytes sp.
water column
water column
water column,
sand
Sources: NEFSC, 1995b; Steimle «a/., 1994; Steimle, 1994; Steimle and Terranova, 1991; Michaels etal, 1986; Bowman
and Michaels, 1984; Steimle and Ogren, 1982; Langton and Bowman, 1980; Carraciola and Steimle, 1983; Battelle, 1996a; E.
Ruff, pers. comm., 1996; Fauchald, 1977; Shepherd et al, 1986; Wigley, 1960.
-------
MDSfflARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-129
Table 3-18. Primary and secondary prey species of shellfish occupying the Study Area.
Short-finned squid
(Iltex tilecebrosus)
Rock crab
(Cancer irroratus)
Horseshoe crab
(Limulus pofyphemus)
Jonah crab
(Cancer borealis)
American lobster
(Homarus americanus)
Surf dam
(Spisula solidissima)
Sea scallop
(Placopecten
maeeUanicus)
crustaceans
(euphausiids, with
small quantities of
hyperiid amphipods),
and fish, other squid
Molluscs, crustaceans,
polychaetes, fish
small bivalves (e.g.
blue mussel,) and
worms
Molluscs, crustaceans,
worms, fish
invertebrates, fish
(living and dead),
small quantities of
marine plants
phytoplankton
phytoplankton
Euphausiid
Amphipod
Meganictiphanes
norvegica
Myctophidae
Meluceidei (e.g.,
Merluccius bilinearis)
shrimp
Pisces
Chaetognatha
Cephalopoda
Pherusa affinis
Amphipoda
Cancer sp.
Anomural/Brachyura
Gemma gemma
Mytilus edulis
Polychaetes
Nucula proximo
Cerastoderma
pinnulatum Pitar
morrhuanus
Pherusa affinis
Amphipoda
Paguridae
Cancer sp.
Pisces
Cancer irroratus
Pherusa affinis
diatoms
diatoms
organic detritus
algae
Nucula proximo
Cerastoderma
pinnulatum
Ensis directus
algae
Nephtyidae
Panaeidae/Caridae
Echinarachnius
parma
Anomura/Brachvur
a Crustacea
water column
silt, sand
sand
silt, sand
silt, sand
water column
water column
Sources: Michaels etaL, 1986; Stehlik, 1993; M. Dawson, pers. comm., 1996; Steimle, 1994; S. Murawski, pers. comm., 1996;
Vovk and Khvichiya, 1980; Froerman, 1983.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-130
Figure 3-68. Quarterly distribution of demersal fish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and
corresponding spawning periods (asterisks). Bar thickness indicates relative
population size during calendar periods that the species inhabit the Study Area.
Demersal
Yellowtail flounder
Ocean pout
Cod
Silver hake
Winter flounder
Tautog
Red hake
Spotted hake
Sea raven
Gunner
Striped searobin
Northern searobin
Summer flounder
Ql (Jan-Mar) Q2 (Apr-June) Q3 (July-Sept) Q4 (Oct-Dec)
********************************
*******************************
*************** *
*************************************************
********************************
********************************
*****************************************************************
****************
*************************************************
********************************
*************************************************
********************************
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-131
Figure 3-68. Quarterly distribution of demersal fish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and
corresponding spawning periods (asterisks). Bar thickness indicates relative
population size during calendar periods that the species inhabit the Study Area.
Demersal
Scup
Gulf Stream flounder
Windowpane flounder
Fourspot flounder
Little skate
Black sea bass
Longhom sculpin
Spiny dogfish
Ql (Jan-Mar) Q2 (Apr-June) Q3 (July-Sept) Q4 (Oct-Dec)
********************************
*************************************************
*************************************************
********************************
********************************
****************
****************
****************
****************
Sources: Smith, 1985; Eklund, 1988; Colton etal., 1979.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-132
Figure 3-69. Quarterly distribution of pelagic fish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and
corresponding spawning periods (asterisks). Bar thickness indicates relative
population size during calendar periods that the species inhabit the Study Area.
Pelagic
Atlantic Herring
Butterfish
Bluefish
Striped bass1
American shad1
Weakfish2
Alewife1
Ql (Jan-Mar) Q2 (Apr-June) Q3 (July-Sept) Q4 (Oct-Dec)
************,,:,,..,..,.
********************************
********************************
1 These species are anadromous and do not spawn in the ocean.
Source: Smith, 1985; G. Shepherd, pers. comm., 1996; M. Terceiro, pers. comm., 1996.
2This species spawns in estuaries.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
ChapterS, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-133
Figure 3-70. Quarterly distribution of shellfish inhabiting the Study Area (bars) and
corresponding spawning periods (asterisks). Bar thickness indicates relative
population size during calendar periods that the species inhabit the Study Area.
Shellfish
Surf clam
Sea scallop
American lobster
Rock crab
Long-finned squid
Short-finned squid
Horseshoe crab
Jonah crab
Ql (Jan-Mar) Q2 (Apr-June) Q3 (July-Sept) Q4 (Oct-Dec)
********************************
********************************
********************************
****************
****************
****************
****************
****************
Sources: Smith, 1985; Murawski, pers. comm., 1996; NOAA, 1995; M. Dawson, pers. comm., 1996;
J. Weinberg, pers. comm., 1996.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-134
flounder and ocean pout spawn in late summer through early winter. Sea raven spawn during the last
quarter of the year. Spotted hake, little skate, and red hake spawn throughout the year.
A key feature for evaluating the fish species of concern is to determine when the fish are most abundant at
or near the Study Area and whether the fish are spawning during this period of peak Study Area-
abundance. An overlap of a fish species spawning period with peak abundance at the Study Area would
create greater cause for concern about impacts compared to a species that spawn far from the Study Area.
Fish species for which there is no overlap in the spawning period and peak abundance period are
yellowtail, ocean pout, silver hake, tautog, sea raven, and scup. All of these, except for ocean pout and sea
raven, produce planktonic eggs. The regional populations of ocean pout and sea raven most likely deposit
their demersal eggs at locations away from the Study Area because the peak abundances in the Study Area
do not coincide with spawning periods. There is
overlap between spawning period and peak abundance
for the remaining fifteen species. For example, peak
catches of longhom sculpin and little skate in the
NJDEP Strata 14 occur during the spawning period.
Thus, it is possible that longhom sculpin and little
skate spawn when in peak abundance near the Study
Area
Demersal fish species with corresponding peak
abundance and spawning periods in or near the
Study Area
Cod.
Winter flounder
Red hake
Spotted hake
Gunner
Striped searobin
Northern searobin
Spiny dogfish
Summer flounder.
Gulfstream flounder
Windowpane flounder
Fourspot flounder
Little skate
Black sea bass
Longhom sculpin
3.4.33.2 Pelagic Fish Spawning Strategies
Demersal Eggs. Atlantic herring is the only major
pelagic species of the Study Area (discussed in this
SEIS) that produces demersal, sticky eggs that adhere
to ocean bottom sediments. However, the likelihood
of significant spawning in the Study Area is low because the southernmost known location for spawning is
Nantucket Shoals (NOAA, 1995d).
Planktonic Eggs. Four pelagic fish species that are found in and near the Study Area produce planktonic
eggs. One of the species (striped bass) demersal eggs are anadromous and spawns in fresh water.
Therefore, there-is no concern that conditions or impacts at the MDS will affect the spawning behavior or
hatching success of these species. The eggs of bluefish and butterfish (both contain an oil globule) and
weakfish (does not contain an oil globule) remain in the water column until they hatch; potential impacts
from placement of dredged material in the MDS or Study Area is very remote.
Pelagic Fish Spawning vs. Peak Abundance Periods in the Study Area (Figure 3-69). As discussed in
the preceding section, a key feature for evaluating the fish species of concern is determining when the fish
are most abundant at or near the Study Area and whether the fish are spawning during this period of peak
abundance. An overlap of pelagic fish spawning periods with peak abundance periods at the Study Area
may subject a species to impacts from placement of dredged material compared to species that spawn far
from the Study Area. Atlantic herring, a commercial pelagic species, does not appear to spawn at the
Study Area. Herring spawn inshore during the last quarter of the year; while it is most abundant in
offshore waters of the Study Area from January to June; they move inshore in April prior to spawning.
Contrary to Atlantic herring, the late spring and summer spawning periods of bluefish (recreational and
commercial species) and butterfish (commercial species), both of which produce pelagic eggs, coincide
with periods of peak abundance (July-September). The three anadromous species (striped bass, American
shad, and alewife) and one estuarine spawning species (weakfish) are not relevant to this discussion
because they do not spawn in the ocean.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-135
3.4.33.3 Shellfish Spawning Strategies
As mentioned previously, most of the shellfish discussed in this SEIS spawn planktonic eggs, except for
Loligopealei and Illex illecebrosus, for which no data are available. As discussed for fish in the previous
section, a key feature for evaluating possible impacts to shellfish species is to identify the period when the
shellfish are most abundant in the Study Area and whether the shellfish are spawning during the peak
abundance period. An overlap of shellfish spawning periods with peak abundance periods may subject the
species to impacts from placement of dredged material compared to species that spawn outside the Study
Area. Shellfish require specific consideration because even motile shellfish are far less motile than fish;
shellfish such as crabs and lobsters can undertake migrations to spawning grounds. Sessile shellfish
species are sedentary with limited to nonexistent migrations during their lifecycles, thus, spawning occurs
wherever the organisms are throughout the year.
LoUgo and Ittex Squid. Both Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus are annual semelparous species that are
capable of spawning at any time during the year. Recent studies on ageing indicate that, in general, L.
pealei spawn during the winter (NEFSC, 1994). Previous studies had indicated that L. pealei spawned in
spring and fall (NEFSC, 1994). Because L. pealei has the potential for spawning year round, they could
deposit eggs on the ocean floor near or in the Study Area at any time during the year. However, it is most
likely for spawning to occur in the winter, when this squid species is outside of the Study Area (Figure
3-70).
I. illecebrosus is thought to spawn throughout the year, but primarily during the winter after the adults
migrate offshore (migration starts in the fall) and head south to the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean off
the southern U.S. coast. Secondary spawning events have occurred in the Atlantic Ocean off the northern
U.S. coast during the summer (Lange, 1981). Because the primary spawning grounds are south of the New
York Bight (specifically, south of Cape Hatteras; Rowell and Trites, 1985) and secondary spawning is at
great depths in waters offshore of the northeastern U.S. (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980), it is highly unlikely
that 7. illecebrosus will deposit eggs in or near the Study Area. There are no conclusive data on the type of
eggs spawned by 7. illecebrosus or the specific geographic spawning locations (L. Hendrickson, pers.
comm., 1996).
Rock crab. After spawning rock crabs carry their eggs until they hatch (Krouse, 1972). Because this
species is abundant near the Study Area during the spawning period (Figure 3-70), it is possible that the
egg-carrying females that bury themselves in sediment could be buried by placement of dredged material.
Jonah Crab. The spawning period for the Jonah crab does coincide with its period of peak abundance in
or near the Study Area (Figure 3-70). Therefore it is likely that the crab would spawn in the region of the
Study Area.
Lobster. Individual lobsters spawn every other summer. Eggs are carried by the female until they hatch
(Cobb and Phillips, 1980). As mentioned above, lobster migrate to warmer inshore waters during the
spring to early summer to spawn. The offshore lobster may undergo extensive migrations in comparison to
the coastal/inshore population to reach warmer water which is conducive to extrusion of eggs, molting, and
subsequent mating (Uzmann et al, 1977). However, some offshore lobster populations may migrate
shorter distances or not migrate at all to spawn. The spawning period of the lobsters occurs at a time when
they are least abundant at the Study Area (Figure 3-70).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-136
Surf Clam. The number of spawning periods that a surf clam undergoes is influenced by water
temperature. In general, there are two spawning periods: one major (Mid-July to early August) and one
minor (mid-October to early November; Ropes, 1980). Li years or areas with cooler water temperatures,
only the major spawning period may occur. In the New York Bight area, spawning can potentially occur
from spring to early fall (Figure 3-70). As mentioned previously, the surf clam is a sedentary species
which spends most of its life buried in the surface sediments of the benthos. Surf clams are harvested by
commercial fishermen in the Study Area region year round, so it is possible that these species may be
affected by placement of dredged material, especially during their spawning periods.
Sea Scallop. Sea scallops in the area of the Study Area exhibit biannual spawning in the spring and early
fall (Kirkley and DuPaul, 1991). The spring spawning is the more dominant event and may correspond
with the period of peak abundance near the Study Area (Figure 3-70). The planktonic eggs remain in the
water column until they hatch into larvae and settle into the sediment for a development period.
Horseshoe Crab. In May and June, horseshoe crabs migrate inshore to sandy beaches where they mate
and spawn, burying egg masses in the sand (Rudloe, 1981). This shoreline spawning will not be affected
by disposal operations at the Study Area.
3.4.3.4 Food and Habitat Requirements of Fish and Shellfish in the Study Area
The type of sediment habitat available to demersal fish species and shellfish (except for squid which is
pelagic) significantly affects their survival and abundance. In contrast, sediment type is not as important
for pelagic fish species and squid, which spend most of their life cycle in the water column. For demersal
species, the seafloor serves two major purposes: protection from predators and a source of food. For
example, sandy sediments provide excellent protection to species that bury into the sediment (e.g.,
flounder) and the nooks and crannies of hard substrate, rocks, rubble, and wreckage provide habitat that
small fish can hide in as protection against larger species. The physical characteristics of the sediment (e.g.
amount of sand, gravel, mud, roughness and relief) generally establish specific prey species available to
fish and shellfish (e.g., benthic infauna in muddy and sandy areas, species attached to hard substrate in
rock or other hard-bottom areas, or fish living in
the water column immediately above the
sediment/water interface).
There are several major sediment types in the
Study Area. These can be broadly classified as
sandy, sandy mud, muddy, and hard-bottom
sediments. The location and extent of these major
sediment types are depicted schematically in
Figure 3-71. Detailed characterizations of these
areas can be found in Section 3.3.2. Briefly, these
major sediment types are characterized as follows:
• Sandy sediments (0-10% fines): These
sediments are nearly devoid of fine grained
particles and may range from fine sands to
coarse sand or small gravel. This type of
sediment covers approximately 30% of the
Study Area. These sediments are found in the
southern one-third of the Study Area and in a
Summary of Shellfish Spawning vs.
Peak Study Area Abundance Periods
(refer to Figure 3-70)
• The squid Loligo pealei may spawn in the Study Area
when abundance is at less-than-peak levels.
• Lobster in the Study Area spawn when abundance is at
less-than-peak levels.
• The squid I. illecebrosus and horseshoe crabs spawn
outside the Study Area.
• Surf clam and sea scallop populations (relatively
sedentary species) are present in the Study Area and
spawn from spring through the fall.
• Jonah and rock crabs (relatively motile compared to surf
clams and sea scallops) are at peak abundance in the
Study Area during their spawning period.
• Conclusion: Rock crab, surf clam, and sea scallop
populations are most likely to be affected by dredged
material disposal activities in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-137
Habitat Type
Hard Bottom
Mixed Sand
and Mud
Muddy
Muddy Sand
S-i-g Sandy
1996 Bathymetry
/\/ < 20 meters
»V 20 meters
>20meters
3 Kilometers
2 Miles
Figure 3-71. Schematic diagram of location and extent of the four major surface sediment
categories in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-138
band extending north and south through the central portion of the Study Area. The sediments in this
latter area are predominately associated with the historic and present dredged material disposal
mounds.
• Sandy-mud sediments (10-40% fines): This type of substrate is the most predominant sediment in the
Study Area, covering approximately 40% of the area. These sediments are found in two areas (1)
along the entire eastern portion of the Study Area from the northern to the southern boundary and (2)
within the shallow basin west of the historic disposal mounds.
• Muddy sediments (40-100% fines): These sediments are restricted to relatively small zones located in
and near the MDS. This sediment type covers 10 to 15% of the Study Area. The muddy sediments
are generally restricted to the southern half of the MDS, although some areas extend slightly beyond
the northeast and southwest comers of the MDS. The texture of these sediments is prone to change
due to ongoing dredged material disposal in the MDS. The new materials can range from muds to
sand depending on the most recent disposal projects and management activities.
• Hard-bottom: Areas with hard-bottom characteristics comprise approximately 15% of the Study Area
These regions are scattered throughout the Study Area and are characterized by rock, rubble, rough
relief, and wreckage. Rough bottom areas with hillocks covered by sand are most prevalent in the
southwest section of the Study Area known as the Shrewsbury Rocks. Rubble is found in the central
eastern section of the Study Area and is primarily associated with the former Cellar Dirt Site. Gravel
is only found in the shallow depths of the oldest portion of the historic disposal mound (northern most
section of Subarea 2). Shipwrecks and obstructions are found in several locations in the Study Area
but are most concentrated in the northern and western regions. (See Section 3.5.7 for additional
information).
Note that within the areas comprising each of these major sediment types, smaller areas of each sediment
type can be found. This provides a cascading scale of interlaced sediment types in the area, providing a
broad range of interlinked habitat types for fish that inhabit the region.
Consistent with the sediment types in the Study Area, the demersal fish species that occur in the Bight
include those that prefer sandy sediments or a combination of sand and mud (Figure 3-72). For example,
flounder species, which prefer sand to mud sand sediments, can be found throughout the Study Area.
Because flounder bury themselves in the sand when disturbed, they avoid areas that contain hard substrate
(rocks) and very soft muds (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953) which prevent or inhibit their ability to burrow.
Other species mat rest and forage on the bottom, such as little skate and longhom sculpin, survive equally
well in areas with sand or muddy sediments. Only one species, spotted hake, is primarily supported by and
prefers muddy sediment (T. Azarovitz, pers. comm., 1996). Other species are found on mud sediments as
well as sand or hard substrates. These include species such as silver hake, longhorn sculpin, and little
skate. At least one species, the spiny dogfish, does not demonstrate a preference for specific sediment
types and is found throughout the area.
Shellfish found in the Study Area are associated with many sediment types, ranging from mud (e.g.,
horseshoe crab) to gravel (e.g., rock crab). Some species may have an affinity to more than one sediment
type. For example, horseshoe crabs are found in muddy and sandy environments.
Hard substrates provide protective areas for fish (juveniles or adults), a substrate for growth of epibenthic
invertebrates (e.g., blue mussels), and a range of macro and micro habitat that can support numerous
individual fish and their prey species. These bottom types often provide disproportionate amounts of
habitat and forage area relative to the other sediment types. Species such as cunner, tautog, and black sea
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-139
Figure 3-72. Sediment preferences of fish and shellfish that occupy the Study Area.
(See Figure 3-71 for spatial distribution of sediment texture in the Study Area).
Mud
Muddy Sand
Sandy Mud
Sand
Gravcl/Rocks/Outcrops
COMMON SPECIES LIKELY FOUND WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Mud Muddy Sand
Spiny dogfish Spiny dogfish
Spotted hake Winter flounder
Silver hake Horseshoe crab
Red hake Sea scallop
Fourspot flounder
Longhom sculpin
Windowpane flounder
Little skate
Horseshoe crab
Sandy Mud Sand
Spiny dogfish Spiny dogfish
Yellowtail flounder Winter flounder
Jonah crab Scup
Yellowtail flounder
Silver hake
Summer flounder
Red hake
Cod
Ocean pout
Longhorn sculpin
Black sea bass
Fourspot flounder
Sea raven
Northern sea robin
Striped sea robin
Little skate
Windowpane flounder
Gulfstream flounder
Surf clam
Rock crab
Jonah crab
Horseshoe crab
Sea scallop
Gravel/Rocks/Outcrops
Spiny dogfish
Winter flounder
Scup
Black sea bass
Silver hake
Tautog
Gunner
Cod
Ocean pout
Longhom sculpin
Little skate
Sea raven
American lobster
Surf clam
Rock crab
Jonah crab
Sources: Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; T. Azarovitz, pers. comm., 1996; Langton et al., 1994; M. Dawson, pers. comm.,
19%; S. Murawski, pers. comm., 1996; and StehlikeroJ., 1991.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-] 40
bass are known to dominate hard substrate habitats (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Ocean pout have been
collected on hard substrates, even though the species prefers sand habitat. Other typical species found in
hard-bottom areas include tautog and black sea bass (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Gravel, while only
found in small patches in the northwestern portion of the Study Area, can serve as an alternate substrate for
cod, winter flounder, silver hake, and scup.
The diverse sediment types in the Study Area clearly support a variety of fish and shellfish species, many
of which can forage and survive across several types of substrate. Thus, the intermixing of these substrates
at a variety of spatial scales likely maximize the ability for many of these species to survive and flourish in
the area. The following section discusses specific food (prey) requirements of the most important fish and
shellfish species in the Study Area and relates these to specific prey organisms in the various sediment
types.
3.43.4.1 Fish—Food and Habitats
Generally, the physical features of a fish (e.g.,
mouth size, type of teeth, fast/slow swimmer)
establish the type of organisms on which fish prey.
Typically, pelagic fish prey on small organisms
found in the water column (plankton, copepods,
euphausiids, and mysids) and other pelagic fish.
The prey of demersal fish depend largely on the
habitats with which the fish is associated.
Criteria for Determining Primary and Secondary Prey
Categories for Fish in the Study Area
NEFSC Database: The NEFSC database contains
quantitative measurements of stomach contents of fish
collected in the New York Bight. Primary and secondary
prey species were determined from the fractional
contribution each identifiable species made to the entire set
of prey species. All species that fell within the top 80%
were categorized as primary prey. Secondary prey included
the remaining 20%. These categories provide additional
information about the prey found the Study Area.
Published Literature Sources: Published literature with
interpretive evaluation based on best scientific judgement
provided a second source for determining prey categories.
Prey species that comprised a major portion of the diet,
based on the percentage, were categorized as primary prey.
Key infauna species that were a minor component of the diet
were also categorized.
To understand the interaction of fish, prey species,
and substrate in the Study Area, thus establishing
the significance of the various sediment types to
the fisheries of the Study Area, prey species
preferred by the fish of the area were identified.
Two data sources were used to identify preferred
prey for each fish species, scientific literature and
information contained in the NMFS, Northeast
Fisheries Science Center data base (NEFSC,
1995b). Prey species were categorized as primary
or secondary prey (Table 3-17). Recent data from benthic invertebrate studies within the Study Area
(Battelle, 1992a; 1996a) were then used to predict where prey (listed in the table) are located within the
Study Area and determine the sediment (substrate) associated with that area. In general, the prey species
and associated habitats in the Study Area correspond with published literature on prey habitat interactions.
The following section is organized by predator habitat type (multi-habitat, sand, mud, and hard-bottom).
Discussions within each section focus on the fish (predator) species groups and the major prey species.
Multi-Habitat Fish
Species discussed in this section forage over a
range of sediment types, including mud, sand, and
gravel.
Winter Flounder. Winter flounder, with its
relatively sedentary lifestyle and a small mouth,
feeds on prey found in or on the sediment in which
Multi-Habitat Fish Species in the Study Area
• Winter flounder
• Silver hake
•Cod
• Windowpane flounder
• Little skate
• Sea raven
• Red hake
• Fourspot flounder
• Spiny dogfish
• Longhom sculpin
• Ocean pout
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-141
it lives. It is found on muddy-sand and sandy sediments both of which are found throughout the Study
Area The winter flounder diet consists of several species of polychaete worms, Pherusa affinis,
Asabellides oculata, and Nephtys sp., and Cancer irroratus (rock crab), which are characteristic of muddy
sediments in the Study Area (Battelle, 1996a). Note, however, that Caracciolo and Steimle (1983) state
that Cancer irroratus is typically associated with sandy environments. In a 1995 survey of the Study Area,
Cancer irroratus was only collected in silty sediments9 (Battelle, 1996a). Ceriantheopsis americanus
(tube anenome) appears to be a preferred prey of winter flounder and is found in all sediment types of the
Study Area, except for gravel.
Silver and Red Hake. Silver hake, although classified as a demersal fish species, swims independent of
depth or sediment type (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). The species' association with sand, gravel, or mud
sediments are limited to the times when they are on the bottom as juveniles and when spawning. Silver
hake is a voracious cannibalistic piscivore that preys primarily on mackerel (a demersal fish species) and
smaller fish of its own species. The fish prey may be pursued over all sediment types. Silver hake feed
also on sand lance, which, not surprisingly, are found in sand sediments. Juvenile silver hake feed on
crustaceans (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953), such as mysids (epibenthic shrimp), and Crangon
septemspinosa (epibenthic shrimp) both of which are typically found in sandy sediments. Mysids have
been identified in samples from the Study Area (Battelle, 1992a).
Red hake prefers soft sediments (mud), but it is found on sandy sediments as well. The diet of red hake is
primarily composed of many different families of crustaceans, except for molluscs or echinoderms
(Bigelow & Schroeder, 1953). As sluggish swimmers, red hake pursue sand lance and epibenthic
crustaceans (e.g., amphipods, crabs, and shrimp) in sandy environments. Amphipods have been identified
in samples from the Study Area (Battelle, 1992a). In muddy environments at the Study Area, red hake
probably feed on Cancer irroratus, Pherusa affinis, and Nephtys incisa (Battelle, 1996a). Red hake (like
spotted hake) also feed on Dichelopandalus leptocerus (pandalid shrimp), which are typically found on
sediments with high organic content (Wigley, 1960)
Cod. Although cod spend most of their time on the bottom; cod do not root in the bottom sediments for
prey (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Cod primarily pursue and feed on fish in the water column, such as
herring (a pelagic fish), but they will also forage the bottom for other demersal species, such as skates,
flounder, and sand lance (NEFSC, 1995b). When feeding on benthic invertebrates, cod prefer molluscs,
such as ocean quahog (NEFSC, 1995b). (Ocean quahog is a commercially harvested species fished
heavily in sandy bottom areas of the southern New Jersey-Delmarva Peninsula area.)
Fourspot and Windowpane Flounder. Fourspot and windowpane flounder, like summer flounder, are
found in both sand and mud environments. Fourspot flounder is very similar to summer flounder. It is a
large mouth flounder that feeds on mobile prey in the water column, such as small fish (silver hake) and
squid (NEFSC, 1995b). When it forages near the bottom, it consumes epibenthic prey, such as pandalid
and mysid shrimp, both of which have been identified in samples from the Study Area (Battelle, 1992a).
The diet of windowpane flounder includes mysid shrimp, small fish (e.g., sand lance), and gammarids
(found in the Study Area) in sandy environments (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
o
The sampling referred to was conducted in the Study Area using a grab sampler, which is not effective for sampling
mobile shellfish. The absence of Cancer when sampling sandy sediments may be an artifact of sampling, and not
related to distribution of Cancer.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment ^ Page 3-142
Spiny Dogfish. Spiny dogfish are voracious eaters that travel across all sediment types in pursuit offish
(e.g., mackerel), their preferred prey. Dogfish are also one of the few fish that eat ctenophores (Bigelow
and Schroeder, 1953). NEFSC (1995b) data indicate that they feed on ctenophores in areas near the Study
Area. Prey that are of secondary importance include molluscs and epibenthic crustaceans such as decapod
crab (e.g., Cancer sp.) and shrimp. Cancer crabs are found on mud sediments throughout the Study Area.
Little Skate. Amphipods, decapod shrimp, and polychaete worms are the primary prey of little skate.
When foraging in sand sediments within the Study Area, little skate are probably feeding on Crangon
septemspinosa (NEFSC, 1995b). Other little skate prey items are polychaete worms, which are abundant
in mud and sand environments in the Study Area, and Cancer irroratus, which primarily inhabit sandy
sediments. Little skate are also known to inhabit rocky ledges, where they may forage for epizoic
caprellidae (NEFSC, 1995b). The southwest portion of the Study Area has some rough bottom (rocks
covered by sand) habitat; a pseudo ledge environment exists in the eastern portion of the Study Area in the
debris field of the old Cellar Dirt Site.
Sculpins. Longhorn sculpins stay near the bottom on mud, sand, and pebble substrates, and forage for
prey from these substrates. A preferred prey, Cancer irroratus (NEFSC, 1995b), which is found in the
Study Area (Battelle, 1996a), is eaten by sculpin on mud or sand bottoms. Longhorn sculpins in sandy
sediments in the Study Area may be attracted by resident Crangon septemspinosa. Polychaetes, which are
a minor prey, may be found in either mud or sandy sediments in the Study Area. Longhorn sculpins also
pursue fish fry, such as pipefish, which it most likely catches in the mouths of rivers (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953).
Sea raven, which are also in the sculpin family, have larger teeth than the longhom sculpin and are found
on similar substrates (i.e., hard sand and pebbles). Although they are not found on sticky mud, they do
appear to have a preference for clay (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). On pebbly substrates, which are
found in northwest comer of the Study Area, sea raven may pursue tautog (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Similarly, sea raven may hunt Cancer irroratus or Crangon septemspinosa found on sandy sediments
(NEFSC, 1995b).
Ocean Pout Ocean pout spend most of their time hiding among stones (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
The primary prey of ocean pout is sand dollars, which is located in abundance on sand substrates
throughout the Study Area. When on rocky substrates, ocean pout probably feed on aphroditidae worms
(E. Ruff, pers. comm., 1996).
Sandy Habitat Fish
Fish Found on Sand and Sandy Mud Substrates in the
Study Area
• Scup • Yellowtail flounder
• Northern sea robin • Gulfstream flounder
• Striped sea robin • Summer flounder
Four species of demersal fish prefer sandy
environments exclusively. Sand bottoms are
predominately found in 30% of the Study Area;
sandy-mud bottoms represent 40% of the Study
Area (refer to Section 3.3.2 and Figure 3-71).
Prey items identified in the stomachs of fish
species that forage on sand bottoms are described
below.
Yellowtail Flounder. Yellowtail is a relatively sedentary small-mouthed flounder, like winter flounder.
Prey are limited to polychaetes and small crustaceans (e.g., amphipods) (NEFSC, 1995b), many of which
are found in sand environments in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-143
Scup. Scup rarely leave the bottom in search of food (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Scup primarily feed
on polychaete worms (NEFSC, 1995b), which are found throughout the Study Area in sand and silt
environments. Other prey include amphipods and small bivalves, both of which are common to sandy
sediments.
Gulfstream Flounder. Although there are no data specific to the New York Bight or Study Area on
gulfstream flounder, general feeding information indicate a preference for echinoderms (i.e., sand dollars)
and polychaetes, which are located in the sandy sediments of the Study Area. The gulfstream flounder is
also known to prey on other fish (Michaels et ai, 1986).
Summer Flounder. Summer flounder is a predacious large mouthed flounder with a diverse diet that
reflects its adaptation to pursue prey in the water column and feed on benthic invertebrates. Data indicate
that summer flounder caught near the Study Area feed primarily on pelagic prey in the water column, such
as fish (round herring) and cephalopods (squid) (NEFSC, 1995b). Other prey eaten by summer flounder
include gammarids that are found on sandy environments in the Study Area (Battelle, 1996a).
Sea Robins. Sea robins are voracious fish that feed indiscriminately on many prey, including shrimp, crab,
worms, and fish (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). As with the gulfstream flounder, there are no New York
Bight or Study Area specific data on sea robins. Prey species listed in Table 3-17 were identified in sea
robins collected throughout the northwest Atlantic Ocean as reported by Michaels et al. (1986). Although
some of the prey species (e.g., Cancer irroratus) have been identified in the Study Area, they are not
typical of the sandy sediments usually associated with sea robin habitat.
Muddy Habitat Fish
Muddy sediments cover approximately 10% of the Study Area (refer to Section 3.3.2 and Figure 3-71).
Spotted hake is the only demersal species discussed in this SEIS that is caught exclusively on muddy,
muddy-sand sediments (T. Azarovitz, pers. comm., 1996). The spotted hake diet consists of pelagic (e.g.,
fish and euphausiids) and benthic (e.g., amphipods and shrimp) prey (NEFSC, 1995b). Spotted hake, like
red hake, forage for Dichelopandalus leptocerus which is motile and can be found on many sediment
types.
Hard Substrate (Gravel/Rocks/Outcrops) Habitat Fish
Hard bottom habitats support numerous species, many
of which are also found on other substrates. Hard
bottom substrates cover approximately 15% of the
Study Area and are predominant in the southeast comer
and vicinity of cellar dirt site. (Refer to Section 3.3.2
and Figure 3-71). Gravel and pebbles serve as alternate
habitat substrates for seven demersal species listed in
the text box. These species are also found on other
substrates, as mentioned in previous discussions. Only
three demersal species, black sea bass, tautog, and
cunner, prefer hard substrates, specifically rocks and
outcroppings.
Fish Found on Hard-Bottom Habitats
in the Study Area
Tautog
Gunner
Black sea bass
Fish Found on Gravel and Pebbles Substrates
in the Study Area
Silver hake
Cod
Little skate
Sea raven
Longhorn sculpin
Winter flounder
Ocean pout
Spiney dogfish
Scup
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-144
Tautog and black sea bass are sought on hard substrates in the Study Area by both commercial and
recreational fisheries. Tautog primarily feed on blue mussels, but are classified as opportunistic benthic
omnivores that select crabs (Cancer sp.) and sand dollars for food as frequently as mussels (Steimle and
Ogren, 1982). Blue mussels are frequently found attached to hard substrates. Although a few blue
mussels were found in the Study Area (Battelle, 1996a), mussels have not been reported as common in
literature that characterizes invertebrates in offshore areas of the New York Bight. Substrate condition is
critical for supporting mussel populations. Olla et al. (1974) stated that changes in substrates that support
1- to 2-yr old mussels could lead to a high probability of stress for the tautog population. The key prey of
black sea bass, which are often collected with tautog, is Cancer sp. Although Cancer crabs (C. irroratus
or C. borealis) were only collected from silty sediments in the Study Area (see previous footnote), they are
associated most often with sandy sediment (Caracciolo and Steimle, 1983). In addition, Cancer crab is
also found on gravel and rocky sediments (Jeffries, 1966; Krouse, 1980). Blue mussels and squid, a
pelagic invertebrate, are eaten also.
Gunner, which is in the same family as tautog, is often found with tautog in rocky substrates, and is known
to feed on small blue mussels. Additionally, cunners feed on Crangon septemspinosa and decapod crabs.
Crangon septemspinosa is typically associated with sandy sediments, which are found throughout the
Study Area.
Pelagic Habitat Fish
The pelagic species discussed in this section, with the exception of butterfish, do not exhibit a preference
for bottom types found in the Study Area.
Butterfish. Although a pelagic species, butterfish are often associated with sandy sediments where they
feed on benthic invertebrates, such as polychaete worms, shrimp, small crabs, and small molluscs
(Bowman and Michaels, 1984).
Herrings. The herrings (Atlantic herring, alewife, and American shad) are plankton feeders that primarily
feed on various species of copepods, shrimp,_amphipods. For example, Atlantic herring feed on
euphausiid shrimp, whereas shad feed on mysid shrimp (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). American shad
will feed near the bottom on amphipods and will occasionally eat small fish (e.g., silver hake). Alewife
will feed on diatoms and small fish to supplement its normal diet. Data from surveys near the Study Area
indicate that alewife caught in this area feed on sandJance (NEFSC, 1995b). Unlike shad and alewife,
herring is not normally a fish eater (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Although not mentioned in Bigelow
and Schroeder, chaetognaths appear to be a major component of the diet, especially for herring in the area
near the Study Area (NEFSC, 1995b).
Bluefish. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) describe bluefish as the "most ferocious and bloodthirsty fish in
the sea." Bluefish are piscivores that feed on many species offish and squid (i.e., cephalopods). Anchovy
and windowpane flounder are prey species that have been identified in bluefish collected near the Study
Area (NEFSC, 1995b). Occasionally bluefish will feed on crustaceans. Notably, small bluefish feed on
copepods, amphipods, and small crabs (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). There is no evidence that bluefish,
a migratory species, exhibits any preference to bottom types in the Study Area.
Weakfish. Adult weakfish feed primarily on other fish. Juvenile weakfish preferentially feed on shrimp
and other small crustaceans (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Anchovy is a fish species eaten by adult
weakfish caught in the New York Bight Apex (NEFSC, 1995b).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-145
Striped bass. Striped bass are voracious and opportunistic, feeding on small fish and several species of
invertebrates (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Red hake and Atlantic herring are two fish species that are
consumed in the area near the Study Area (NEFSC, 1995b).
3.4.3.4.2 Shellfish—Food and Habitats
As previously discussed, most shellfish are closely associated with the sediment. Because most shellfish
are relatively sedentary, sediment type is critical to survival because it provides a food source, protection,
and habitat for the life of the organism. As such, food items are obtained from the sediment (e.g., benthic
or epibenthic species), or are filtered from the water that passes above the bottom sediments. The
exception is squid, which feeds on pelagic prey. Because of the strong sediment preferences of the non-
pelagic shellfish in or near the Study Area (Figure 3-72), distribution of these organisms, when present, is
determined by the sediment types of the Study Area (Figure 3-71).
Specific food items of each species are presented in Table 3-18. The following text describes shellfish
habitat and food preferences in detail.
Multi-Habitat Shellfish
Loligo and Ittex Squid. There is no evidence that Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus have an affinity for
one substrate type over another. Once hatched from eggs laid on the bottom, the juveniles and adults
spend their short lifespan in the water column. Juvenile squid feed on euphausiids and small crustaceans.
In general, as squid mature, pelagic prey comprises a larger percent of the diet. Fish (e.g., butterfish) are a
major component of the diet in the adult squid (Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). Adult squid are
opportunistic predators, feeding on whatever fish are available within a specific size range (Dave, 1992).
Crustaceans and other squid are also consumed by adult squid. Squid are not only predators; they serve as
prey for fish and mammals as well.
Juvenile /. Illecebrosus predominately feed on chaetognaths and a variety of crustaceans (Froerman, 1983).
Prey of adult /. illecebrosus, in decreasing order of importance, include euphausiids, fish, and squid
(Michaels etal, 1986; Froerman, 1983). Fish prey of/, illecebrosus include silver hake, myctophids, cod,
haddock, herring, and flounder (Squires, 1957; Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Silver hake is reported to
be the most common fish prey species of Illex (Dave, 1992). Illex most likely feed on these prey when
they are in the vicinity of the Study Area in the summer. Some of the fish prey of /. illecebrosus are
associated with specific sediment types, as described previously.
The relative importance of prey in the diet of Loligo pealei varies with the size of the individual (Macy,
1982). The major prey of juvenile L. pealei is copepods, with euphausiids being of less importance (Vovk
and Khvichiya, 1980). As the juveniles grow, mesozooplankton (e.g., copepods) consumption decreases
and macroplankton (euphausiid and Sagitta) consumption increases. When L pealei reach 7 to 10 cm,
their diet switches to young crabs, Anomora, Stomatopoda, shrimp, and polychaetes (Vovk and Khvichiya,
1980). The diet of larger (>13cm) squid (e.g., /. illecebrosus) is dominated by small fish and smaller squid
(Vovk and Khvichiya, 1980; Macy, 1982). Fish prey of adult L. pealei include myctophids, anchovy,
scup, butterfish, and herrings (Michaels et al, 1986; Lange and Sissenwine, 1980). These prey, like L.
pealei, are not strongly associated with one sediment type.
Horseshoe Crab. Horseshoe crabs can be found in either sand or mud. Horseshoe crabs bury their eggs in
sandy sediments on coastal beaches, but are found in mud environments in offshore areas. The sand or
mud environment where non-spawning horseshoe crabs are found provide prey. Horseshoe crabs dig into
the sediment in search of marine worms and shellfish, which are their primary prey. Prey species include,
Nereis (sand worm), Cerebratulus (sand ribbon worm), Gemma and Macoma (duck clams), Ensis (razor
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-146
clam), and Mya (soft-shelled clam). Although these prey may be associated with sand and mud
environments, extensive feeding occurs during the breeding season (spring) when the crabs are found in
intertidal sand and mud flats. Thus, most feeding will occur outside of the Study Area.
Sand/Gravel Habitat Shellfish
Sea Scallop. Sea scallops are most often associated with sandy sediments, which are found in the
northwest and southern area of the Study Area; however, prey are obtained from the water column that
passes by them. Because sea scallops are relatively sessile, they must adapt to fluctuations in food supply.
Diatoms, including Prorocentrum, Thalassiosira sp., and Dinophysis, are the predominant prey of sea
scallops. Other prey identified in the stomachs of sea scallops include several species of algae, pollen
grains, silicoflagellate strew, ciliates, bacteria, and detritus (Shumway et al, 1987). Thus, changes to
sediment type in the Study Area as a result dredged material placement will not affect prey of sea scallops,
but may affect sea scallop populations if there is a significant change in grain size.
Rock Crab. Investigations of rock crab distributions indicate that the preferred sediments from Georges
Bank to Cape Hatteras are sand and sand/gravel (Uchupi, 1963; Schlee, 1973). Sandy areas are found in
the northeast region of the Study Area. Gravel substrates are located in the northwest quadrant of the
Study Area. Other studies conducted in Maine and Canada have found individuals on rocky (Scarratt and
Lowe, 1972) and muddy (Krouse, 1980) sediments. C. irroratus, like many crabs, are scavengers (Stehlik,
1993) that compete with other crabs for food. Migrations of C. irroratus inshore in the fall and offshore in
the spring may occur to avoid competition for food with other crabs, such as the blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus) and northern lady crab (Ovalipes oscillatus), both of which are dormant in the winter (Stehlik et
al., 1991). Recent studies on diets of rock crabs in the New York Bight indicate that Pherusa affinis
comprised the largest volume of the rock crab's stomach contents. This prey is most often associated with
mud sediments. The remainder of the diet included molluscs, and fish (Stehlik, 1993), of which molluscs
is the most strongly associated with a specific sediment type.
Jonah Crab. C. irroratus, like many crabs, are scavengers (Stehlik, 1993) that compete with other crabs
for food. Recent studies on the diet of Jonah crab in the New York Bight indicate a similarity in prey with
C. irroratus even though the two species may be found in different habitats. Jonah crabs are most
frequently found in silty sand (Uchupi, 1963; Schlee, 1973), although they are also collected on gravel and
rock substrates (Jeffries, 1966; Krouse, 1980), compared to C. irroratus which does not have a preference
for silty sand or rock. Polychaetes, many of which are found in sand environments, are the most frequently
eaten prey and contributed the largest percentage to the stomach volume (Stehlik, 1993). Other
components of the Jonah crab's diet include Pherusa affinis and Nucula proximo, the latter of which was
found by Stehlik (1993) to comprise 12% of the diet. P. affinis and N. proximo are most often associated
with muddy habitats, which are located in the southern portion of the Study Area (Battelle, 1996a).
Surf Clam. Abundance of the surf clam is strongly associated with coarse sediments (Pearce et al., 1981).
Investigators indicated that catches of surf clams from gravel sediments were significantly higher than
catches in sand (2-2.5 times) and silt-clay (3-5.5 times). However, it is unclear if larvae selectively settle
on gravel sediments (Pearce et al., 1981). Gravel sediments are rare in the Study Area and are only found
in the northwest area. The gravel sediments where surf clams are most often found do not serve as a food
source. Surf clams are filter feeders that draw in water through siphons to trap prey. As the water is drawn
in, food particles are collected and ingested by the clam. Ropes (1980) reports that surf clams feed
predominantly on several species of diatoms, including Amphiprora constricta and Tintinnus.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-147
Hard Substrate (Rocks/Cobbles/Outcrops) Habitat Shellfish
Lobster. Lobster prefer rocky and cobbled areas (Cobb and Phillips, 1980) but use a variety of benthic
substrates as habitat (including dredged material clumps). The Study Area contains rocky cobbled areas in
the eastern and southern portion of the site. Lobsters use burrows or crevices for protection. Inshore and
offshore stocks of lobsters are not preferential in their choice of habitat (Cobb and Phillips, 1980).
Juvenile and adult lobsters occupy habitats of mud/silt, mud/rock, sand/rock and bedrock/rock (Thomas,
1968). The most common habitat is rocks or boulders on a sandy substrate. The preferred topography is
rugged with a gradient from 0° to 70° (Cobb and Phillips, 1980). Some species of fish may occupy the
same shelter as lobsters or live within close proximity (Cobb and Phillips, 1980). Another common habitat
of offshore lobsters is the mud-clay base or submarine canyon clay wall. In either substrate the lobsters dig
into the substrate (i.e., burrow) or make a tunnel or bowl-shaped depression to hide in.
Lobster feed on prey that may be inside or attached to the rocky or cobbled areas where the lobster resides.
Cobb and Phillips (1980) report that lobsters are omnivorous feeders and predators. Prey include bottom
invertebrates such as crabs, polychaetes, mussels, periwinkles, sea urchins and starfish (Ennis, 1973).
Crabs (e.g., rock crab) appear to be the preferred prey (Cobb and Phillips, 1980), however, lobsters are
opportunistic feeders whose diet shifts based on the availability of prey. During summer molting periods,
lobsters appear to selectively feed on more sea stars and sea urchins than during other times of the year
(Cobb and Phillips, 1980). Although lobsters may be habitat dependent, their omniverous feeding habits
allow them to be adaptable to changes in prey availability.
3.4.4 Marine and Coastal Birds [Section 228.6(a)(9)]
The coast of the Atlantic Ocean supports a large number of resident and migratory marine and coastal birds
(MMS, 1991). Thousands of marine and coastal birds migrate through the New York Bight annually.
These birds are documented when they stop at Federally protected areas such as national wildlife refuges
(e.g., Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge) and national parks (see Section 3.5.9) in the New York Bight (GNRA
NPS, 1996). In addition, New York and New Jersey record and monitor birds that are on either Federal or
state endangered or threatened species lists. Table 3-19 lists coastal and marine birds with special status
that have been recorded in New York or New Jersey, and might possibly be affected by current conditions
or future dredged material management activities in the Study Area. These birds are classified by their
marine habitat as pelagic, shorebirds, waterfowl, colonial water birds, raptors, and marsh birds.
EPA has conducted an informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Letter dated April 6,1995) for endangered species under its jurisdiction within the Study
Area (including marine and coastal birds). This informal consultation was concluded on July 28,1995.
3.4.4.1 Pelagic Birds
The Atlantic coast, including the Study Area, supports many species of pelagic birds. These birds do not
come near the coast, except when breeding, and most breed outside of the New York/New Jersey area, and
therefore very unlikely to be affected by activities in the Study Area. An example of a pelagic bird that
probably visits the Study Area is the common loon (Gavia inuner), which is listed as uncommon or rare
(depending on the season) in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York (Davis, 1994).
3.4.4.2 Shorebirds
Shorebirds inhabit open beaches, tidal flats, and marshes. Although the majority of shore birds that occur
along the Atlantic coast are migratory, they do not travel as far from land as pelagic birds (MMS, 1991).
Shorebirds are either colonial or solitary in nesting habitat, and some species breed in upland areas.
Examples of shore birds include the willet, piping plover, and the phalarope (e.g., Wilson's, northern, red).
-------
Table 3-19. Coastal and
from NNTC
Species
Common Loon
(Gavia immer)
Great Blue Heron
(Arden herodias)
Little Blue Heron
(Egretta caerulea)
Yellow-crowned Night-heron
(Nycticorax violaceus)
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus)
Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus)
Peregrine Falcon
(Falco peregrinus)
Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus)
Common tem
(Sterna hirundo)
Roseate tern
(Sterna dougallii)
Black tern
(Chlidonias niger)
Least tern
(Sterna antillum)
marine birds in New York and New Jersey
(1994) and Davis (1994)1.
Classification Season <
Pelagic spring, late fall
Coastal wader late fall
Coastal wader spring - early fall
Coastal wader spring - early fall
Raptor summer - winter
Raptor early fall - winter
Raptor spring and
early-late fall
Raptor early fall
Shore spring- early fall
Colonial waterbird spring - early fall
Colonial waterbird spring - early fall
Colonial waterbird spring - early fall
Colonial waterbird spring - summer
1 ,
'Season with the highest annual abundance as recorded at the Gateway National Recreation
listed as endangered, threatened,
Federal Status NY State Status
Special Concern
..
..
..
Endangered Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered Endangered
Threatened Endangered
Threatened
Endangered Endangered
Special concern
Endangered
Area in New York. All of these protected
or of special concern [adapted
1 NJ State Status
—
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
--
Endangered
-
Endangered
species are classified as uncommon (1
to 9 individuals recorded annually) or rare (only one or a few individuals recorded).
'Breeding status only.
£
8*.
1.
i
i
a
o
of
s
c/5
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-149
The willet is commonly found in New York from the spring through early fall (GNRA NPS, 1996). The
piping plover is Federally listed as endangered. [Additional information on the piping plover can be found
in Section 2.2 Battelle (1997a).] Because the willet and piping plover are closely associated with the
shoreline, it is unlikely that they will visit the Study Area (G. Haas, pers. comm., 1996). The phalarope,
however, may travel some distance from the shore since it feeds in upwelling areas (G. Haas, pers. comm.,
1996) and may visit the Study Area.
3.4.4.3 Waterfowl
The preferred habitat of waterfowl includes coastal oceanic waters, bays, sounds, estuaries, lagoons, and
tidal wetlands (MMS, 1991). Waterfowl, as with shorebirds, are migratory and breed within inland
regions. Waterfowl that are recorded at the Gateway National Recreation Area include American black
duck (Anas rubripes), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and
scoters [e.g., black scoter (Melanitta nigraj] (Davis, 1994; MMS, 1991; D. Pence, pers. comm., 1995).
Other species that occupy the area include the red-breasted merganser (mergus serrator) and oldsquaw
(Claugula nyemallo). Any of these species could potentially be sighted in the Study Area.
3.4.4.4 Colonial Water Birds
This category comprises many coastal birds, including wading birds which walk through the water
searching for prey. Colonial water birds are characterized by the colonies of nests that they build along the
coasts. Wading birds occur in all Atlantic coastal states, but prefer tidal creeks, ponds, marshes, mangrove
flats, and similar shallow water habitats. Examples of colonial water birds reported at the Jamaica Bay
Wildlife Refuge that may be sighted in the Study Area include the roseate tem (endangered), brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron
(Nycticorax violaceus), great egret (Casmerodius albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), glossy ibis (Plegadis
falcinellus), American oyster catcher (Haematopus palliatus), and least tern (Sterna antillarum) (Davis,
1994).
3.4.4.5 Raptors
Raptors hunt for food while in flight; many species hunt for food along the coast. The northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and the short-eared owl (Asio
flammeus) are raptors that are listed at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (Davis, 1994) and that might visit
the Study Area while hunting for food (USFWS, 1995a;b). Currently, the primary threat to these birds is
human disturbance of nesting birds.
3.4.4.6 Marsh Birds
Marsh birds are found in shallow estuaries where they feed and breed. The king rail (Rallus elegans) and
the black rail (Laterallusjamaicensis) are marsh birds that are of special concern in the New York/New
Jersey area (NNTC, 1994). Because of the preferred coastal and inland habitat of these two species, it is
unlikely that they will be observed in the Study Area.
3.4.5 Marine Mammals and Reptiles [Section 228.6(a)(9)]
The majority of cetaceans and turtles in the western North Atlantic Ocean are found in continental shelf
waters (Kenney and Winn, 1986). Data collected over more than 10 years indicate that the New York
Bight, in comparison to other areas of the United States, has one of the highest diversities of marine
mammals and sea turtles even though the resident, nonmigratory populations are relatively low (Sadove
and Cardinale, 1993).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-150
Twenty-eight species of marine mammals and five species of turtles have been sighted in the New York
Bight over the past several years (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). Six species of the marine mammals and
one turtle species are classified as rare, or their abundance in the New York Bight is unknown because of
unconfirmed or no live sightings. These species include the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas), dense-beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), true's beaked whale
(Mesoplodon minis), gulf stream beaked whale (Mesoplodon europeaus), goose-beaked whale (Ziphius
cavirostris), and hawksbill turtle (Eretomochelys imbricata). The remaining 22 species of marine
mammals and four species of turtles are listed in Table 3-20. Two species of whales and two species of
turtles identified as endangered or threatened inhabit the Study Area during a portion of their life cycle.
These species, humpback whale, fin whale, loggerhead turtle, and Kemp's Ridley turtle, are discussed in
Battelle (1997a).
Of the 26 species, five cetaceans, four pinnipeds, and three turtles have been sighted in the Bight Area.
These species are briefly discussed in the following sections.
3.4.5.1 Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises)
The most frequently observed cetaceans in the inner New York Bight are fin, humpback, and pygmy sperm
whales, and saddleback dolphins. There have been live sightings of each of these species, except for the
pygmy sperm whale, in the inner New York Bight. Although there have not been live sightings of the
pygmy sperm whale, stranding data indicate that this species visits the inner New York Bight. The
following text provides a brief summary of the life history of each species. A more detailed description of
the life history of the fin and humpback whales can be found in Battelle (1997a).
Endangered or Threatened Cetaceans
Fin Whale. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are present in all the major oceans of the world from the
Arctic to the tropics (Evans, 1987) and are the most abundant baleen whale in the New York Bight
(Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). They are long and slender, growing to a maximum size of about 27 m and
73,000 kg (Minasian et al., 1984). They are considered to be one of the fastest great whales, with speed in
excess of 20 knots (Leatherwood et al., 1976). Because of their high-cruising speed, fin whales were not
harvested commercially in large numbers until other, easier to catch species such as right whales were
depleted and whalers developed high-speed boats (Leatherwood et al., 1976). However, more than
700,000 fin whales were harvested world-wide in the twentieth century (NMFS, 1994), resulting in this
species being listed as endangered in 1970. Fin whales are the most abundant and frequently sighted of the
endangered great whales that visit coastal waters of the northeastern United States. As such, this species
may be observed in the Study Area (NMFS, 1996).
Fin whales are found in feeding aggregations of more than 20 individuals in the summer in the New York
Bight. Their diet consists of fish (e.g., sand lance, herring, mackerel), squid, and zooplankton. The New
York Bight population is estimated at 400 animals, with estimates of 800 animals reported at specific times
during the year (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993).
Humpback Whale. The unique feature of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) that distinguishes
them from all other baleen whales is their extremely long flippers that may be 5 m long or about 1/3 of their
total body length; the total body length reaches 18m. Humpback whales were an important commercial
species throughout most of their range, including Long Island and New England waters, until early in the
twentieth century (Allen, 1916), when commercial harvesting resulted in severely depleted populations.
Today, humpback whales, which are Federally listed as endangered, occur in all the oceans of the world,
except possibly the Arctic (NMFS, 1991). They are regularly sighted in the New York Bight (most of
-------
Table 3-20. Marine mammals and sea turtles in the New York Bight [adapted from Sadove and Cardinale, 1993].
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Sighting Frequency
Sighting Periods
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises)
Fin whale
Minke whale
Sei whale
Humpback whale
Northern Right whale
Sperm whale
Pygmy Sperm whale
Atlantic Bottlenose dolphin
Common/Saddleback dolphin
Striped dolphin
Atlantic Spotted dolphin
Harbor porpoise
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
White Beaked dolphin
Long-Finned pilot whale
Killer whale
Grampus
Harbor seal
Harp seal
Ringed seal
Gray seal
Hooded seal
Kemp's Ridley turtle
Loggerhead turtle
Green Sea turtle
Leatherback turtle
Balaenoptera physalus
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Balaenoptera borealis
Megaptera novaeangliae
Eubalaena glacialis
Physeter catodon
Kogia breviceps
Tursiops truncatus
Delphinus delphis
Stenella coeruleoalba
Stenella plagiodon/attenuata
Phocoena phocoena
Lagenorhynchus acutus
Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Globicephala melaena
Orcinus area
Grampus griseus
Phoca vitulina
Phoca groenlandica
Phoca hispida
Haliochoerus grypus
Cystophora cristata
Lepidochelys kempi
Carretta carreta
Chelonia mydas
Dermochelys coricea
Endangered
Protected
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Endangered
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Pinnipeds (seals)
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Reptiles (turtles)
Endangered
Protected
Endangered
Endangered
Abundant
Abundant
Abundant
Common
Rare
Common
Increasing
Abundant
Abundant
Abundant
Abundant
Increasing
Abundant
Abundant
Abundant
Rare
Abundant
Abundant
Increasing
Unknown
Common
Unknown
Abundant
Abundant
Common
Abundant
January - March
year-round
July - August
June- Sept.; Dec.- Jan.
March - June
May - June; October
June - August
June - September
March - June
February - May
May - August
December - June
year-round
December - May
year-round
August - February
year-round
November - May
November - May
January - April
January - March
January - April
June - October
May - October
June - October
May - November
'Abundant>common>increasing>rare.
2Based on strandings, which generally occur in the summer months (OORF, pers. comm., 1996).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment __^_ fage 3-752
these whales are non-reproducing juveniles), and are one of the baleen species regularly observed in
shallow water, therefore, it is possible that this species may be observed near the Study Area (NMFS,
1996).
Humpback whales feed opportunistically on a wide variety of species of pelagic crustaceans and small fish.
A favorite food of humpbacks is the sand lance (Ammodytes americanus), although they also feed on
commercially important fish, such as herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and squid
(Illex illecebrosus) (Overholtz and Nicolas, 1979; Whitehead and Glass, 1985; Whitehead, 1987; Piatt et
al., 1989; NMFS, 1991). Although there are no specific population estimates for the New York Bight, the
population of humpbacks in the western North Atlantic is estimated at 900 animals (Sadove and Cardinale,
1993)
Non-Endangered or Non-Threatened Cetaceans
Harbor Porpoise. The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), which has been proposed for listing (Witte,
R. EPA Region 2 Endangered Species Coordinator) is the smallest cetacean (maximum total length of 1.5
m) in the western North Atlantic Ocean (Leatherwood et al, 1976), where its distribution is restricted to
the continental shelf (Katona et al., 1993). As the common name implies, the harbor porpoise is found
primarily near shore, in shallow waters and in bays and harbors (Gaskin, 1984). Sightings of this species
in the New York Bight 10-15 years ago were very rare. Recently, however, sightings have increased
(Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). Harbor porpoises are observed alone or in large groups when in the open
ocean, swimming "quietly" at the surface (Leatherwood et al., 1976). Because of their near shore, shallow
water distribution, it is unlikely that the harbor porpoise will be observed in the Study Area which is 2.8
nmi from shore at its western most boundary.
There are no direct feeding observation data on harbor porpoises because of the difficulty of observing this
small-sized cetacean at sea. Gaskin (1992), however, reports that harbor porpoises belonging to the Gulf
of Maine population (which includes those observed in the New York Bight) feed on pelagic schooling
fish, such as herring and mackerel, and occasionally when in deeper water, feed on hake, squid, and
octopus.
As noted in EPA's April 4,1996 letter to the NMFS, current information indicates that this species is not
known to interact with dredging and discharge operations. Rather, the major impact on harbor porpoise
populations is gill net fishing. Accordingly, EPA indicated that it would not include the species in its BA.
NMFS concurred with the approach on May 8,1996.
Pygmy Sperm Whale. The pygmy sperm whale (Kogia brevicepsj grows to at least 3.4 m in length. They
are characterized by "a crescent shaped bracket mark", often referred to as a false gill, located in the same
position where a fish's gill slits would be located (Leatherwood et al, 1976). This species is distributed
offshore (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993), and there have been few live sightings. However, stranded pygmy
sperm whales have been found in the New York Bight (MMSC, pers. comm., 1996). In fact, recent
increases in strandings along the coast of the New York Bight have resulted in the pygmy sperm whale
being classified as one of the top five species of marine mammals found stranded in this region (Sadove
and Cardinale, 1993; MMSC pers. comm., 1996). The offshore distribution, few live inshore sightings, yet
increased strandings, make it unclear how often pygmy sperm whales visit the Study Area. Further, a New
York Bight population estimate is not available.
Pygmy sperm whales have not been observed feeding. Squid, however, has been found in the stomachs of
stranded animals in the New York Bight (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-153
Saddleback Dolphin. The saddleback dolphin (Delphinus delphis), which reaches a maximum total length
of 2.6 m, has a distinctive hourglass or crisscross pattern of tan or yellowish tan on its sides (Leatherwood
et al., 1976). This species, also known as the common dolphin, is often sighted in herds of thousands and
is very active (Leatherwood et al., 1976). They are distributed throughout the temperate, subtropical, and
tropical waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean. The saddleback dolphin is found along the south
shore of Long Island in waters of deeper than 10m (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). Depths at the Study
Area are between 14 to 42 m (see Section 3.1); thus, animals that frequent the southern shore of Long
Island could move south into the Study Area.
Saddleback dolphins feed on squid and fish (e.g., herring, mackerel). Population estimates for the New
York Bight range from 5,000 to 10,000 animals.
3.4.5.2 Pinnipeds
All pinnipeds found in the New York Bight — ringed seal (Phoca hispidd), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
harp seal (Phoca groenlandica), gray seal (Haliochoerus grypus), and hooded seal (Cystophora cristata)
— are Federally protected, but none are listed as endangered or threatened in the United States or Canada.
The harbor seal is the most abundant pinniped on the east coast of the United States. Because the harp,
gray, and hooded seals (known as the ice seals) are restricted primarily to Canadian waters, very little is
known about their distribution in U.S. waters. As the Canadian stocks grow, it appears that the distribution
of these three pinnipeds is moving south (Katona et al., 1993). The number of strandings and sightings
have increased recently. Within the last five years, strandings of these four species (plus the ringed seal,
Phoca hispidd) have comprised a majority of all strandings in this region (OORF, pers. comm., 1996).
The most common pinnipeds in the New York Bight are the harbor and gray seals. Harbor seals have been
reported in the Long Island region year round, with the highest abundance of animals occurring from
November through May. Mostly pup and juvenile gray seals are observed seasonally. Gray seals have
been sighted along the coast within the Bight, and are often sighted with harbor seals (Sadove and
Cardinale, 1993). As true seals (i.e., phocids), the distribution of harbor, harp, gray, and hooded seals is
limited primarily to nearshore waters. However, these seals are unlikely to visit the Study Area or be
affected by placement of Material for Remediation at the HARS.
Gray seals have been observed feeding on cod when sighted along the coast. Harbor seals also have been
observed feeding on cod, in addition to herring, mackerel, squid, flounder, green crabs, mussels, and
whiting (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). The New York Bight harbor seal population estimate is 1800
individuals. Harp seals are estimated at 100 in this region. Population estimates for the gray and hooded
seals are not available (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993)
3.4.53 Reptiles (Turtles)
Sea turtles are highly migratory and are found throughout the world's oceans (NOAA, 1995e). The coastal
waters of New York (i.e., inner New York Bight) provide an important habitat for juvenile Kemp's ridley,
green, and loggerhead turtles (Morreale and Standora, 1993) and adult-sized leatherbacks. All of the
species discussed in this section are Federally listed as endangered or threatened. More detailed
information on the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead turtles can be found in Battelle (1997a).
Kemp's Ridley Turtle. The Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) is the smallest of the sea turtles
(NRC, 1990), and the most endangered sea turtle in the world (Carr and Mortimer, 1980). This turtle is
found mainly in the Gulf of Mexico (Hildebrand, 1982); however, juveniles migrate north along the
Atlantic seaboard during the summer. Most of the turtles that visit the New York Bight are juveniles,
averaging 25-30 cm in length (NMFS, 1988; NOAA, 1991). More ridley turtles are observed in the
coastal waters of New York and southern Massachusetts than anywhere else in the northeast (Lazell, 1980;
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-154
Morreale and Standora, 1992). Important habitats in the New York Bight include Long Island Sound,
Block Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, Jamaica Bay, lower New York harbor, and portions of Peconic
Estuary and Great South Bay (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). This species' predominance in the New York
Bight indicates that it may inhabit part of the Study Area during the summer and fall (NMFS, 1996).
In the New York Bight, where crustaceans represent more than 80% of the diet, nearly all feeding takes
place on or near the bottom in shallow water (Morreale and Standora, 1992; 1993; Burke et al., 1994).
Young ridleys consume several species of crabs, including (in order of decreasing preference) spider crabs,
lady crabs, and rock crabs (Morreale and Standora, 1992; 1993). Seasonal population estimates for the New
York Bight range from 100 to 300 individuals.
Loggerhead Turtle. The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) is listed as threatened throughout its range
under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS, 1986). It is the most common and seasonally abundant turtle
in inshore coastal waters of the Atlantic (NMFS & USFWS, 1991). Sub-adult loggerhead turtles migrate
northward in the spring and become abundant in coastal waters off New York where they are encountered
in Long Island Sound, New York Harbor-Raritan Bay, and along the south coast of Long Island during the
summer (Henwood, 1987; Keinath etal, 1987; Morreale etal, 1989; Shoop and Kenney, 1992). The
loggerhead has two distribution patterns — one group of mainly juveniles is found in bays and the Long
Island Sound; the second group is more oceanic, and is generally found along the south shore of Long
Island and up to 40 miles offshore (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). This second group of loggerhead turtles,
found along the south shore of Long Island, may regularly inhabit or travel through the Study Area
(NMFS, 1996).
The dominant prey of the loggerhead turtle is the spider crab, but other crabs (horseshoe, green, and
portunid) are consumed as well (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). Abundance estimates of loggerheads along
the U.S. Atlantic coast are difficult to make due to the short time turtles spend on the surface where they
can be spotted from a plane or boat. Existing data indicate that approximately 800 animals are in the New
York Bight during the summer and fall each year (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993).
Leatherback Turtle. The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coricea) is the largest and most distinctive of
the living sea turtles and is listed as endangered throughout its range (USFWS, 1986). Leatherbacks reach
a length of 150-170 cm SLCL (straight line carapace length; large outstretched front flippers may span 270
cm in an adult) and a weight of 500 to 900 kg. Leatherbacks are more widely distributed as adults, as
compared to other sea turtles, in temperate and boreal waters throughout the world. Their wide
distribution is directly related to endothermy, which allows them to survive and feed in colder temperate
waters than other sea turtles can tolerate. (Friar et al., 1972, Standora et al., 1984). Leatherback turtles are
the second most common turtle along the eastern seaboard of the United States and the most common
north of the 42 °N latitude. Long Island Sound supports one of the largest populations on the Atlantic
coast during the summer and early fall (Lazell, 1980; Shoop and Kenney, 1992). They are found also along
the south shore of Long Island (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993).
Adults migrate extensively throughout the Atlantic basin in search of jellyfish and other gelatinous
zooplankton, such as salps, ctenophores, and siphonophores (Limpus, 1984). Although leatherback turtles
are pelagic feeders, they can dive to considerable depths (extending 400 m, with an average of 60 m) in
search of food (Eckert et al, 1986;1989). During the summer, they move into fairly shallow coastal waters
(but rarely into bays), apparently following their preferred jellyfish prey. Because of the leatherback's
feeding habits, it is unlikely that this turtle will be found in the Study Area (NMFS, 1996). Because they
are a largely oceanic, pelagic species, estimates of their population status and trends have been difficult to
obtain. Rough population estimates indicate 500-800 animals per year in the New York Bight.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-155
3.4.6 Other Factors for the Biological Community
Important fishery resource species of the New York Bight that
derive a substantial portion of their diet from the benthos
(modified after Boesch, 1982)
Invertebrates
American Lobster Jonah Crab
Rock Crab
Fish
Red Hake
Silver Hake
Haddock
Scup
Black Sea Bass
Surf Clam
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Windowpane Flounder
Yellowtail Flounder
Tautog
Many commercially and recreational important
fish and shellfish species in the New York
Bight feed primarily on benthic animals (see
side box). The intimate connection between
fishery resources and benthic habitats of the
Study Area raises two issues. As described
earlier in Section 3.4.2.2, sediments within the
Study Area can be classified into two basic
regimes; one a sandy, low TOC, low chemical
content regime; and the other a muddy, high
TOC, chemically rich regime. The first fish-
resource benthic-habitat concern arises if
benthic organisms living in one of the
sedimentary regimes in the Study Area have
more dietary importance to fish or shellfish than the benthic organisms living in the other regime. If this
case exists, alteration to this dietarily-important habitat could effect the fishery resources in the area. The
second resource/habitat concern relates to the potential for trophic transfer of contaminants from the
sediment to endangered or threatened species or to humans. Examination of both concerns requires a brief
review of general trophic relationships between fishery resources and the benthos, and of the expected
relationships between predators and prey in the Study Area,
3.4.6.1 Predator-Prey Interactions in the Study Area
Trophic Relationships, hi shallow-water marine habitats, the transfer of energy from the primary
producers (plants) to primary and secondary consumers (animals) rarely occurs along a simple pathway, or
food chain. Most frequently energy transfer occurs via complex pathways that involve consumers using
many sources of food. The first step along the trophic pathways that constitute a marine food web is the
conversion of energy (e.g., solar or chemical energy) into products (i.e., organic compounds) that can be
stored and used by plants and animals. This conversion is accomplished by .primary producers, typically
microscopic or large plants or bacteria. Oceanic ecosystems depend primarily on phytoplankton for
primary production; coastal and estuarine ecosystems usually rely on detritus which is the degradation
products and associated microbiota from large vascular plants (sea and marsh grasses) and macroalgae.
Both phytoplankton and detrital primary production probably are important in the Bight. This is
particularly true for the benthos which is dependent primarily on detritus. Primary consumers, generally
small annuals (herbivores), usually ingest these organic compounds by consuming the primary producers
directly. The complexity of the food web increases with the presence of many predator-prey relationships
among secondary consumers (i.e., primary carnivores) who feed on the primary consumers and are in turn
fed upon by tertiary consumers (i.e., secondary carnivores). The uppermost level of the food web is
occupied by animals that do not usually become the prey of other animals. These animals, often called top
carnivores, include many marine mammals, large sharks or other large fish, and humans. Often this level
is considered the "end" of the food web, but in reality another level exists, that of the decomposers. As
animals from any trophic level die, then- bodies are consumed by various scavengers or may be converted
to detritus and supply energy to bacteria, thus regenerating the trophic cycle.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-156
Mammals
Phyloplankton
A generalized example of such a
complex pathway, or food web, in the
Study Area is diagramed in Figure
3-73. Within the Study Area, the most
important source of energy input to the
benthos is likely via phytoplankton
production, although other sources may
include organic carbon input from the
Hudson River, coastal dischargers, and
the disposal of organically-enriched
sediments at the MDS. Using
phytoplankton production as the base of
the food web, energy is transferred
directly to the benthos through
consumption of phytoplankton by
infaunal filter-feeders, or indirectly
primarily via the consumption of
detritus by infaunal surface and subsurface deposit feeders. The link to upper trophic levels occurs by
consumption of infaunal organisms by bottom feeders such as bottom-feeding fish and epibenthic
crustaceans. These latter consumers are in turn eaten by higher-level carnivores, such as piscivorous fish,
which subsequently may be consumed by mammals.
/ Detritus.>:.:,:,.'.:,:,:.:.:.:>. Infauna-
Bactei
Figure 3-73. Generalized marine food chain model.
Feeding modes and trophic roles of the benthos of the Study Area.
Examples of food items are included within parentheses.
To examine how the two major
sediment regimes found in the Study
Area can affect food sources of fishery-
resource species, it is necessary to
identify prey organisms and the
sediment type in which they occur.
This permits potential contaminant
transfer pathways from the sediments
through the various trophic levels to
humans to be evaluated. For this SEIS,
the predator-prey relationships of
several bottom-feeding fish species
found in the Study Area were
examined. The primary prey of the
bottom feeders shown in Figure 3-74
(tautog, windowpane flounder, red
hake, winter flounder, and lobster)
consists of a variety of infaunal and
epifaunal or epibenthic animals. These
infaunal and epifaunal animals are the main link from the primary producers to the upper levels of the food
web (see side box). The pathway from the sandy, low organic, low chemical sediments through the food
web to humans is illustrated by the predator-prey interactions of tautog, windowpane flounder, and red
hake. The trophic pathway of the windowpane flounder (Figure 3-74) can be summarized as
• The windowpane flounder feeds on amphipods, the sand lance, and epibenthic crustaceans,
• The bluefish feeds on the windowpane flounder, and
• Humans catch and consume the bluefish
Mode
Filter-Feeders
Deposit-Feeders
Carnivore/Browsers
Action
Remove particles
from the water
column
Remove particles
from surface or
within sediments
Capture whole or
browse parts of
animals
Role
Primary Consumers
(phytoplankton),
Secondary Consumers
(zooplankton)
Primary Consumers
(detritus), Secondary
Consumers (bacteria,
meiofauna)
Tertiary or Higher
Level Consumers
(infauna)
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-157
Winter
Flounder
Windowpane
Flounder
Shrimp
(Dichelop)
Epibenthic Crab
Crustaceans Cancer
Cancer .-.<-.-.-Amphipods»*.W1-^-.(Ctangon Mysidopss
Sand '
Pherusa;'.; Nephtys incisa;
ii*^:-.-.-.-.-.-:-:-:-".-i';Cerianttiopsisi
:MUD
Dollar ^•••••••:-:Ammodyles:; i i; .'.-:-jXv
. ?. .Ensis;.-. •- - - -^- • • •
Figure 3-74. Representative trophic transfers in the Study Area.
In contrast to the windowpane flounder, the winter flounder is one of the few fish species that feeds
primarily on animals inhabiting the muddy, high organic, chemically-enriched sediments of the Study
Area. Its trophic pathway (Figure 3-74) can be summarized as
• The whiter flounder eats mud-dwelling polychaete worms (Nephtys incisa and Pherusa) and the tube-
dwelling sea anemone (Cerianthiopsis),
• The winter flounder also feeds on another mud dweller, the nut clam Nucula proxima, but the clam is
only of secondary dietary importance to the flounder,
• Humans catch and eat the winter flounder.
The red hake is one fish species that derives its diet from both sedimentary regimes found in the Study
Area. Its trophic pathway (Figure 3-74) can be summarized as
• The red hake feeds on prey from muddy sediments, including the polychaete worms Nephtys incisa
and Pherusa,
• The red hake also feeds on organisms from sandy sediments, including epibenthic crustaceans and the
sand lance, Ammodytes,
• Striped bass consume the red hake,
• Humans catch and eat striped bass.
The tautog is one fish that feeds on hard-bottom animals, primarily mussels, but also eats sand dollars,
which inhabit clean sands, and decapod crabs such as Cancer, which live on semiconsolidated sediments
of either regime (Figure 3-74).
Although the above predator-prey examples presented in this section show fish feeding on prey from both
sedimentary regimes and hard-bottoms found in the Study Area, prey from sandy habitats appear to show
more widespread importance in the diets of the main fishery resource species in the area (Table 3-21).
Boesch (1982) presented a similar observation and concluded that many mud-dwelling species are not
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
Mayigyj
Page 3-158
Table 3-21. Dietary importance of key benthic species found in each benthic habitat type in the
Study Area (modified after Boesch, 1982).
Primary dietary items are indicated by • , secondary items by D.
Prey Species
Sand Dollar
Sand Shrimp
Amphipods
Polychaetes
Epibenthic
crustaceans
Jackknife Clam
Rock Crab
Sand Lance
Nut clam
Pherusa
Nephtys incisa
Polychaetes
Tube Sea Anemone
Rock Crab
Mussels
Rock Crab
Polychaetes
Resource Species (see Key below)
AL
RC
WPF
WF
RH
SH
BSB
TA
CU
OP
LS
Sandy Sediments
D
•
•
•
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
D
•
•
•
•
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
Muddy Sediments - _ --
- •
•
D
•
•
D
•
•
"•"'
•
•
•
•
•
--
-'-— -
•
Hard Bottoms::
•
•
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key: AL, American Lobster, RC, Rock Crab; WPF, Windowpane Flounder; WF, Winter Flounder,
RH, Red hake; SH, Silver Hake; BSB, Black Sea Bass; TA, Tautog; CU, Gunner, OP, Ocean Pout; LS,
Little Skate.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-159
important dietary items. He offered possible explanations for the exclusion of mud-inhabiting species from
most diets, including strong predator avoidance behaviors (tube sea anemones), a burrowing lifestyle
(several polychaetes), and thick shells (nut clam). However, the information presented in Table 3-21
shows that these taxa may be important in the diets of predators that may be able to forage relatively deeply
in the sediments or that can crush shells.
The scenarios presented in this section integrate information presented in Section 3.4.2.2 on infaunal
communities in the Study Area and Section 3.4.3.4 that discusses the diets of key fish and shellfish
species. Understanding the complex predator-prey interactions that occur among the organisms of the
Study Area, and the role specific benthic habitat types play in them helps to illuminate the potential
transfer of contaminants from the sediments to high-level consumers, especially humans. These transfers
and trophic interactions are considered in the next section (Section 3.4.6.2). Further, understanding the
trophic interactions from both a food resource perspective and contaminant transfer through the trophic
system will enable better evaluation of the potential impacts of alterations to the sediments that might
occur under the alternatives being considered in this SEIS.
3.4.6.2 Bioaccmnulation and Trophic Transfer of Environmental Contaminants
A major mechanism by which sediments containing elevated levels of contaminants can impact living
resources is by adverse bioaccumulation through trophic transfer. This section considers information
relevant to contaminant bioaccumulation and trophic transfer in the Study Area.
General Concepts of Bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation is defined as the uptake and retention of a
contaminant from all possible external sources (water, food, substrate, air) (Brungs and Mount, 1978;
Spacie and Hamelink, 1985). While bioaccumulation of a contaminant by an organism in the field or in
the laboratory may or may not result in detrimental impacts to the organism, it can be an indicator that a
population of the same or similar organisms, or of higher trophic-level organisms that prey on the
contaminated organisms, or both, may be potentially at risk of impact.
In general, contaminant bioaccumulation is the link between exposure and effects, and can provide useful
insights about potential routes and extent of pollutant exposure, ecological effects, and human-health risks
(Lee et al., 1989). The difficulty of evaluating bioaccumulation is that the detection and measurement of a
bioaccumulated contaminant in an organism cannot be equated directly to a degree of harm or impact that
the organism will experience due to the contaminant exposure. While research has shown that sublethal
accumulation of contaminants in organisms, whether polychaetes, fish, or people, can result in detrimental
effects to the organism, the environmental or human-health consequences of low levels of bioaccumulative
contaminants is much less clear.
The following text discusses the pathways by which contaminants, known or suspected of being present in
the sediments of the Study Area, may potentially bioaccumulate. An understanding of these contaminant
pathways is essential for evaluating the pathway components related to (1) dredged material management
at the Mud Dump Site and (2) historical dredged material and other disposal activities in the Study Area,
and (3) other contaminant sources to the region. Even though contaminant bioaccumulation in the Study
Area in and of itself has not been proven to relate to significant ecological effects, it is treated within this
SEIS as having potential for causing harm and is therefore of concern.
Bioaccumulation Pathways. In aquatic environments, contaminants are bioavailable only if they are in a
form that can be transferred into an organism, usually through its skin, gill epithelium, gut epithelium, or
other cell membrane (Newman and Jagoe, 1994). Nearly always, contaminants in solution in the water are
much more bioavailable than those bound to sediment particles or present in food (Neff, 1984). Most
bioaccumulative contaminants of concern (e.g., PCBs, DDTs, dioxins) are hydrophobic and strongly
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment __ Page 3-160
bound to sediment particles (i.e., they dissolve in water at only ultra-low concentrations, if at all). Some of
these sediment particles are suspended in the water column by natural processes such as river outflow or
resuspended by currents and storm events; others are suspended by man's activity (e.g., dredged material
disposal events, fish trawling, underwater mining, etc.).
For bioaccumulation to occur, the rate of uptake must be greater than the rate of loss of the contaminant
from the organism. Highly soluble contaminants, such as ammonia and some inorganic ions, often occur
in bioavailable forms in the environment and rapidly penetrate the tissues of aquatic organisms. However,
when at sublethal concentrations, these contaminants are not retained and are lost just as rapidly from the
tissues by diffusion or active transport. As a result, their concentrations in tissues are equal to or lower
than their concentrations in the ambient medium. For other contaminants, organisms' metabolic processes
regulate contaminant levels independent of concentrations in the ambient medium (Chapman et al., 1996).
This is especially true for many metals. Still other bioavailable contaminants are taken up rapidly, but are
transformed and excreted rapidly; these contaminants are not bioaccumulative.
For bioaccumulative contaminants, when exposed to a relatively constant concentration of the contaminant
(through water, food, sediments), the rate of active plus passive loss of the contaminant in an organism
increases to equal the rate of uptake. At this point, a "steady state" or "equilibrium" is reached.
Several methods and models have been developed to predict steady-state tissue concentrations in
organisms for the concentrations of the contaminants in water or sediment. The simplest models use
empirically derived Bioconcentration Factors (BCF) for water concentrations and the Biota-Sediment
Accumulation Factors (BSAF) for sediment concentrations.
BCF = cycw
Where: Q = the contaminant concentration in an organism's tissues
Cw = the concentration in water
BSAF = Q/Coc
Where: CL = the contaminant concentration in an organism's lipids
Qc = contaminant concentration associated with the organic carbon fraction of the sediment
Also for nonpolar compounds the BCF can be determined by the regression
Log BCF = aLog KOW + b
Where: K,,w = octanol/water partition coefficient
With sufficient empirical data on the organism and environment being investigated, the above
accumulation factors can be used to predict steady-state residue10 concentrations of bioaccumulative
contaminants.
A component of bioaccumulation is biomagnification. Biomagnification is the transfer of a chemical
through trophic levels resulting in elevated concentrations with increasing trophic levels (Connell, 1989;
Steady-state residue: Sum of the uptake rate constants of the contaminant from all environmental compartments
accessible to the organism to the sum of release rate constants by active and passive mechanisms from the organism.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-161
Gobas et al., 1993). Recent studies have shown that very few chemicals biomagnify in aquatic
environments (e.g., LeBlanc, 1995). Generally, even though higher trophic levels have higher contaminant
concentrations relative to lower trophic levels, the increase can be explained in many cases by the relative
increase in lipid content as trophic level increases or by decreased chemical elimination efficiencies of
higher trophic level organisms (LeBlanc, 1995).
Trophic Position Relative to Contaminant Bioaccumulation. The interrelationships between the
potential contaminant sources, bioaccumulation, and trophic transfer are shown schematically in Figure
3-75 which represents the major transfer paths of contaminants through the trophic transfer, but greatly
simplifies the complex and overlapping web of interactions present in most environments, thus is
illustrative only.
Trophi
Levels
lie /
5/
Tertiary
Carnivore
Mammals
Human
Trophic
Level 4
Trophic
Levels
Trophic
Level 2
Trophic
Level 1
Secondary
Carnivore
Primary
Carnivore
In Figure 3-75, there are five major
pathways for chemical entry into
organisms (1) water, (2) particles
(detrital or resuspended), (3) bulk
sediment, (4) the interstitial water of the
sediments, and (5) grazing (herbivorous
or carnivorous). The importance of
each pathway depends in large measure
on the life history of the organism and
bioavailability of the contaminant. For
example, benthic infaunal and epifaunal
organisms are in close and immediate
contact with bottom sediments and are
more likely to be exposed to
contaminants through the bulk sediment
and pore water route. For these
organisms, feeding mode (i.e., filter or
deposit) will also influence the initial
entry pathway (resuspended particulates
and detrital particles) and dictate the
exposure to contaminants. Because
these organisms are nonmigratory, they
can be chronically exposed to local
concentrations of contaminants in the
sediments.
Demersal species that live on the
bottom may be exposed through
sediment and food pathways depending
on the trophic level (e.g., primary or
secondary carnivores) that they occupy.
These organisms are more motile than
benthic infauna and can encounter
varying levels of contaminants through
different prey species and feeding
ranges. Further removed from the
sediment environment that contains most of the bioaccumulative contaminants are the pelagic organisms.
Pelagic organisms (e.g., bluefish) generally prey on other pelagic organisms. Thus, these organisms are
Primary
Consumers
Primary
Producers
Compartments of
Bioavailable
Contaminants
in Marine
Environments
Infauna/Shellfish
(Filter Feeders,
Deposit Feeders)
Figure 3-75. Schematic representation of major pathways of
contaminant entry into the food web and trophic transfer pathways.
Many marine mammals, such as the right whale, are trophic level 3
consumers. Humans are actually omnivorous, feeding at several trophic
levels.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-162
primarily exposed to contaminants present in the water column and their water-column food. Additionally,
because many pelagic fish transit across large coastal areas, they may be exposed to widely different types
and levels of contaminants throughout their life cycle. This situation makes evaluating and Unking
pelagic-organism contaminant bioaccumulation from specific sites exceedingly difficult.
Grazing occurs at all trophic levels. Herbivorous organisms graze on primary producers (e.g., plankton)
and plant detritus. These primary consumers can include zooplankton and filter feeding benthic species
(e.g., bivalves) as well as higher organisms such as whales (Battelle, 1997a). Small and large fish and
crustaceans graze on zooplankton and benthic infauna and are in turn grazed by larger fish. The ultimate
trophic level of grazers includes the carnivorous fish, some marine mammals, and man.
As described previously, steady state or equilibrium concentrations of contaminants in the organism
develop on the basis of the propensity of the chemical to partition from the water and be retained within
the organism. Generally, bioaccumulation of highly hydrophobic organic chemical contaminants increases
in this order (LeBlanc, 1995):
primary producers —* invertebrates —* fish
This order is driven primarily by the increase in lipid content and the decrease in effectiveness of diffusion
from an organism as size increases. As a result, species and chemical-specific differences may affect the
bioaccumulation of chemicals in the organisms.
Recent concepts (e.g., LeBlanc, 1995) suggest that the level of a contaminant in an organism is driven
more by its food source. Such concepts, while beginning to provide estimates of expected levels of
contaminants in fish and from other information, must still be refined and validated before broad
applications of the concept can be made.
Exposure to Contaminants. Water-column organisms encountering a dredged material plume may be
exposed to elevated concentrations of dissolved and particulale materials from the dredged material for
short periods (i.e., <1 h) before the plume is diluted to .background concentrations..(Dragos and Lewis,
1993; Dragos and Peven, 1994). These-posHiisposal exposure periods are too short for water-column
organisms to bioaccumulate hydrophobic organic contaminants (log K^ z 3.5), including the contaminants
of environmental concern, such as PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and chlorinated
industrial and agricultural contaminants (61 FR 51195-51203 Sept. 30,1996). Thus, the level of
contaminants in pelagic organisms found in the Study Area reflects longer-term exposure, which may
occur in a variety of habitats depending on the life history and migratory patterns of the organism.
Infaunal organisms are more likely than epifauna to directly bioaccumulate contaminants from sediments
and can affect the health of these organisms and potentially the larger ecological community (Boese and
Lee, 1992). Further, as discussed previously Section 3.4.6.1, benthic organisms are food items for
predators and, when contaminated, are potential pathways for sediment-associated pollutants to move to
higher trophic levels. Human health may be affected directly by consumption of contaminated sediment-
dwelling invertebrates or indirectly through consumption of fish that are contaminated through trophic
transfer (Boese and Lee, 1992).
Exposure to Contaminants in the Study Area. The primary exposure pathways of contaminants in the
Study Area and surrounding areas are through (1) exposure of near-bottom pelagic and demersal organisms
to particles and resuspended sediment and (2) exposure of infauna and epifauna to bottom sediments.
Because there are multiple sources of contaminants to this area, it is difficult to identify and separate which
of these sources are most significant in establishing exposure levels. Further, mobile organisms (e.g.,
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-163
lobster, flounder, migratory commercial and recreational fish) range over large areas (including, but not
limited to the Study Area) that can have major differences in chemical concentrations. Other contaminant
sources such as atmospheric inputs and transport into the region in association with the Hudson River
Plume may, in addition to dredged material disposal, influence contaminant levels in water, particles, and
surface sediment of the region through transport and deposition processes.
The influence of non-local sediment sources on the level of contaminants in the Bight areas can be
understood from the recently completed Port of Newark/Port Elizabeth dredged material capping project
(SAIC, 1995d). Under this project, dioxin levels in polychaete worms collected from sediments in the
project and reference areas were measured prior to disposal and after capping. The dioxin levels in the
organisms collected after disposal and capping were similar to levels measured in the area before the
capping effort, even though the cap had no detectable dioxin (SAIC, 1995d; 1995e). Dioxin levels in
worm tissues collected in 1995 were slightly higher than in April 1994 with average concentrations at
stations off the cap slightly above on-cap stations (SAIC 1996c). Present understanding of pathways and
bioaccumulation potentials suggest other, possibly distant, sources (e.g., deposition of Hudson River plume
particles or resuspension of sediment with higher contaminant concentrations from nearby areas) caused
the increase (SAIC 1996c). Further, the information suggests that local sediments are not an important
source for the dioxin in these organisms. Thus, while the remediation and restoration options being
considered under this SEIS (refer to Sections 2.3 and 2.4) should theoretically result in decreases in
sediment concentrations and body burden of chemicals that can bioaccumulate in organisms, other
contaminant sources to the area likely overwhelm the ability to detect any decreases in bioaccumulation as
a result of remediation activities. This is particularly true for recreational and commercial fish and
shellfish species that migrate through the New York Bight on a seasonal basis and are exposed to
contaminant sources outside of the Study Area,
3.4.6.2.1 Contaminants in Polychaete Worms from the Study Area
As discussed above, the concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants in the water, sediments, and
infauna food sources, in concert with contaminant partitioning in the organisms' lipids, generally
determine the levels of contaminants hi succeeding trophic levels. Valuable information about probable
sources of contaminants to the marine food chain in the Study Area can be elucidated by understanding the
relationships among sediment contaminants, infaunal prey, and infauna predators. In the following text, a
key pathway of contamination to living resources (i.e., fish and shellfish) was examined by sampling and
analyzing polychaete worms living in the Study Area and nearby areas of the inner Bight (Battelle,
1996b;1997b). As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4, polychaete worms are major prey items of many fish and
shellfish (Refer to Tables 3-17 and 3-18). The contaminant body burden of these worms (both
concentrations and spatial distributions) helps to identify those chemicals and sediment areas most likely to
impact New York Bight living resources that are of ecological or socio-economic importance.
Metals: Metals concentrations in polychaetes collected from throughout the Study Area were consistent
among samples collected between 1991 and 1994 (Table 3-22). Further, these recent data are similar to
levels reported in polychaetes collected from the area in 1983-1985. The major difference between
samples collected in 1991 and 1994 are slightly higher values of Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb in mixed species from
1991 relative to the 1994. The causes are not clear as the 1990 and 1991 samples were held live aboard
the sampling vessels and allowed to depurate, thereby lowering the measured contaminant concentrations.
Results for the other samples reported in Table 3-22 were obtained from sampled organisms that were not
depurated. Thus, these samples have some gut-associated sediments that contribute to the measured
concentrations (Battelle, 1996b;1997b). However, it is believed that undepurated organisms better
represent the exposure to contaminants to the next trophic level from these prey species.
-------
I
Table 3-22. Range in metal concentrations in polychaetes collected from the Study Area.
Units are on a parts-per-million wet weight basis.
Source
and
Sample
Data
Location
Metal
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Steimle, et
al (1994)14
1983 - 1985
East of
Hudson
Shelf Valley
0.10
2.78
0.30
4.12
5.3
NA
0.092
0.96
2.1
1.3
38
Charles and Muramato (1991)
Collected October 1990
Referenc
e Area
ND
5.4
0.12
0.8
3.3
124
<0.06
ND
0.7
NA
28
MDS
(North)
<1.2
2.6-3.8
<0.12
1.4-2.6
3.2-7.6
290 - 846
<0.06
0.8-1.2
1.6-3.8
0.8-1.2
20-34
(South)
ND
3.2-6.8
<0.12
1.2-3.2
1-5.2
180-800
<0.06
<1.2
0.7 - 3.2
1-2
22-38
East of
MDS
ND
1.3-5.6
<0.12
1.0-1.2
1-3.2
147-310
<0.06
0.8- 1
0.36-1.1
1.4-1.6
25-28
Study
Area
(South)
<1.1
4.6 - 7.6
<0.2
0.8-1.6
0.8-5
60-740
<0.06
<0.9
0.4 - 2.4
0.6-1.4
22-38
Study Area
(West)
<1.4
2.2 - 6.8
<0.2
1.2-2.4
1-7.4
120-1000
<0.06
<0.96
0.8 - 3.4
0.8-2
13.4-39
McFarland et al, (1994)
August 1991
Reference Area
Mixed
species
NA
NA
0.54±0.01
26.8±1.3
8.3±0.1
NA
0.048±0.002
19.0±1
10.2±2
NA
20±0.7
Nephtys
NA
NA
0.62±0.03
1.5±0.39
3.69±0.17
NA
0.11
1.19±0.25
0.085±0.02
NA
35.2±0.4
Battelle
(1993) ''3
August
1992
New York
Bight
0.22
8.4
0.13
1.9
5.4
NA
0.03
1.2
2.0
NA
42
Battelle
(1997b)3
Oct 1994
Study Area
0.05 - 0.34
1.9-6.1
0.04-0.16
0.16-3.4
1.2-7.6
56-1200
0 - 0.06
0.31- 1.8
0.75 - 6.2
0.66-2.1
15.6-30.4
Battelle
(1997b)3
May 1995
Bight Apex
(outside
Study Area)
0.09 - 0.25
2.8-11.4
0.04 - 0.32
0.11 -2.7
0.7 - 5.7
NA
0.01 - 0.04
0-1.3
0.2 - 4.3
NA
13.0-29.4
6.
I
I'
' Converted from dry to wet weight using assumed 80% water content.
2 Samples processed using stainless steel tools; potential contamination of samples.
3 Undepurated samples
S5
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterB, Affected Environment Page 3-165
Most of the metals concentrations reported in polychaetes from the Study Area are relatively constant with
differences among stations falling within a factor of 2 to 6 (Battelle, 1997b). Regions of distinctly high
and low concentrations are not evident in the data from the Study Area (Figure 3-76). Because most of the
samples with sufficient biomass for the chemical analysis were obtained from stations that had relatively
high mud content, the data shown in Figure 3-76 primarily represent locations that tend to have higher
chemical concentrations in the sediment.
Metals levels in polychaetes from the Study Area were similar to those in samples collected from outside
the Study Area but still within the Bight Apex (Battelle, 1997b). Thus, metals levels in the polychaetes
can be considered to relatively invariant over broad regions of the inner Bight
Organic Compounds: Total PAH concentrations in polychaetes from the Study Area ranged between 140
and 1,200 ppb wet weight; concentrations between 4 and 520 ppb wet weight were measured in the Bight
Apex (Table 3-23). Total PAH concentrations in polychaetes from east and south of the Study Area were
lower than those measured in samples collected north of the Study Area. Generally, total PAH
concentrations in the Study Area were significantly higher than those from the Apex (Battelle, 1997b),
especially compared to levels in samples collected to the east and south of the Study Area, which had total
PAH levels of 33 ± 25 (n = 9) ppb wet weight Polychaetes from the six stations north of the Study Area
averaged 246 ±158 ppb total PAH, which fall in the lower range of the total PAH levels observed for the
Study Area.
Other organic compounds in polychaete worms from the Study Area include PCBs (Figure 3-77). Total
PCBs in these organisms ranged from 40 to 180 ppb (wet weight). PCB concentrations in samples from
outside the Study Area have been reported as high as 440 ppb (Battelle, 1993). However, the use of
different methods among the studies to quantify of the PCB levels (i.e., as Arclor mixtures or the sum of
congeners) may account for differences of about two fold (NOAA, 1996). Data obtained using directly
comparable methods clearly show higher PCB levels in polychaetes from the Study Area relative to Apex
areas to the east and south (Battelle, 1996b). As observed in the PAH data, total PCB concentrations in
polychaete samples from north of the Study Area were generally higher than in samples from the east and
south of the Study Area (65 ± 20; [n = 6] versus 31 ± 10 [n = 9], respectively), and were also at the lower
end of the concentration range of samples from the Study Area.
Residues of pesticides in polychaetes from Study Area are generally low (Table 3-23). Chlordane and
DDE residues were less than 11 ppb wet weight at the MDS reference site (McFarland et al., 1994). Total
DDT concentrations ranged from 16 to 43 ppb wet weight in samples collected from throughout the Study
Area in 1991 and 13 to 45 ppb for samples collected from the same area in 1994 (Battelle, 1997b).
Spatially, the total DDT distribution was similar to the other organic chemicals (Figure 3-78).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-166
Copper
324.7
Figure 3-76. Distribution of copper and lead in polychaete tissues collected in and near the Study
Area. Stations located outside the Study Area are from the May 1995 Bight Apex sample
collection (Battelle, 1996b; 1997b).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
ChapterS, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-167
Table 3-23 . Organic contaminant concentrations (ppb wet weight) in polychaete samples from
the Study Area.
Compound Class Concentrations Reference
PCB,
440"
156 ±195
71 ±56
2 Battelle (1993) (7); Samples collected in August 1992
3 Results converted from dry weight using 80% water content; PCB as
Arclor 1254
5 McFarland et al. (1994) MDS Reference area, August 1991, mixed
polychaetes
6 McFarland et al. (1994) MDS Reference area, August 1991, Nephtys
only
PAH,
43 - 179'
14 -11010
6002-3
141 - 1.2109
4-520'°
9 Battelle (1997b) October 1994 (n = 19)
10 Battelle (1997b) May 1995 (n =17)
See above
DDT/DDE 20 - 29 (MDS N)4
16-22 (MDS S)
16 - 43 (MDS E)
16-23 (Study Area S)
16-29 (Study Area W)
<3.3 (DDE)5
5.4 (DDE)6
12.6 - 45s
2-36'°
4 Charles and Muramato (1991); as 4,4T»DE
Tributyltin
Total organotins
7.9 - 549
19-879
See above
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-168
Total PCB's
177.15
ug/kg
TBT
53.87
Figure 3-77. Representative distributions of total PCB and total organotins in polychaete worms
collected from the Study Area. Stations located outside the Study Area are from the
May 1995 Bight Apex sample collection (Battelle, 1997b).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
ChapterS, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-169
2,3,7,8-TCDD
5.84
Total DDT
44.69
Figure 3-78. Representative distributions of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and total DDT in polychaete
worms collected from the Study Area. Stations located outside the Study Area are from
the May 1995 Bight Apex sample collection (Battelle, 1996b; 1997b).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-170
Total DDT concentrations in the polychaete samples from areas to the east and south of the Study Area
averaged 2.2 ±1.6 ppb wet weight (Battelle, 1997b) and are consistently lower than measured in samples
from the Study Area. Total DDT levels in the stations to the north of the Study Area were at the lower end
of the concentration range from the Study Area. The mean concentration for samples from north of the
Study Area was 15.9 ± 8 ppb versus a range of 12 to 45 ppb in the Study Area.
The set of organic contaminant data from the Study Area show regions of distinctly higher or lower
concentrations in polychaetes were not clearly evident (Figures 3-77 and 3-78) in the Study Area.
However, two areas on the flanks of the historic dredged material mound appear to have slightly higher
concentrations for some contaminants (e.g., total DDT, total PCB, total PAH) relative to the other locations
(Battelle, 1997b). These areas with slightly elevated contaminant concentrations are in water depths of 15
to 16 m on the east side of the basin west of the dredged material mound and also in the northeastern
corner of the Study Area.
Dioxin and Furans: Most dioxin and furan concentrations in polychaetes collected from throughout the
Study Area were low (Table 3-24). In 1991, the highest reported 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the
MDS ranged from 3.5 to 9 pptr wet weight. In 1994, the highest value measured was 5.8 pptr. Most
samples collected in 1994 fell within the range from 3 to 5.8 pptr. The lowest values were found at two
locations on the southern boundary of the Study Area (Figure 3-78). Results from 1995 (SAIC 1996d)
were similar but with slightly higher levels in the worms from the cap. Sources external to the MDS are
believed to cause this response.
Although the polychaete samples collected from the Study Area in 1994 were associated with sediments
that have the highest dioxin levels in the Study Area, the dioxin levels were not substantially higher than
those observed in samples from the Port Elizabeth capping project and from the MDS reference area
sampled in August of 1991. There are no clear indications of hot spots for dioxin in polychaetes from the
Study Area (i.e., >10 pptr 2,3,7,8-TCDD). Further, post-cap monitoring of the Port of Elizabeth project
found similar dioxin levels in polychaetes collected from the sand cap and reference areas, and from the
pre- and post-disposal periods. The fact that dioxin and furan levels are relatively similar (<2 fold
differences) across regions, within and outside the Study Area and the MDS, and across time suggests that
resident polychaetes are either not responding to the levels in the sediments or are being exposed via routes
that provide a more uniform and constant supply.
3.4.6.2.2 Contaminant Bioaccumulation in Polychaetes from the Study Area
The relationship between contaminant concentrations in the polychaetes and sediments were examined to
determine any characteristic patterns and to identify contaminants most likely to bioaccumulate into
significant prey species (Battelle, 1997b). These studies showed that there are three general response
patterns by polychaetes to sediment contamination in this region:
1. Infauna tissue contamination is low and does not correspond to sediment levels.
2. Infauna tissue contamination mirrors sediment contamination levels.
3. Infauna tissue contamination is above that of sediment levels.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
Table 3-24. Dioxin results
Units are parts
Location
1990 North of Study
Area
Reference
MDS North
MDS South
MDS East
Study Area South
Study Area West
North Reference
South Reference
MDS
1994; North Reference
(n = 2)
1994; South Reference
(n- 11
\ll — L)
Sand cap Newark Bay
Dredging Project (n = 1
composite derived from
10 stations)
MDS(n = 3)
1995; On Cap
(n = 3)
1995; Off Cap
(n-T)
\u — jj
Reference (n = 3)
Polychaetes misc.
Nephtys
Study Area
n=16
for polychaete tissues collected in the
per trillion (pptr) wet weight.
2,3,7,8-TCDD
4.4
2.5
3.9-8.1
4.3 - 6.2
3.6 - 9.0
2.7-4.1
4.5 - 8.0
1.4-2.1
0.7 - 2.0
0.61 - 0.95
1.2 - 3.0
1.5
2.2
2.7 - 3.0
3.5
3.2-4.1
~
<1.9-2.2
<1.7±0.2
<2.0±0.2
1.8-5.8
May 1997
Page 3-171
Study Area in the early 1990s.
2,3,7,8-TCDF Data Source
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5-1.8
1.2-2.1
1.4-1.8
<1.2-1.7
1.5
2.5, „
<4.8
0.9 - 2.1
1.8 - 3.1
0.7-1.0
3.1+0.20
2.3 ± 0.26
1.9 - 5.6
Pruell etal. (1990)
Charles and Muramato (1991)
(Samples collected October
1990 precapping; separated
by taxa for analysis)
SAIC (1992)
(Samples collected 1992;
composites at each of three
stations)
SAIC (1995d)
(Composite samples of
polychaetes; dominated by
predator type; collected May
1994 after completion of
dredged material capping
operations in 1994)
SAIC 1996c (composit
samples dominated by
Arabellidae, a predator; off
cap species were dominated
by Arabellidae and
Nereididae (a detritovor)
McFarland etal. (1994)
(composites collected from
the MDS Reference Site
August 1991)
Battelle (1997b)
(Undepurated composite
samples from throughout
Study Area and MDS in
October 1994)
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-172
Response Pattern 1: Tissue Contaminant Levels Low and Unrelated to Sediment Levels. Response
Pattern 1 is believed to include contaminants that are regulated by organisms, and thus do not
bioaccumulate. The metals Ag, Cd, Cu and Zn are included in this group. This finding is consistent with
the conclusions of Brown and Neff (1993) and Chapman et al. (1996) that metals, in general, do not
biomagnify in organisms. Battelle (1997b) showed that Response Pattern 1 also holds for total PAH
contamination in the polychaetes, but this may be due to the fact that PAHs in muddy New York Bight
sediments have low bioavailability or are metabolized rapidly in polychaete tissues.
Response Pattern 2: Contaminant Levels Mirrors Sediment Contamination. Response Pattern 2
includes contaminants that increase in polychaete tissues in proportion to contamination in the sediments,
and appear to be neither regulated nor bioaccumulated by the organisms. Contaminants in this group
included metals As, Cr, Hg, Ni, Sb, Sn, and organic compounds such as dioxins, furans, and low and high
molecular weight PAHs.
Response Pattern 3: Contaminant Bioaccumulation. Response Pattern 3 includes contaminants that
clearly bioaccumulate in polychaetes, such as PCBs.
The Battelle (1997b) studies indicate that only a few chemicals bioaccumulate from the sediments to
polychaetes in the Study Area and the New York Bight Apex. Chemicals that do bioaccumulate include
those that have high (>106) octanol water partition coefficients (i.e., propensity to associate with lipid
material). In contrast to predictions of high bioaccumulation factors, the Battelle (1997b) study found that
dioxin and furan did not appear to bioaccumulate in the polychaetes from the Study Area. This is
consistent with findings of McFarland et al. (1994) who did not observe bioaccumulation in organisms
sampled from the area, and concluded that these compounds are only transferred between trophic levels.
Shrock et al. (1996) also found low bioaccumulation factors (BAF = 0.14 for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 0.21 for
2,3,7,8, TCDF) for lipid and TOC normalized dioxin and furans in 28-day bioaccumulation tests
conducted across wide range of contaminant levels sediments with Nephtys incisa.
Overall, the chemicals of greatest concern from a bioaccumulation perspective are PCBs. This does not,
however, nullify concerns about other chemicals, particularly those classified into Response Pattern 2
which have high concentrations in the Study Area relative to surrounding areas in the Bight Apex. More
specific information about tissue contaminant levels and specific lexicological responses by individual
organisms, communities, and populations in the area is required to definitively determine impact.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-173
3.5 Socio-economic Environment [40 CFR Sections 228.6(a)(8) and (11)]
The New York-New Jersey metropolitan area has a population of over 8 million. Another 11 million
people reside in counties that border the metro area, the waters of the New York Bight, the lower Hudson
River, and eastern Long Island Sound (1994, USBC). The socio-economic activities of this high density
population has been and continues to be inextricably linked to the waterways and shoreline facilities of the
Port of New York and New Jersey, and the natural and manmade resources of the New York Bight and
adjacent waters.
This section of the SEIS presents information on the socioeconomic environment of the Study Area of the
Mud Dump Site, including commercial and recreational fisheries (Section 3.5.1), mariculture (Section
3.5.2), shipping (Section 3.5.3), military usage (Section 3.5.4), mineral or energy development (Section
3.5.5), recreational activities (Section 3.5.6), cultural and historic areas (Section 3.5.7), other uses of the
Study Area (Section 3.5.8), and areas of special concern (Section 3.5.9).
3.5.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish in the New York Bight and in the Study Area
are natural resources of significant socioeconomic value to the metropolitan population. The ecology and
location of specific fish and shellfish resources were presented and discussed in Section 3.4. Sections
3.5.1 and 3.5.2 which follow present information on chemical contaminants found in Study Area fish and
shellfish (human health issue) and catch data for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors (economic
and social issue). -
3.5.1.1 Chemical Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish
Recent (within the past 10 years) data on chemical contaminants in fish, shellfish, and other organisms
collected in the Study Area or nearby areas (New York Bight Apex, Hudson Shelf Valley) are not
sufficient to systematically and statistically define spatial or temporal trends in contaminant concentrations.
However, the data are sufficient to qualitatively characterize the level of contaminants in many of the
important fish and shellfish species harvested in the area. In the following subsections, contaminant data
in fish and shellfish are compared to available human health consumption guidelines and action levels as
well as bioaccumulation potentials.
In the following discussion, metals, organic compounds, and dioxin are considered under separate sections.
Within each section, information on the key fish and shellfish (e.g., lobster) are discussed independently.
3.5.1.1.1 Metals in Fish and Shellfish
Although metals data have been reported for recreational and commercially important species in the area
for over 20 years, only a few comprehensive, high-quality data sets have been published. Information
within some published data sets indicate that some samples were inappropriately processed for metals
analysis (e.g., use of stainless steel dissection tools and homogenization vessels), resulting in potential
sample contamination and corrupt laboratory results for metals such as Fe, Cr, and Ni.
Ranges in metals concentrations in the tissues of fish and shellfish collected in the Study Area from the
early 1970s through mid 1990s are presented in Tables 3-25a and b. The concentrations of individual
metals measured in these organisms are generally similar across species, although concentrations vary
widely among the metals. For example, cadmium concentrations are generally less than 0.4 ppm C"g/g)
wet weight in the majority of the species with most values falling below 0.1 ppm O^g/g) wet weight
-------
Table 3-25a. Range in metal concentrations in organisms collected in the late 1970s through 1995 from the New York Bight,
Bight Apex, and Hudson Shelf Valley. Units are on a parts-per-million (/ug/g) wet weight basis for composite samples (n)
or individual organisms.
Metal
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Sea Scallop
NYB
APEX1
n = 2
<0.07
NA
0.11-0.20
0.20-0.31
0.12-0.19
0.02 - 0.04
<0.13
<0.4
0.02 - 0.04
Rock Crab
NYB1
n = S
0.16-
0.38
NA
<0.17
0.5-1.3
3.2-8.9
NA
<0.55
<1.0
29-52
MDS1
n = 5-8
0.79
NA
<0.1
0.5
14.8
0.19
NA
<1.3
32
JMDS
KEF1
. 0.24
NA
<0.1
'<0.4
25.4
NA
NA
<1.0
' NA
NYB3
n = 1
1
8.5
1.2
0.5
47
0.08
1.7
0.15
57
Shrimp
MDS
n = 2
0.6 and 0.6
1.8 and 2.3
0.9 and 0.1 3
0.3 and 1.2
15 and 20
0.035 and
0.044
0.22 and 0.7
0.1 5 and 0.36
16 and 17
NYB
n = 8
0.4 -0.6
1.8-2.9
0.2 - 0.36
0.16-0.70
13-21
0.014-0.034
0.15-0.43
0.016-0.13
13-17
Mollusks
MDS
Reference
Site4
NA
NA
0.62 ± 0.028
0.82 ±0.5
3.1 ±0.16
0.32
0.70 ±0.1 4
2.66 ±0.28
13.7 ±0.08
Nucula sp. 3
MDS
Reference
Site4-5
NA
NA
1.0
1.3
6.8
0.0.038
1.46
0.67
2.42
'Reid et al. (1982); composite samples from through out Study Area and adjoining areas.
'Greig et al. (1977); pooled organisms collected in 1971 arid 1972.
'Battelle (1993); seven samples collected in August 1992.'
4McFarland et al. (1994); samples collected from MDS reference site area in August 1991.
'The data in this column are converted to wet weight from the dry weight concentration in McFarland et al. (1994).
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-175
Table 3-25b. Range in metal concentrations in organisms collected in the late 1970s through 1995
from the New York Bight, Bight Apex, and Hudson Shelf Valley. Units are on a
part-per-million (^g/g) wet weight basis for composite samples (n) or individual
organisms.
Metal
Winter flounder
Study Area1
n = 7
Window pane flounder
Study Area1
n = 7
MDS2
n = NA
NYB2
n = NA
Red Hake1
Study Area
n = NA
Ag <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.11
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
NA
<0.1
<.13-1.4
0.14-0.34
0.03-0.12
<0.12-0.28
<0.6
NA
1.4-6.4
NA
<0.08 - 0.23
<0.2 - 0.55
0.15-0.31
0.02 - 0.09
<0.21
<0.6
NA
1.4-6.8
1.4
<0.1
<0.5
1
0.15
NA
<0.5
NA
4.6
2.8
<0.1
<0.5
NA
0.27
NA
<0.5
NA
5.1
NA
<0.11
0.1 - 0.76
0.1-0.31
0.04 - 0.09
0.22
<0.7
NA
0.77 - 2.6
'Reid et al. (1982) composite samples from throughout the Study Area.
2Greigand Wenzloff (1977) pooled organisms collected in 1971 and 1972.
Mollusks and the bivalve Nucula sp. have slightly higher concentrations (approximately 0.5 to 1 ppm wet
weight). Similarly, mercury concentrations in the organisms listed in Tables 3-25a and b are generally less
than 0.3 ppm (//g/g wet weight) with most reported values under 0.1 ppm. Mollusks have the highest
mercury concentrations (approximately 0.3 ppm wet weight). The windowpane flounder data set, although
limited, suggests mercury levels were lower in 1982 than in 1972. It can not be determined whether the
differences hi the data reflect true decreases in concentration or are due to improvements in analytical
techniques.
Across most organisms, zinc concentrations are consistently higher than the other eight metals (Tables
3-25a and b); the highest concentrations (30 to 60 ppm wet weight) are found in rock crab. Zinc
concentrations of less than 10 ppm wet weight are found in flounder and red hake, with very low values
(<0.04 ppm wet weight) reported for sea scallops in the early 1980s. Metals levels in rock crabs collected
from within the MDS in 1972 (Greig and Wenzloff, 1977) were generally within a factor of two of the
concentrations measured at a reference site, and were not considered to be elevated within the MDS.
Limited data obtained from organisms sampled in 1992 suggest that recent concentrations are not greatly
different from this earlier data (Tables 3-25a and b). Metals concentrations in shrimp from a reference area
and the MDS in August 1992 (Battelle, 1993) were low and fell within a similar concentration range,
suggesting that metal levels in organisms recently collected from outside the MDS are similar to those
within the MDS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-176
58
74-00
73-45'
73-30'
Metals concentrations in four recreational fish species collected in the New York Bight Apex in 1993
(NOAA, 1995a) are consistently low (Table 3-26) and within the range of metal concentrations found in
uncontaminated finfish (NOAA, 1995a). The concentration of metals in the fluke collected in this NOAA
sampling are also similar to the historical values for winter flounder collected in 1972 and 1980 (compare
Tables 3-25a and b and Table 3-26). Spatial trends were not evident in the 1993 data (NOAA, 1995a).
Metals levels in the two flounder species collected from the Study Area in 1992 are similar to those
measured in winter flounder collected from other coastal areas [e.g. from Massachusetts Bay in 1993 and
1994 (Hillman and Peven, 1995);
Hillman etal, (1994)]. Moreover,
metals levels in the flounder tissue
collected from the New York Bight
in the 1980s are similar to the
recent results from the New York
Bight and Massachusetts Bay. 4
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-177
Table 3-26. Concentrations of contaminants in the flesh of recreational fish collected in the New
York Bight Apex hi 1993. Metals are in parts per million (wet weight); organic
compounds are in parts per billion (wet weight); dioxin is in parts per trillion (wet
weight). Range is derived from composite samples each prepared with three fish of the
same species. (NOAA, 1995a)
Contaminant
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
PCB,
DDT,
Cblordane,
BlueGsh
0.030 - 0.057
0.25 - 0.63
0.085 - 0.27
0.13-0.73
0.21 - 0.64
0.066-0.14
0.089 - 0.36
0.12-0.45
8.3 - 23.0
212-568
101 - 269
23-64
Fluke
0.011-0.034
1.46-2.34
0.082-0.19
0.074 - 0.26
0.17-0.44
0.022 - 0.049
0.054 - 0.23
0.079 - 0.26
2.5 - 4.8
25.9 - 43.0
5.4-11.3
4.1 - 5.5
Sea Bass
0.022 - 0.044
2.23 - 5.32
0.079 - 0.21
0.11-0.81
0.21 - 0.65
0.033 - 0.074
0.083 - 0.41
0.13-0.50
3.1 - 6.2
44.4-137
10.4-41.5
4.1 - 12
Tautog
0.017-0.048
0.82-1.27
0.089-0.14
0.068 - 0.41
0.21-0.51
0.045-0.12
0.050 - 0.26
0.10-0.32
2.9 - 6.3
41.1-116
7.5 - 31.3
4.1 - 12
high copper concentrations are typical for this organism which uses phythalocyanine, a natural copper
binding compound, in its metabolic system (NOAA, 1996). As in the case of the lobster muscle, several
metals (most notably Pb) were not detected in several composites.
The range in metal concentrations in each of the composite samples were similar within tissue type across
all areas sampled and sampling periods (Table 3-27). The concentration ranges for several metals (Ag, Cd,
Ni, Pb) measured in the muscle tissue in 1993 appear to be lower than reported for a limited set of samples
obtained hi this area in 1981 (Reid et al, 1982) (Table 3-27). The concentrations of other metals appear to
be about the same between these two periods, although Hg and Cr may be slightly higher in the 1993
sampling. NOAA also indicates mat the metals levels in these lobster are similar to those measured in
lobster collected from submarine canyons on the outer continental shelf as part of the 106-Mile Site
monitoring program hi the early 1990s.
Metals levels hi tissue and hepatopancreas samples from the sampled areas were not significantly different
among the sample composites from the areas closest to the Hudson River Plume and MDS (NOAA, 1996).
Higher concentrations were found in both the hepatic and muscle tissues obtained in the Hudson Shelf
Valley (NOAA, 1996). No correlation of the measured contaminant levels to the relative location of the
MDS or other possible contaminant sources could be verified.
-------
Table 3-27. Concentrations of metals in muscle and hepatopancreas of lobster collected in the
million (wet weight). Range is derived from individual composite samples.
Metal
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
Muscle
Reid et al. NOAA(1996)'
(1982) June through October 1994
Study Hudson River Southeast Northeast Hudson
Area Plume Study Area Study Area Shelf Valley
n = 6* n=12 n = 73 n=12 n = 17
0. 1 - 0.7 0.087 - 0.3 1 0. 1 3 -0.22 0.07 1 - 0.25 0.08 - 0.29
NA 2.3-4.5 2.8-5.0 2.5-4.4 3.9-8.0
<.05-0.15 0.001-0.003 0.001-0.002 0.001-0.003 0.001-0.008
<.1-0.52 0.15-1.4 0.23-1.5 0.10-0.82 0.18-1.1
2.3-9.5 2.3-5.9 3.2-4.1 2.9-5.3 1.9-6.8
0.04-0.15 0.10-0.49 0.12-0.31 0.048-0.18 0.051-0.38
0.08-0.46 <06- 0.016 <010- 0.048 <.06 - 0.010 <.006 - 0.29
0.2-0.6 <.004- 0.058 <.004- 0.035 <004- 0.084 <.004 - 0.061
5.8-18 15.3-19.9 16.0-19.9 14,4-17.6 14.6-28.4
Hudson
River
Plume
n=12
0.097-1.1
4.8 - 7.7
1.4-5.0
0.24-1.27
194-567
0.054-0.19
0.20 - 0.49
0.016-0.15
18.2-59.0
New York Bight Apex in
Hepatopancreas
NOAA (1996)'
June through October 1994
Southeast Northeast
Study Area Study Area
n = 7 n=12
0.28-0.95 0.32-1.04
4.3-9.3 3.8-7.5
1.5-2.6 1.6-2.9
0.25-1.4 0.15-0.52
137-446 257-516
0.091-0.23 0.054-0.18
0.06 - 0.30 0.055 - 0.43
<.004-0.15 0.021-0.43
16.8-52.6 16.7-60.0
parts per
Hudson
Shelf
Valley
n=17
0.13-1.25
5.9-13.9
1.2-9.6
0.16-0.76
112-580
0.045 - 0.25
0.11-0.56
<.004 - 0.20
18.0-66.5
'Values are the range from individual composite samples each comprised of tissue from five different lobsters.
2n = number of composite samples in the range.
'Samples in August and October were not obtained due to movement of lobster fishing further offshore.
PS
1 1
RSSEIS
3, Affected Environment
Oo "^4
-------
MDSMARS SEIS
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-179
Comparison of metals levels in lobster composites collected within the past 2 to 3 years from the Bight
Apex and Massachusetts Bay reveals similar metal levels in muscle and hepatic tissues. Mercury levels in
lobster muscle tissue from outer Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm wet
weight and averaged less than 0.1 ppm (Hillman and Peven, 1995). These values are well within the
concentration range observed in the Bight Apex. Metals in lobster hepatopancreas from Massachusetts
Bay were slightly lower than those from the New York Bight except for Ag which was slightly higher.
Concentrations ranges in the 1994 Massachusetts Bay samples in ppm wet weight were 0.01 - 0.1 for Pb;
0.4 to 0.1 for Hg; 0.15 - 0.24 for Ni; 1 - 4 for Ag; 2 -4 for Cd; 0.03 to 0.32 for Cr, 33 to 124 for Cu; and 'l5
to 21 for Zn.
3.5.1.1.2 Organic Compounds in Fish and Shellfish
A large set of organic contaminant data for several fish and shellfish species collected in and near the
Study Area became available in 1995 and 1996. These data are summarized below.
Fish: Total PCB concentrations in four recreation species — bluefish, fluke, sea bass, and tautog —
reported by NOAA (1995a) (Table 3-26) were readily detectable but at widely different concentrations
among the sampled species. The highest concentrations (low hundreds of ppb wet weight) were found in
the bluefish. Fluke and sea bass had PCB concentrations in the low ppb wet weight range. Relative
concentrations of total DDT and total chlordane were similar in these species, although at much lower
levels (Table 3-26). Further, NOAA (1995a) notes that contaminant concentrations in bluefish samples
from the MDS were not different from those collected from locations outside of the MDS. The local and
seasonal migrations of these fish make it impossible to correlate tissue data with contaminants known to
occur in the Study Area and MDS. In particular, it is well known that bluefish (a pelagic species) transit
the Study Area seasonally and likely pick up the their contaminant loads in coastal habitats such as the
estuaries and harbors where they reside most of the time, and not in the Study Area.
Coastal New Jersey striped bass, which are
primarily pelagic, migrate between warmer 18a
southern waters in the winter and Hudson River £ 160
in the summer, had mean total PCB ^
concentrations as high as 3.5 ppm in the early 3 14°
1980s. Striped bass collected from the New | 1a>
York Harbor area from the late 1970s through 1
the late 1980s had PCB concentrations that t 10t>
were less than 2 ppm (HydroQual, 1989b). g so-
Further, PCB data from striped bass in the New |
Yo± Harbor show a continuous decline in the £
lipid normalized PCB level between 1978 and I 40-
20
\
\
the early 1990s (Figure 3-79) (EPA, 1993).
78 79 80 ~B1 82 80 84 85 86 87 88 90
PCB concentrations in the winter flounder Year
sampledin1982 were200 to 330 ppb wet Flgure3.79. TrendfaPCB contaminationtastripedbassfrom
weight (fable 3-28). PCB levels m flounder the lower Hudson River between 1978 and 1990 (EPA, 1993).
liver were between 400-900 ppb wet weight in
the mid-1980s (Draxler et al, 1991) and higher than in the edible tissues as is typically observed in this
species. Historic data on PCB levels in 224 composite samples of bluefish collected from the New York
Bight in 1985 did not show any exceedance of the 2 ppm wet weight FDA Action Limit (HydroQual,
-------
Table 3-28. Ranges in organic contaminants (parts-per-billion wet weight) in organisms collected from the New York Bight
Apex and Hudson Shelf Valley.
Contaminant Sea Scallop Rock Crab Red Hake Winter Windowpane Shrimp
Flounder Flounder
PCB, 30' 90-110 100' 210-330' 106-210' 140; 1602
n=l n = 3' n = 2 n = NA n = 4 (MDS)
i
90 - 260
(Bight)
PAH, NA 95-700 273; 389 28-228 35-494 13;31(MDS)
3-7 (Bight)
, , . ,._ _ . . ,. , - ) • -: t j •-,•.„.:-•• -,-,"!.-- • • •- ..•.'.. • . !•->•, -. <• • !•"]•• - . ••' -..-•.,-.
DDE/DDT NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mollusks
27 ±10 Mercenaria mercenaria*
110 ±60 Mixed mollusks3
100±32/VMCK/asp4
191 Yoldia limatula4
27±1 1 Mercenaria sp.4
Concentrations ranged from 1 .5 ppb
indeno[l,2,3-c,d] pyrenein C.
lacteus to 239 ppb benzofft]
flouranthene in Nucula sp.,
substantially below the ppm levels
observed in organisms from
contaminated areas4
DDE
5.7±2.2 Nucula sp.4
11 Yoldia limatula4
1 .6±0.04 Mercenaria sp.4
5.3±0.2 Molusca4
DDT
<0.42 Nucula sp.4
'Reid et al. (1982); for composite samples (n) collected in 1980; PCB as Arclor 1254.
2Battelle (1993); Samples collected in August 1992.
3McFarland etal. (1994); MDS Reference area, August 1991, a) Mercenaria mercinaria, b) Mixed mollusks.
4McFarlande/a/. (1994).
?
1
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-181
1989b). Draxler et al. (1991) found that contaminant levels in flounder collected after cessation of sewage
sludge disposal at the 12-Mile Site decreased rapidly, suggesting that the sewage sludge disposal was a
major source of these contaminants in the area.
PAH concentrations in the bluefish, fluke, sea bass, and tautog reported in NOAA (1995a) (Table 3-26)
were largely undetected. Data summarized in HydroQual (1989b) indicate that DDT in flounder were at
least lOOOx less than the FDA action levels. Note that these generally low organic contaminant levels
were obtained at a time when surface sediments in the region of the Study Area likely had higher
contaminant concentrations from the then active 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Disposal Site.
Historically, organic contaminants in other species collected from the vicinity of the Study Area were also
low (see Table 3-28). PAH concentrations in benthic organisms (bivalves, mollusca) collected from the
Mud Dump Site Reference Station in August 1991 were in the low ppb (wet weight) range (Table 3-28)
and well below levels observed in organisms from highly contaminated sites (McFarland et al, 1994).
Similarly, McFarland et al. (1994) found that pesticide concentrations in benthic organisms collected in
1991 ranged from 0.37 to 10.7 ppb. DDE and DDT in molluscs were reported as less than 11 ppb wet
weight and PCB concentrations in sea scallop, rock crab, and mollusks were less than 100 ppb wet weight
(Table 3-28).
Lobster: Organic contaminant concentrations in lobster from the New York Bight Apex were recently
reported in NOAA (1996). This study found that organic contaminant concentrations in the lobster muscle
were generally low (Table 3-29). The maximum total PCB concentrations, as the sum of 18 PCB
congeners (£jgPCB) in the muscle, were 220 ppb wet weight and ranged as low as 60 ppb wet weight.
Total DDT and total chlordanes in the muscle tissue ranged from 20 to 35 ppb wet weight High
molecular weight PAHs (HMWPAH) were generally less than 490 ppb; low molecular weight PAHs
(LMWPAH) were generally not detectable (<64 ppb wet weight).
In contrast to the lobster muscle, total PCB levels in the hepatic tissue were substantially higher and ranged
from 1.8 to 7.4 ppm wet weight (1,800 to 7,400 ppb) across individual sample composites. PCB levels in
lobster hepatopancreas collected in 1982 were between 700-1,400 ppb wet weight (Draxler et al., 1991).
Hepatic PCB values in lobster collected from other northeast United States coastal environments have been
consistently measured at less than 1 ppm wet weight (Hillman and Peven, 1995; Hillman et al., 1994).
Total DDT concentrations in the hepatic tissue was as high as 1,420 ppb wet weight, but were more
generally near 800 to 900 ppb wet weight (Table 3-29). Total chlordane concentrations did not exceed 360
ppb wet weight as mean concentrations for a sampling area for any of the sampling periods. HMWPAH
concentrations were less than 2.6 ppm; LMWPAH were not detectable except in October when
concentrations were detectable at approximately 190 ppb.
The 1993 total PCB (£i8PCB) concentrations in muscle and hepatic tissue of lobsters from the Hudson
Shelf Valley were consistently lower than those from the three areas near the MDS. This spatial trend was
consistent throughout the four sample collection periods. The three areas located nearest the MDS and
Hudson River Plume had consistently uniform concentrations of total PCB, DDT, and PAH (NOAA,
1996). PCB concentrations in the hepatic tissue from the Bight Apex were equivalent to or higher than
those in lobster from the rest of the New York Bight These later values are consistently lower than those
measured in the Georges Bank/Gun0 of Maine region (NOAA, 1996).
-------
Table 3-29. Recent concentrations of organic contaminants in muscle and hepatopancreas of lobster collected in the New York
Bight Apex [parts per billion (wet weight) except for dioxin and furan which are in parts per trillion (wet weight)].
These data represent the range in the individual composite samples obtained for four surveys in each area. Chlordane,,
DDT,, HMWPAH, and LMWPAH represent the range in the mean concentration for each area by survey.
*Ei
g.53
Contaminant Muscle
Reid etal. (1982)
June through October 1994
June through October 1994
Throughout Area
Hudson River
Hepatopancreas
NOAA(1996)
NOAA (1996)
n = 5'
Plume
n=12
Area
n = 82
Area
n=13
n=17
Plume
n=12
Area
n = 82
Area
n=13
Valley
n=17
PCB,3
DDT,2'4 NA
Chlordane,2'4 NA
2,3,7,8-TCDD NA
Dioxin/Furan TEQ3
2,3,7,8-TCDF NA
HMWPAH2'4'6 311-510
480-1260
Southeast Study
Northeast Study
Hudson Shelf Valley
Hudson River
Southeast Study
Northeast Study
Hudson Shelf
240-1,100
19-29
NA
64-89
21; 23
20-23
<3.2'
64
64-78
20-32
20; 21
<8.7
<3.2 i
480-490 i
64
77-220 62-88
21-35 ,
20-3l! 26-32
<8.7
<3.2
480
2790-7380 2745-4090 2340-4860 1840-3870
750-1150 880; 900 800-1420 610-825
190 - 360 240; 300 190 - 340 150 - 240
73-160 78-131 70-173 31-65
122-239 139-205 121-266 63-124
130-210 140-175 160-220 95-140
480 1100-2620 1020; 1210 520-1310
<8.8
480
64-190 64; 73 64
62-90
LMWPAH2'4-6
'n = number of site mean concentrations reported.
2Samples in August and October were not obtained due lo th4 movemerit of the lobster fishing offshore; two survey means reported.
'Sum of 18 congeners.
4Range in the mean concentrations of composite samples (unequal number of composites per mean) for the period from June to October 1994 (four surveys).
'Reported as toxic equivalents.
"High molecular weight PAH and low molecular weight PAHs.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-183
For the hepatic tissue, total chlordane was highest at locations nearest the Hudson River Plume and lowest
in the Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine region. Spatial distributions of total DDT in the hepatic tissue was less
predictable, although lobster collected in the area to the northeast of the Study Area had the highest
concentrations (NOAA, 1996). PAH's were highest in the areas to the north and northeast of the Study
Area.
3.5.1.1.3 Dioxins and Furans in Fish and Shellfish
Recent data for commercial and recreational fish species collected in the New York Bight Apex (NOAA,
1995a) indicate that dioxin/furan levels in these organisms is generally low (Table 3-30). Reported total
dioxin concentrations are consistently less than the 10 pptr (wet weight) concern level established for
dredged materials testing in the New York harbor area. The concentrations of the most toxic dioxin and
furan congeners (2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF) in muscle tissues of recreational fish were consistently
less than 7 pptr (Table 3-30). The highest 2.3.7.8-TCDD values were in bluefish muscle (3 to 7 pptr); the
lowest concentrations (<0.5 pptr) were measured in fluke. TCDD concentrations in the tautog and sea bass
were at the lower end of this range (0.6 to 3 pptr). The 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF congener
concentrations reported for shellfish species caught in the MDS and Study Area are consistently less than 3
and 6 pptr, respectively (Table 3-30).
Dioxin, as 2,3,7,8-TCDD, concentrations in the muscle tissues of the lobsters collected by NOAA (1996)
were found to be less than the 1.8 pptr wet weight method detection limit (Table 3-29). Total dioxin and
furan expressed as toxic equivalents were consistently less than 2.0 pptr in the muscle tissues. In contrast,
dioxin in the hepatic tissues of lobster collected in 1991 was much higher, and ranged from 31 to 173 pptr.
Toxic equivalents ranged from 63 to 266 in these tissues. A close correlation between total PCB
concentrations and dioxin levels was also noted in the organisms. Concentrations of both chemical classes
were strongly related to the lipid content of the tissues. Thus, the spatial distribution of the dioxin closely
parallels that of the PCBs with higher levels measured in lobsters from the Bight Apex than in the rest of
the Bight and areas further to the east
Dioxin concentrations in samples collected 5 to 9 years before the NOAA collection had higher
concentrations than those measured in the 1993 collections (NOAA, 1996 and Table 3-30). Dioxin
concentrations in hepatic tissues collected some 5 years prior to 1993 (Rappe et al, 1991) were 2 to 4
times higher than those reported in NOAA (1996), and were higher than those reported by Hauge et al.
(1994) in samples collected about 10 years earlier.
3.5.1.1.4 Contaminant Bioaccumulation Potential in Study Area Organisms [Section 228.10(b)(6)]
Few contaminants found in the study area biomagnify through trophic levels, although several may
bioaccumulate in prey species resident within the Study Area (Section 3.4.6.2.2). Concentrations of other
chemicals simply increase in tissues in response to higher contaminant levels in the sediments.
To evaluate the potential transfer of bioaccumulatable contaminants across trophic levels, concentrations of
certain contaminants were measured in polychaetes in the Study Area and in organisms known to prey on
polychaetes in the Study Area
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-184
Table 3-30. Dioxin results in fisheries tissues samples collected in and near the Study Area.
Units are parts per trillion wet weight.
Organism
Source
Location
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Lobster
RappeelaZ. (1991)
(collected circa 1990
near 12-Mile Site,
n = 2)
Haugee/af. (1994)
(collected in mid 1980s,
n = 19)
NOAA, 1996
n = 50
Hepatopancreas
Meat
Combined hepatic and
muscle tissues;
Area up to 25 km offshore
of New Jersey
Hepatic tissue of individual
lobster; nearshore location
Meat of individual lobster,
nearshore location
Study Area and Hudson
Shelf Valley
257 & 611
6.3 & 4.7
40.8±16.5
(0% not detectable)
170,410
<20
See Table 3-27
384 & 348
4.1&3.5
36.4+16.3
(4% Not detectable)
260,380
<20
See Table 3-27
Fish
NOAA, 1995a
Study Area and MDS areas
Bluefish: 1.0 to 7.3
Fluke: <0.20to0.44
Sea Bass: 0.59 to 1.5
Tautog: 0.7 to 2.95
Bluefish: 3.3 to 10
Fluke: <0.5
Sea Bass: 0.61 to 1.1
Tautog: 1.5-4.5
Shrimp Battelle (1993) MDS (n = 1)
(collected in August
1992" Bight (n=2)
2.8
ND and 0.4
5.6
2.2 and 4.0
Mollusks McFarland et al (1994)
(August 1991 mixed
species)
MDS Reference Area
1.73 ±0.18
4.33 ±0.42
Estimated from dry weight using 80% water content
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-185
Comparison of Estimated
Contaminant Levels in Polychaete Predators to Measured Levels
Contaminant Measured contaminant concentration in polychaetes
(See Section 3.4.6.2.1)
2,3,7,8-TCDD (pptr ww)
Log P = 6.1
Total DDT (ppb ww)
Log P = 5.98
Total PCB (ppb ww)
Log P = 6.0
Minimum Maximum
1.8 5.8
12.6 44.7
43.4 177
Measured concentrations in
polychaete predators in the Study
Area (See Section 3.5.1.1)
Lobster meat: <1.8
Lobster Hepatic tissue: 70 to 173
Lobster meat: 19 to 32
Lobster Hepatic tissue: 800 to 1,420
Lobster meat: 64 to 220
Lobster hepatic tissue: 2,300 to 4,860
Winter Flounder: 210 to 330 (as
Arclor)
Red Hake: 100
The measured contaminant concentrations in polychaetes were also used in the general bioaccumulation
model of LeBlanc (1995) to calculate estimated contaminant concentrations in organisms that prey on
polychaetes in the Study Area. Use of this simple model yielded concentration ranges of 18-59 pptr
2,3,7,8-TCDD, 110-400 ppb Total DDT, and 510-2,065 ppb Total PCB. These predicted levels were
substantially higher than the actual measured values, except for lobster hepatic tissue. In addition, for
dioxins and furans in particular, two additional studies have found that trophic transfer factors are
generally below 1 for higher trophic level species such as lobsters [Pruell, R. personal communication,
1993; Cook, etal. (1993)].
3.5.1.1.5 Seafood Contaminant Levels Relative to FDA Advisory Levels
In addition to concerns over the potential trophic transfer and potential affects on the ecology of the Study
Area, elevated contaminants levels are of significant socio-economic concern from a food consumption
perspective (i.e., are fish and shellfish harvested from the Study Area area safe for human consumption?).
However comparison of contaminant levels in Study Area fish tissue to Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) action levels provides useful information of potential human-health impact, presented by seafood
caught at the Study Area,
The body burden data of fish and shellfish in the New York Bight Apex demonstrate that tissue samples
collected within the past 5 years do not exceed the 1 ppm wet weight FDA action levels for methyl
mercury (total Hg is <1.0 ppm). However, total PCB levels in lobster hepatic tissue sampled in the Bight
Apex in 1993 show consistent exceedance of the FDA 2 ppb guidance level for this class of contaminants
(no exceedances were found in lobster muscle tissue). Exceedance of FDA action levels for other
compounds (e.g., 300 ppb chlordane), were not observed in the muscle tissue of lobster or other organisms.
McFarland et al. (1994) found that dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor concentrations in organisms collected
in 1991 were at least two orders of magnitude below applicable FDA action levels of 300 ppb (wet
weight). FDA action limits for DDT, DDE, and DDD (5.0 ppm wet weight) also were not exceeded in any
fish; levels were at least 20 times below the action limit.
Dioxin levels in fish, shellfish, and muscle tissue of lobster are consistently below the 25 pptr "limited
consumption" guidance of the FDA. In contrast, levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in all lobster hepatic samples
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-186
from 1993 exceed the FDA 25 pptr "limited consumption" guidance and 36 of 44 samples exceed the 50
pptr "no consumption guidance" (NOAA, 1996).
In response to the levels of concern presented by these concentrations, the states of New York and New
Jersey have issued fish consumption advisories for some fish, Crustacea, and shellfish caught in the waters
of the New York New Jersey Harbor and Bight areas. Specifically, New York and New Jersey have
advised people to limit or avoid consumption of several species of fish (striped bass and blue fish) and
Crustacea (lobster tomalley) caught in waters of the Harbor/Bight and, in some cases, have prohibited the
sale, consumption, and/or harvesting offish, Crustacea, and shellfish due to toxic contamination, especially
PCBs and dioxin.
Information on specific species and chemicals are available for the two States.
As considered in the preceding sections, PAHs, PCBs, pesticide, and dioxin/furan concentrations are
generally low in tissues of fish and shellfish that inhabit Study Area. Levels of these contaminants in the
commercial fish are indicative of a relatively clean environment (NOAA, 1995e). Bioaccumulation of
relatively few chemicals are evident in the Study Area. Contaminants in polychaetes have the potential to
transfer to higher trophic levels, although biomagnification of contaminants in the marine food chain in the
area is not clearly evident except in lobster hepatic tissue. With the exception of PCB and dioxin
contaminant levels in hepatic tissue of lobster, contaminant levels are consistently less that action levels
established by the FDA and other guidance for evaluating the potential for contaminant transfer from
sediments to organisms. The role of the sediments in the Study Area and associated benthic infauna as the
cause for the high lobster hepatic PCB and dioxin concentrations can not be definitively established given
the close proximity of the Study Area to the Hudson River Plume (NOAA, 1996). Regardless, the levels
of PCBs and dioxin in the lobster hepatic tissue are of significant concern and are the focus of ongoing fish
advisories from the states of New York and New Jersey.
3.5.1.2 Catch Data of Commercially and Recreationally Important Fish and Shellfish in the Study
Area
To understand the value of fishing in the Study Area, it is necessary to first understand who fishes which
species, where and when the fish are caught, and the size of the catches. The following commercial and
recreational fishery information is summarized from recent National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
catch statistics and reports, and from information solicited from the regional fishing industry for this SEE.
Commercial Fishing: The New York Bight contains several major commercial fishing ports in New York
(Freeport, Hampton Bay-Shinnecock, and Montauk) and New Jersey (Atlantic City, Belfbrd, and Point
Pleasant, Port Belmar/Neptune, Barnegat Inlet, and Port of Cape May). Fish and shellfish landed in New
York and New Jersey ports from 1992 to 1994 contributed an average of 16% and 17% of the total marine
landings (i.e., catch volume) and value, respectively, in the northeast United States (New Hampshire to
Virginia). The volume and value of commercial fish and shellfish landed in New York and New Jersey
ports have varied over the past 15 years, from a low of 126 million Ibs. and $90 million in 1982 to a high
of 254.5 million Ibs. and $151 million in 1992 (Figure 3-80). Since the mid-1980s, there has been a
gradual increase in landings and value, although a small decrease was observed in 1994.
The commercial fishery statistics collected by NMFS provide reliable information on the amount of
commercial catch, its value, and the distribution of species that are landed at New York and New Jersey
ports. However, the value of NMFS fishery data for use in this SEIS is limited due to the fact that these
data are based on port landings, not catch locations. Thus, while most of the fish and shellfish landed in
New York and New Jersey ports were probably caught in the New York Bight (S. Wilk, personal
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-187
o 250,000 -
o
° 200,000 -,
» 150,000-
'•5 100,000 -
c
2 50,000 -
0 .
4. -
4.
4- -
4- -
_
4--
4--
4--
4--
4--
4--
4. -
4- -
4- .
4. .
4-
' ~ 1 \J\J j \y \J\J
.- 140,000 _
--120,000 S
-.100,000 °
--80,000 ^
.-60,000 j§
-40,000 >
--20,000
..0
1978 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 1994
Pounds
Value
Source: NOAA 1979,1981,1983, 1985,1987,1989,1991,1993,1995
Figure 3-80. Commercial fishing data for all New York and New Jersey ocean ports.
communication, 1995), and much of the catch could have been caught in or near the Study Area, catch
location can conceivably be anywhere along the eastern United States. This creates a degree of uncertainty
to catch data analyses, relative to commercial fishery resources in the Study Area.
NMFS Statistical Subarea 612 is the data region that encompasses the New York Bight Apex and includes
the Study Area (refer to Figure 3-64). Table 3-31 presents the landings and value of eighteen commercial
fish and shellfish caught in Subarea 612 in 1993 (the most recent data available). The species in Table
3-31 represent eighteen of the more than 35 fish and shellfish species regularly caught in Subarea 612.
These eighteen species (discussed in detail in Section 3.4.2) represent 40% of the total catch volume and
43% of the total market value offish and shellfish caught in 1993.
Recreational Fishing: Recreational or sport fishing is a popular activity in the New York Bight practiced
by coastal, noncoastal, and out-of-state anglers (NMFS, 1995). The majority of New York Bight anglers
fish from private or rental boats or from party or charter boats.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
Table 3-31. Commercial landings and
shellfish species caught in
Species
Fish
Summer flounder
Bluefish
Silver hake
Red hake
Winter flounder
Atlantic herring
Tautog
Scup
Butterfish
Cod
Yellowtail flounder
American shad
Shellfish
Surf clam
Sea scallop
American lobster
Long-finned squid
Rock crab
Horseshoe crab
Total of all soecies
value of selected
May 1997
Page 3-188
commercially important fish and
statistical Subarea 612 in 1993.
Volume
(1000s Ibs)
842
794
787
331
282
190
117
93
66
42
40
37
53,485
1,607
721
518
66
<1
60,019
Value ($)
1,218,496
263,915
385,974
155,288
299,061
9,689
107,327
44,511
48,221
52,111
62,689
24,597
3,571,753
1,181,810
2,509,770
313,605
68,404
70
10,317.291
Source: NEFSC, 1995a
Since 1992, the number of recreational anglers fishing off New York and New Jersey has steadily
increased (Table 3-32), as has the total number of fishing trips (Table 3-33). The largest number of
participants in both states are coastal residents; however, data indicate that a significant number of
residents from other states travel to New Jersey to fish. In fact, the number of out-of-state residents fishing
off the coast of New Jersey represents more than 40% of the total anglers in this area. New Jersey is one of
the most popular fishing destinations for saltwater fishing in the northeastern United States. More
recreational anglers fish off the coast of New Jersey than in any other state from Maine to Virginia (NMFS,
1995).
Table 3-32. Estimated number (in thousands) of recreational anglers fishing off the coasts of
New York and New Jersey.
Year
1992
1993
1994
Coastal
Residents
466
539
693
New
Non-Coastal
Residents
13
13
12
York
Out of State
Residents
42
70
65
Total
521
622
770
New Jersey
Coastal
Residents
408
583
616
Non-Coastal
Residents
14
9
21
Out of State
Residents
336
433
477
Total
758
1025
1113
Source: NMFS, 1995
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-189
Table 3-33. Estimated number (in thousands) of recreational angler fishing trips from New
York and New Jersey.
Year
1992
1993
1994
Coastal
Residents
3219
3915
4131
New
Non-Coastal
Residents
42
53
61
York
Out of State
Residents
148
222
188
Total
NY
Trips
3409
4189
4380
New Jersey
Coastal
Residents
3300
3766
4022
Non-Coastal
Residents
86
71
103
Out of State
Residents
1173
1356
1535
Total
NJ
Trips
4556
5193
5659
Source: NMFS, 1995
Because most recreational fishing (70%) between Delaware and New York is conducted by boat,
recreationally caught fish in the Study Area and adjacent waters may be either resident fish or fish
migrating through the area. The top ten species of fish caught by recreational anglers from New York and
New Jersey are listed in Table 3-34. These species represent 74% and 72%, respectively, of the total
pounds of fish harvested by all recreational fishermen from New York and New Jersey in 1993 and 1994.
In addition, these species represent 50% and 44%, respectively, of the total volume of fish caught in 1993
and 1994 in the mid-Atlantic region (New York to Virginia). Of the total recreational catch in mid-
Atlantic the New York to Virginia catch represented 115% and 84% of the Connecticut to Maine catch in
1993 and 1994, respectively. Ecological
information on the recreational species listed in
Table 3-34 is discussed in Section 3.4.
Recreational and Commercial Fishing Areas
Within the Study Area: Fishing grounds are wide
ranging in the Bight. The Study Area includes four
of the most frequently fished areas within the New
York Bight (R. Bogan, pers. comm., 1996). These
fishing areas, shown in Figure 3-81, have been
named by local fishermen and do not appear on
navigational charts. Fishing locations (in relation
to the current MDS), target species, and fishing
seasons are presented in Table 3-35.
Commercial and recreational fishermen target the
same fish, but catch them at different levels,
primarily due to degree of fishing effort and
different gear types. In general, recreational
fishermen use hook-and-line; commercial
fishermen use trawls. The exception is lobster,
which is only caught by commercial fishermen
using pots or traps.
Figure 3-81. Commercial and recreational fishing
locations in the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-190
Table 3-34. Top 10 recreational fish species, in decreasing order of estimated catch weight1
(1,000s Ibs.), for New York and New Jersey.
Species
Summer flounder
Bluefish
Striped bass
Black sea bass
Winter flounder
Scup
Tautog
WeakGsh
Atlantic cod
Red Hake
Total
Total
1993
6,004
7,626
2,450
3,656
1,570
909
3,163
313
1,947
190
27,828
1994
6,488
5,269
2,413
1,734
1,104
1,058
916
706
181
118
19,987
New Jersey
1993
4,269
1,900
874
3,344
902
34
1,362
313
54
190
13,242
1994
3,843
1,958
438
1,627
681
500
331
706
118
10,202
New York
1993
1,735
5,726
1,576
312
668
875
1,801
1,893
-
14,586
1994
2,645
3,311
1,975
107
423
558
585
181
-
9,785
'Estimated Catch Weight based on NMFS Catch Type A (fish brought ashore in whole form) and Bl(not available in whole form
for identification and enumeration by interviewers, includes caught fish used as bait, filleted, given away, discarded dead, etc.).
Live fish returned to the sea are not included in the summary data of this table.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-191
Table 3-35. Fishing areas and target species of the Study Area. (Source: Battelle 1996
unpublished survey data from charter boat captains from the NY Bight area)
Fishing Area
(Unofficial Name)
17-Fathom
The Farms
Shrewsbury Rocks
Scotland Banks
Location in Relation Fishing Season
toMDS
East winter
spring, fall
summer
Southeast winter
spring, fall
summer
West winter
spring, fall
summer
North winter
spring, fall
summer
Target Species
cod, white hake, red hake
black sea bass, tautog, lobster
bluefish, sea bass, lobster
cod, white hake, red hake
black sea bass, tautog, lobster
bluefish, sea bass, lobster
white hake, red hake
black sea bass, tautog, lobster
scup, bluefish, sea bass, lobster
white hake, red hake
black sea bass, tautog, lobster
scup, bluefish, sea bass, lobster
Lobster is caught by traps from the spring through the late fall in the four areas listed in Table 3-35 and
shown in Section 3.5.1.1.1. Lobstennen target their fishing effort at the regional lobster population as it
moves offshore in the fall and shoreward in the spring. In general, lobster traps are generally fished in the
rocky areas of the Study Area. Trap lines have been observed near the 17-fm line on the southeast side of
the Mud Dump Site (in the southern portion of the Study Area) and in the rocky northwestern portion of
the Study Area.
Bottomfish trawling is generally conducted in the relatively few flat-bottom portions of the Study Area.
Trawl scour marks have been located east of the MDS mound and in the northwest comer of the Subarea 1.
Fishermen have also indicated that trawling occurs in the northern portion of Subarea 2.
Hook-and-line fishing is conducted by sport/recreational fishermen in hard-bottom areas containing both
rocks and wrecks. The primary fishing grounds are in the northwest and southwest corners of the Study
Area.
Several shipwrecks are located in the Study Area. Wrecks above the surface of the sediment are habitat for
a number of reef and hard-bottom fish and shellfish species. Most of the identified shipwrecks are located
in the north and northwestern regions of the Study Area and in the rocky. The location and features of
these shipwrecks, and of other wrecks thought to be buried beneath the sediment by natural sedimentation
or dredged material disposal in the area summarized in Section 3.5.7 and in the Cultural Resources Report
which is available on request by contacting: Joseph Bergstein, EPA Region 2, tel. 212-637-3890, e-mail
bergstein.joseph@epamail.epa.gov.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-192
3.5.2 Fishery Enhancement Structures and Operations
Artificial Reef Structures. Artificial reefs have been constructed by the States of New York and New
Jersey on the ocean floor near the Study Area boundaries to create new fishing grounds, habitat for marine
fish and shellfish, and underwater dive structures (Table 3-36). The reefs are constructed of natural and
recycled material, including rock rubble, brick, culverts, vehicles, concrete debris, concrete ballasted tires,
steel-hulled vessels, and obsolete army tanks. Fish and shellfish communities develop on these artificial
reefs, which provide hard-bottom habitat. The reefs serve to both enhance existing hard-bottom habitat
and replace habitat that has been destroyed by pollution, development, and other alterations to the coastal
areas. As the reefs become colonized by shellfish and other invertebrates, the reefs become a source of
food as well as shelter for local fish communities.
New York and New Jersey manage a total of 25 (11 in New York, 14 in New Jersey) artificial reefs.
However, only three are located near the Study Area (Figure 3-82). Five reefs are located on the southern
coast (ocean side) of Long Island and are north and east of the Study Area. One New Jersey reef is located
between the New Jersey shore and western boundary of the Study Area. The water depths at this site is
less than 20 m. Two other artificial reef sites are well to die south of the Study Area.
Table 3-36. Artificial reef sites located near the Study Area.
Reef Site Relative Location to SEIS Study Area
Rockaway, NY approx. 6 nmi north
Atlantic Beach, NY approx. 6.5 nmi north
McAllister Grounds, NY approx. 8 nmi north
Fire Island, NY approx. 14 nmi north
Hempstead Town, NY approx. 11 nmi north
Sandy Hook, NJ approx. 1.5 nmi west of Subarea 2
Sea Girt, NJ _ approx. 18 nmi southwest
Shark River, NJ approx. 20 nmi southeast
Source: NYDEC, 1996; NJDEP, 1994.
Mariculture Operations. There are no mariculture operations in or adjacent to the Study Area. The
nearest mariculture hatcheries and nurseries for hard clam (Mercenaraia mercenaria) culture are in South
Oyster Bay and Great South Bay, in New York State waters (D. Barns, NY DEC, pers. comm., April
1996). The nearest of these facilities is about 30 miles from the northeast corner of the Study Area. In
New Jersey, hard-clam hatchery facilities are located in the Tuckerton\Little Egg HarborXWest Creek area
(J. Flimlin, NJ Sea Grant, pers. comm., April 1996), which is more than 70 miles from the southern border
of the Study Area. Both the New York and New Jersey hard-clam hatchery areas are located behind
barrier islands, protected from the oceanic environment, and isolated from the proposed HARS by both
distance and geologic features. The clam grow-out facilities nearest the Study Area are located in
Highlands and Sea Bright, NJ, approximately 3 miles to the west but located on the landward side of
Sandy Hook. Thus, it is improbable that these facilities have been affected by the operation of the MDS
due to the distance from the site.
-------
MDSfflARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-193
Lower
New York
Bay
Sandy
Hook
Reef
Site
Shark
River
Reef
Site
Figure 3-82. Artificial reefs located near the Study A
rea.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment __ Page 3-194
An area industry related to mariculture is clam relaying. Relaying operations do not hatch or rear clams
for seafood, but they have similar requirements (i.e., high water quality conditions, undisturbed sediments)
to those of hard-clam grow-out operations. The process of clam relaying is practiced for both hard and soft
calms in the New York and New Jersey waters. Clams are harvested from waters that are polluted with
bacteria which exceed State criteria for seafood sales. These clams are harvested by the same means that
clams from clean waters are harvested; however, instead of going directly to market, the clams are sent to
permitted relay stations located in clean State waters. At the relay stations, the live clams are placed in
mesh bags and/or on racks which are then submerged for several days to allow the clams to depurate
bacteria that are harmful to humans if ingested. After the appropriate depuration period, the clams are
certified as safe for human consumption and sent to market. It should be noted that these relaying
operations are designed to depurate the clams of bacteria only and are monitored for the level of bacteria.
In general, the clams that come from the relay stations (or clams harvested directly from clean waters), are
not monitored or certified as free of other contaminants, such as heavy metals or organic compounds.
The nearest relaying operations to the MDS and Study Area are inside the lower New York-New Jersey
Harbor, in Raritan Bay. Both New York and New Jersey have permitted relaying operations in this area.
Hard (Mercenaria mercenaria) and soft clams (Mya arenarid) harvested from nearby polluted waters are
transported to relay stations southeast of Staten Island (D. Bams, NY DEC, and J. Flimlin, NJ Sea Grant,
pers. comm., 1996). These relay stations are within the inner Harbor, protected from direct influence of
the ocean environment, and, like the mariculture operations, isolated by distance and geological features
from the MDS.
3.5.3 Shipping [Sections 228.5(a) and 228.6(a)(8)]
As summarized in Section 13 of Chapter 1 of this SEIS, the Port of New York and New Jersey is one of
the nation's leading ports. In 1994, the Port shipped 126.1 million short tons of cargo, ranking third in the
nation, behind the Port of South Louisiana and the Port of Houston (USAGE WCSC, 1996). The water-
and land-based facilities of the Port of New York and New Jersey are located, designed, and operated to
optimize cargo and passenger ship handling of a wide range of vessel capacities, drafts, and types. The
large volume of cargo that moves through the port, and its ranking among other regional and national
ports, indicates that the Port of New York and New Jersey is well located and competitive with alternate
modes of transportation (i.e., rail, truck, air).
The existing MDS and the Study Area are located in a busy ship traffic zone at the mouth of the New
York-New Jersey Harbor (Figure 3-83). Dredged material barges and hopper dredges, while required to
discharge their loads at precise locations in the MDS, usually need to spend only 3 to 5 minutes at the
discharge point These short discharge periods present low risks of collision or other conflict with cargo or
passenger ships entering and exiting the Harbor, or to ships transferring pilots. However, because of the
Study Area's location in an active navigation area, dredged material vessels and barges transiting between
the dredging sites and the existing MDS contribute to the overall harbor traffic volume. Any increase in
vessel traffic increases the chance of a navigational mishap. The further a dredged material barge or vessel
must travel, the greater is the risk of collision or some other impact to other ships (EPA Region 2,1982).
The present MDS is located entirely within the navigation Precautionary Zone at the entrance to the
Harbor. The Study Area surrounds the MDS and extends into the Ambrose-to-Barnegat traffic lane, the
separation zone of this lane, and the southern edge of the Pilot Area at the termini of the Sandy Hook and
Ambrose Channels. According to Captains Peterson and Deane of New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots
(personal communication, April 30,1996) the present location and operation of the MDS does not affect
ship operations.
-------
MDSMARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-195
'••--..Precautionary
Area
Figure 3-83. Location of the Mud Dump Site and the Study Area in relation to New York Bight
Apex shipping areas.
35.4 Military Usage
There are no known military uses of the MDS or Study Area. However, the U.S. military can and does
conduct unannounced and clandestine maneuvers and other activities in ocean waters off the U.S. With
the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area's high population density and levels of commercial activity
critical to the nation's economy, it is reasonable to expect that the New York Bight Apex, including waters
at and around the MDS and Study Area, is an area designated by the military as important for national
security. Evaluation of this importance, and present and potential conflict with military usage of the Study
Area is impossible to assess without U.S. military input.
Area military installations that may operate equipment and personnel in the New York Bight Apex are
listed in Table 3-37.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
ChapterS, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-196
Table 3-37. New York-New Jersey Harbor area military installations.
Facility Name
Military Branch
Location
Earle Naval Weapons Station
Fort Monmouth
Stapleton Homeport (closed)
Military Ocean Terminal (MOTBY)
Sandy Hook Station
Governor's Island Station (closing)
Rockaway Station
Navy
Army
Navy
Army, Sea Lift Command
Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Colts Neck, NJ
Eatontown, NJ
Staten Island, NY
Bayonne, NJ
Sandy Hook, NJ
Governor's Island, NY
Rockaway, NY
3.5.5 Mineral/Energy Development [40 CFR Section 228.6(a)(8)]
The only identified mineral extraction or energy development uses that have been considered for the
greater Study Area region is benthic mining of sand and gravel for construction and beneficial use
purposes (e.g., beach restoration).
Williams and Duane (1974) evaluated the acceptability of the sand deposits of the inner New York Bight
for beneficial uses. They estimate that more than 2 billion cubic yards of clean sand located in the shallow
shelf section of the inner Bight could be retrieved by dredging techniques available in 1974. Direct
estimates of the volume of potentially minable material in the Study Area are not available from Williams
and Duane; however, they estimate that approximately 1/4 to 1/3 billion cubic yards of sand could be
recoverable from this area. The New Jersey State Geological Survey (NJGS) is presently evaluating the
potential for the seaward area encompassing the seaward extension of the Shrewsbury Rocks for sand
mining (J. Uptagrove, pers. comm., March 1996). Initial seismic survey information, combined with the
information in Williams and Duane (1974), suggest that the sediments in the Hudson Shelf Valley
(southeast corner of the Study Area) are not acceptable for sand mining due to the small gain size of the
sediments and potential for historical disposal material in the area. The seaward extension of the
Shrewsbury Rocks is tentatively believed to be unacceptable because of their hard sandstone makeup
which is a potential obstacle to mining. The area to the north of the Shrewsbury Rocks extension is
believed to be viable for sandmining. The area identified by NJGS encompasses areas of historical and
current disposal and also includes the shallow basin west of the historic disposal mound. Research to
confirm the viability of the sediments of the area as potential for sand mining is ongoing.
On February 12,1996, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a Request for Information
(RFJN) regarding possible lease sales of sand and gravel resources in the New York Bight (MMS, 1996).
Within the RFIN announcement, the Agency states that it "does not intend to issue leases in areas
designated as mud dump sites nor will it permit lessees to mine deep pits for use in the disposal of any
material." While MMS has indicated that future mining leases will not be granted in designated disposal
site areas, the Agency did not indicate whether leases will be granted in areas of historical disposal of
dredged material, sewage sludge, or other wastes within the Study Area or adjacent areas. The potential
use of sand and aggregate resources located in historical (but not designated) disposal areas raises several
complex issues. If these resources be below contaminated layers of sediment, extraction may cause
resuspension of the contaminants and long-term exposure to the local biota. If this is the case, a NEPA
evaluation (i.e., EIS) will almost certainly be required, and other Federal and State agencies would be
involved in the EIS review.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-197
Offshore mining activities are regulated through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331-
1356). Federal, state, and local agencies seeking to obtain access to the sand resources in the Study Area
would probably develop a negotiated agreement with the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) if
100% of the extracted material is used for public projects. If less than 100% of the extracted resource is
for public projects, or if private companies seek mining leases, MMS is likely to use a competitive bidding
process to award leases, as referenced in the February 12,1996 RFIN (MMS, 1996).
3.5.6 Recreational Activities
Sport fishing and boating are the predominant recreational activities conducted in and near the Study Area
of the Mud Dump Site. Wreck diving is a secondary recreational activity. Beach areas along the New
Jersey coast, approximately 3 nmi to the west of the Study Area, are actively used for recreational
activities.
As discussed in detail in Section 3.5.1.2, recreational fishing is a major socioeconomic activity throughout
the New York Bight. Dredged material placement activities that change the habitat of recreationally
targeted fish species could affect this activity either positively or negatively depending on placement
strategies. Furthermore, the impact to sportfishing could be either actual or perceived. Examples of actual
impacts include increased availability of recreational fish habitat (e.g., reef structures) or changes in the
bioavailability of contaminants to the fish resources. Perceived resource impacts by fishermen are not
necessarily related to actual resource impacts. For example, if anglers do not perceive an impact (e.g., fish
bioaccumulation of a carcinogenic contaminant) to be a significant threat to the resources or risk to human
health, the recreational activity will remain unaffected. Conversely, if fishermen perceive that an impact or
risk is significant, even if it is not, the level of recreational fishing might be reduced or stopped, which in
turn would negatively affect the local tourism economy. Because perceptions can effect the demand and
price of fisheries products, the impact of perceptions (proven or otherwise) and actual impacts must be
taken into consideration (June 16,1995 NOAA NMFS memo to the Co-Chairs, Mud Dump Site Closure
Working Group; Responses to Questions) and communicated appropriately.
Similar impacts are possible to popular recreational and sport diving. Sport diving is conducted at several
locations in the Study Area by individuals and dive shops; the activities of these divers include fishing,
artifact hunting (which is considered looting), and photography. If there are actual or perceived impacts to
diving locations by dredged material management activities in the area, the recreational activity and
associated economy could be negatively affected.
3.5.7 Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance [40 CFR Section 228.6 (a)(ll)]
A recent review of available information (Panamerican, 1997) did not reveal any natural areas or features
of potential historical significance within the Study Area. Similarly, a previous investigation (Roberts et
al, 1979) have found little or no evidence for sites of prehistoric occupation or utilization of offshore
areas, including the Study Area, during the Holocene period.
During side scan surveys of the Study Area (SAIC, 1996a), fifteen shipwrecks were identified on the
seabed of the Study Area (Figure 3-84). The cultural significance of these were unknown. To ensure
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NRHP) of 1966, as amended (16
USC 470), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Executive Order 11593, and the Advisory
Council Procedures for Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800; Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987); these wrecks were investigated for potential nomination to the National Register
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-198
of Historic Places. During these investigations, thirteen
vessels documented as having sunk in the Study Area
were also identified (Figure3-85) (Panamerican, 1997).
Each of these documented vessels
was also investigated for potential cultural significance.
A Section 106 review must "take into account" how a
Federal undertaking can affect discovered and
undiscovered historical properties not listed or formally
determined as eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. Guidance and criteria for conducting
these reviews are included in 36 CFR Part 800 and 36
CFR 60.4 of the Code of U.S. Federal Regulations and
were followed in the Panamerican (1997) assessment of
Study Area shipwrecks.
To establish the required NRHP information, primary and
secondary archival sources or literature were contacted
and researched by Panamerican. Panamerican also
researched the NOAA Automated Wreck and Obstruction
Information System (AWOIS, 1994) database and
published shipwreck compilations from numerous
sources. Additionally Panamerican conducted oral
interviews with knowledgeable historians and local
sources with information about shipwrecks in the Study
Area. Histories of identified ship and vessel sinkings in
the Study Area were compiled and this information was
compared to the high resolution side-scan data and the
observations reported by local divers.
Records of vessel sinking coordinates did not correlate
well with most of the side-scan targets; thus,
confirmation of wreck identities was problematic. Six
of the targets (1,2,4,6,11, and 12 in Figure 3-84) were
found to most likely represent remains of known vessels
(Table 3-38). One target was tentatively identified as
the remains of a known vessel. Identities of eight
wrecks remain unknown.
Criteria in the National Register Bulletin 20
"Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the
NRHP" were used to evaluate the side-scan identified
shipwrecks. The National Park Service (1985) defines
shipwrecks as "a submerged or buried vessel that has
floundered, stranded, or wrecked. This includes vessels
that exist as intact or scattered components on or in the
sea bed, lakebed, river bed, mud flats, beaches, or other
shorelines, excepting hulks". A vessel's significance is
"based on her representation of vessel type and her
Figure 3-84. Locations of shipwrecks in the Study Area
identified during side scan surveys by SAIC (1996a).
Figure 3-85. Location of vessels documented as having
foundered and sunk within or near the Study Area-
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-199
association with significant themes in American history and comparison with similar vessels". To be
eligible for nomination to the NRHP, a vessel must"... be significant in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering, or culture, and posses integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association." A vessel found eligible for nomination to the NRHP must meet
one or more of four National Register criteria to be considered significant:
A. Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B. Be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information in prehistory or history (National Park
Service, 1985).
The review by Panamerican (1997) determined that 9 of the 15 side scan targets were potentially eligible
for nomination to the NRHP (Table 3-38) by meeting one or more of the above criteria. Available
information on five of the remaining six targets was insufficient to make a recommendations of eligibility
for nomination to the NRHP. One target, the H. W. Long, was identified and was found ineligible for
nomination to the NRHP.
Of the nine shipwrecks found potentially eligible for nomination, four (No's. 2, 3, 4, and 10) are located on
the historical dredged material disposal mound in the northern portion of the Study Area; all four of these
are found hi depths shallower than 20 meters. Three of these wrecks (No's. 6, 7, and 8) are located in the
southeastern comer of the Study Area (Figure 3-84). None of these seven shipwrecks are located in areas
found to have degraded sediments. Two of the wrecks (No's. 11 and 12) are located in the northern
portion of the shallow depression west of the historic mound. Of the five shipwrecks that could not be
evaluated against the NRHP criteria for lack of information, two (No's. 4 and 15) are in the southwest
corner of the Study Area, two (No's. 13 and 14) are on the western boundary of the Study Area and one
(No. 5) is east of the historic mound. All of these lie at depths >20m.
Of the 13 vessels known to have sunk within the Study Area, three were found ineligible for nomination to
the NRHP; there was insufficient information to evaluate one of the documented sinkings. The other nine
vessels were found potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP.
Three potential actions can be undertaken regarding the shipwrecks for which eh' gibility of nomination to
the NRHP cannot be made: 1) further study, 2) avoid the use of the area for dredged material disposal, or
3) burial. Because the eligibility is probable or unknown, avoidance during any disposal operation is
considered the most acceptable action unless further investigation determines the wrecks are ineligible.
The only vessel for which burial is an acceptable option is the H. W. Long.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
Table 3-38.
Sidescan
Target
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
None
None
See above
None
None
See above
See above
See above
See above
None
None
None
None
May 1997
Page 3-200
Documented vessel sinkings and side scan targets
identified as shipwrecks in the Study Area, and
then- potential eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Identity of Target/Vessels
most likely H. W. Long
most likely Ormand
barge
most likely G.L#78
unknown
most likely Continent
most likely a tug boat
(stripped)
most likely a barge
large unknown vessel
possibly the Pentland Firth
most likely Ramos
most likely Glen II
small unknown vessel
unknown
possibly a barge
Ramos
Cecilia M. Dunlap
H.W. Long
G.L#78
Ormond
Glen 11
HMS Pentland Firth
S.S. Continent
Sub-Chaser #60
B.B. #59
S/V Renegade IV
Val-Dee-Jo
Black East
Potentially Eligible for
NRHP
Not eligible
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Unknown
yes
yes
yes
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
yes
yes
Not eligible
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
Cannot be made
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterB, Affected Environment Page 3-20]
3.5.8 Other Legitimate Uses of the Study Area [Section 228.6(a)(8)]
In addition to the previously described socioeconomic uses of the Mud Dump Site and the Study Area (see
Sections 3.5.1 through 3.5.7 above), cable and pipeline crossings are legitimate uses of the region. During
the course of this study, the presence of active cable and pipelines in the Study Area were investigated;
none were found. The NOAA Chart No. 12326 "Cable Area" between Monmouth, NJ, and Rockaway
Beach, NY, is inactive (Figure 3-86). Although independent confirmation was not possible, the cable area
apparently once contained telegraph cables, which were operated by cable companies that either are now
out of business or have been purchased by other companies. AT&T Cable Protection in Morristown, NJ,
(J. Murray, AT&T, pers. comm., December 1995) reports that the only active commercial cables in the
region are transatlantic cables. The nearest cable enters the ocean near Sea Girt, NJ approximately 12 nmi
to the south of the Study Area and extends eastward. The nearest commercial cable exiting the New York
coast is near the Mastic Beach area. The possibility that military cables are located in the area was
investigated with AT&T Military Cable Protection in Greensboro, NC, (Z. Zimmerman, pers. comm.,
January 1996). He indicates that there are no military cables in the Study Area. However, official
documentation of the absence of military cables in the Study Area could not be obtained from
AT&T/Greensboro because presently there are no approved means of releasing military cable information
for civilian use, such as in this SEIS. Communication with the USAGE (W. Corso, pers. comm., 1996)
and MCI Transmission Services Operations (J. Ross, pers. comm., 1996) supports the conclusion that there
are no cable or pipeline crossings seaward of the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Beach transect. Desalinization
activities do not occur in the Study Area.
3.5.9 Areas of Special Concern
There are no federal or state-designated Areas of Special Concern within the Study Area or nearby waters.
The nearest Areas of Special Concern are on the New York and New Jersey coasts, and were established
for the protection and enhancement of waterfowl and shore birds (Table 3-39). The largest Area of Special
Concern is the 26,000-acre Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA NPS, 1996) that encompasses most
of the Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Point region of Long Island. (About 6.5 nmi to the north of the Study
Area) and part of Sandy Hook, New Jersey (approximately 3.5 nmi to the north and west of the Study
Area). The other areas are at least 35 nmi from the boundaries of the Study Area.
Each of the coastal waterfowl and shorebird habitat areas under protection in the New York Bight are
separated from the Study Area by distance or geological features (e.g., barrier islands) or both, and are very
unlikely to be affected by dredged material disposal activities at the Mud Dump Site.
Other areas/habitat that are not federally designated or protected, but provide a habitat for marine resources
and warrant evaluation in this SEIS, are artificial reefs. Both New Jersey and New York have state-
administered artificial reef programs that have been established or promoted the construction of artificial
reefs the north, west, and south of the Study Area. (Refer to Section 3.5.2 for details.)
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 3, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-202
02468 Kilometers
0246 MDes
Figure 3-86. Inactive cable area crossing the Study Area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapters, Affected Environment
May 1997
Page 3-203
Table 3-39. Areas of special concern, jurisdiction, and distance from the Study Area.
State
Jurisdiction Area of Special Concern Category
Relative Location to SETS Study Area
New York State
State
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Jones Beach
Robert Moses Park
Bayswater Point Park
Lido Beach National Wildlife Area
Wertheim Wildlife Refuge
Sayville National Wildlife Refuge
Fire Island National Seashore
Gateway National Recreation Area
(Staten Island, Jamaica Bay; Breezy
Point)
Southern coast of Long Island
= 24 nmi north of the Study Area
Western end of Fire Island
= 16 nmi north of the Study Area
Jamaca Bay
= 6 nmi north of the Study Area
Southern coast of Long Island,
= 13 nmi north of the Study Area
Southern coast of Long Island,
= 24 nmi north of the Study Area\
Southern coast of Long Island,
=37 nmi northeast of the Study Area
Southern coast of Long Island,
= 16 nmi northeast of the Study Area
Southwest coast of Long Island,
= 6.5 nmi northwest of the Study Area
New Jersey State
State
State
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
Sedge Islands Wildlife Management
Area
Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife
Management Area
Absecon Wildlife Management Area
Island Beach State Park
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge (Bamegat)
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge (Oceanville)
Gateway National Recreation Area
(Sandy Hook)
New Jersey shore,
34 nmi southwest of the Study Area
New Jersey shore,
51 nmi southwest of the Study Area
New Jersey shore,
57 nmi southwest of the Study Area
New Jersey shore,
30 nmi south of the Study Area
New Jersey shore,
37 nmi southwest of the Study Area
New Jersey shore,
56 nmi southwest of the Study Area
New Jersey shore,
3.5 nmi northwest of the Study Area
Source: GNRANPS (1996); R. Levin, pers. comm., (1996); NJDEP pers. comm., (1996); NYSOPRHP 1996.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 199:
Chapters, Affected Environment Page3-2&
3.6 References
Allen, G.M. 1916. The whalebone whales of New England. Me. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 8(2): 107-322.
Ambrose, W.G., Jr. 1991. Are infaunal predators important in structuring marine soft-bottom
communities? American Zoologist 31:849-860.
Anderson, D.M . 1994. Red tides. Scientific American. 271(2):62-68.
Anderson, DM, and B.A. Keafer. 1995. Toxic Red Tides in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Final
Report to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Department. Woods Hole
Ocean Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. 44 pp.
ASA (American Sport Fishing Association). 1995. An Economic Assessment of Marine Recreational
Fishing in New Jersey. Prepared by the American Sport Fishing Association, Alexandria, VA. 7pp.
AWOIS. 1994. Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System, October 1994. User's Guide.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service. 31 pp.
Azarovitz, T. 1996. NMFS, Woods Hole, MA. Sediment preferences of red hake and gulfstream flounder
Personal Communication to Karen Foster Battelle, Duxbury, MA. February 1996
Bams, D. 1996. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Maracultural. Personal
communication to Kurt Buchholz, Battelle, Duxbury, MA. April 1996.
Battelle. 1989. Report on Siting Feasibility for an Alternate Mud Dump Site in the New York Bight.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3310. 99 pp.
Battelle. 1992a. Rapid Bioassessment of Benthic Resources of Potential Disposal Areas in the New York
Bight, Summer Survey, August 1992. Final report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0105. Duxbury, MA.
Battelle. 1992b. Sediment Toxicity and Concentrations of Trace Metals in Sediment and Porewater in
New York/New Jersey Harbor. Data Report submitted under contract to New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 37 pp. + appendix.
Battelle. 1993. Rapid bioassessment of benthic resources of potential disposal areas in the New York
Bight, Summer survey, August 1992. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
Contract No. 68-C8-0105. Work Assignment 4-301. 46 pp. + appendices.
Battelle. 1996a. Sediment Survey at the Mud Dump Site and Environs. Draft Final Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY. EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134. Work
Assignment 3-133.
Battelle. 1996b. May 1995 Body Burden Report. Draft Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2. EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134. WA #4-133.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May J997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-205
Battelle. 1997a. Biological Assessment. Final Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2. EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134. WA #4-233.
Battelle. 1997b. Contaminants in polychaetes in the Mud Dumpsite and Environs. Draft Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134. WA #4-133.
Beardsley, R.C., W.C. Boicourt, and D.V. Hansen. 1976. Physical Oceanography of the Middle Atlantic
Bight. Pp. 20-34 in M. Grant Gross, Ed., Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New York Bight
Am. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Lawrence, KS. Special Symposia Vol. 2.
Beardsley, R.C., and W.C. Boicourt. 1981. On estuarine and continental-shelf circulation in the Middle
Atlantic Bight. Pp. 198-234 in B.A. Warren and C. Wunsch, Eds., Evolution of Physical Oceanography.
MTT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Berrien, P. 1996. NMFS, Sandy Hook, NJ. Fish eggs and the microlayer. Personal Communication to
Karen Foster Battelle, Duxbury, MA. February 1996.
Bigelow, J.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Vol.53. Washington, D.C. 577pp.
Bilyard, G.R. 1987. The value of benthic infauna in marine pollution monitoring studies. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 18(ll):581-585.
Boehm, P.O. 1983. Chemical Contaminants in Northeast United States Marine Sediments. Report
prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service. NOAA Technical Report NOS-99. 82pp.
Boehm, P.O., S. Drew, T. Dorsey, N. Moseman, J. Yarko, A. Jeffries, D. Pilson, and D. Feist. 1985.
Organic Pollutants in New York Bight Suspended Particles. Pp. 251-279 in B.H. Ketchum, J.M.
Capuzzo, W.V. Burt, I.W. Duedall, P.K. Park. D.R. Kester, Eds., Wastes in the Ocean, Volume 6. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Boesch, D. F. 1982. Ecosystem Consequences of Alterations of Benthic Community Structure and
Function in the New York Bight Region. Pp.543 - 568 in G.F. Mayer, Ed., Ecological Stress and the New
York Bight: Science and Management. Proceedings of a Symposium on the Ecological Effects of
Environmental Stress, New York, NY, 10-15 June, 1979. Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC.
Boese, EX., and H. Lee E. 1992. Synthesis of Methods to Predict Bioaccumulation of Sediment
Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory — Narragansett,
Narragansett, RL ERL-N Contribution No. N232, September 1992.
Bogan, H. Jr., 1996. New Jersey Charter boat captain. Fishing locations within the Study Area, Personal
Communication to Karen Foster Battelle, Duxbury, MA. March 1996
Bokuneivicz, H. 1989. Behavior of Sand Caps on Subaqueous Dredged-Sediment Disposal Sites.
Pp. 221-229 in D.W. Hood, A. Schoener, and P.K. Park, Eds., Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution,
Vol. 4. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-206
Bopp, R.F., and H.J. Simpson. 1989. Contamination of the Hudson River - The Sediment Record. 1989.
Pp. 401-416 in K. S. Kamlet, Ed., Contaminated Marine Sediment: Assessment and Remediation.
Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediment, National Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Bopp, R.F., HJ. Simpson, S.N. Chillrud, and D.W. Robinson. 1993. Sediment-derived chronologies of
persistent contaminants in Jamaica Bay, New York. Estuaries 16:608-616.
Bopp, R.F., D.W. Robinson, HJ. Simpson, P.E. Biscaye, R.F. Anderson, H. Tong, S.J. Monson, and M.L.
Gross. 1995. Recent sediment and contaminant distributions in the Hudson Shelf Valley. Pp. 61-84 in
A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge
Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA
Technical Report NMFS 124. US Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Bowman, M.J., and L.D. Wunderlich. 1977. Hydrographic Properties. New York Bight Atlas
Monograph 1. Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program, New York Bight Project and New York
Sea Grant Institute. Albany, NY. 78pp.
Bowman, R.E., and W.L. Michaels. 1984. Food of Seventeen Species of Northwest Atlantic Fish. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Fisheries Center. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-28. 183pp.
Brandsma, M.G., and D.J. Divoky. 1976. Development of Models for Prediction of Short-Term Fate of
Dredged Material Discharge in the Estuarine Environmental. Contract Report No. CR-D-76-5. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station (USAGE WES), Vicksburg, MS.
Brosnan, T.M., A.I. Stubin, V. Sapiena, and Y.G. Ren. 1995. Recent Changes in Metals Loading to New
York Harbor from New York City Water Pollution Control Plant. Pp. 657-666 in C.P. Huang , Ed.,
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference. Technomic Publishing Co.,
Inc., Lancaster, PA.
Brosnan, T.M., and P.C. Heckler. 1996. The benefits of CSO control. Water Environment and
Technology 8(8):75-79.
Brown, B., and J. Neff. 1993. Bioavailability of Sediment-Bound Contaminants to Marine Organisms.
Rept. to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Pollution Program Office.
U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Related. Services Agreement. Contract DE-
AC06-76RLO 0830. Rept. No. PNL-8761. Battelle Memorial Institute, Marine Sciences Laboratory,
Sequim,WA. September 1993. 442pp.
Brungs, W.A., and D.I. Mount. 1978. Introduction to a discussion of the use of aquatic toxicity tests for
evaluation of the effects of toxic substances. Pp. 15-26 in J. Cairns, Jr., K.L. Dickson, and A.W. Maki,
Eds., Estimating the Hazard of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life, ASTM STP 657. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Burke, V.J., SJ. Morreale, and E.A. Standora. 1994. Diet of Kemp's Ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, in New
York Waters. Fish Bull. 92:26-32.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-207
Butman, B., M. Noble, and D.A. Folger. 1979. Long-Term Observations of Bottom Current and Bottom
Sediment Movement on the Mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf. J. of Geophysical Research
84(C4):1187-1205.
Cairns, J., Jr., K.L. Dickson, and A.W. Maki. 1978. Estimating the Hazards of Chemical Substances to
Aquatic Life. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM Special Publication 657. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 278 pp.
Caracciolo, J.V., and F.W. Steimle, Jr. 1983. An Atlas of the Distribution and Abundance of Dominant
Benthic Invertebrates in the New York Bight Apex with Reviews of their Life Histories. U.S. DepL of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
NOAA Tech. Rept. SSRF-766. 58pp.
Carr, A.F., and J. Mortimer. 1980. Survey and Preliminary Census of Marine Turtle Populations in the
Western Atlantic. Final Report, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Contract No. 03-79-DO8-0025.
Caspe, R. 1995. Historical Background of the 12-Mile Dumpsite. Pp. 9-12 in A.L. Studholme, I.E.
O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site.
12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Champ, M.A., and P.K. Park, Eds., Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 3. Marine Waste
Management: Science and Policy. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malalbar, FL. 341 pp.
Chang, S., F.W. Steimle, R.N. Reid, S.A. Fromm, V.S. Zdanowicz, and R.A. Pikanowski. 1992.
Association of benthic macrofauna with habitat types and quality in the New York Bight. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 89:237-251.
Chapman, P., H. Allan, K. Godtfredsen, and M. Z'Graggen. 1996. Evaluation of bioaccumulation factors
in regulating metals. Environmental Science & Technology 30:448A^52A.
Charles, J.B., and J. Muramoto. 1991. Assessment of Contaminants in Sediment and Biota at the Mud
Dump Site, New York Bight, October 1990. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA Contract No. 68-C8-0061 (WA1-20). 131 pp.
Clark, D., and R. Kasal. 1994. Habitat value of offshore dredged material berms for fisheries resources.
Pp. 938-946 in B.C. McNair, Jr, Ed., Dredging '94. Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Clausner, J.E., N.W. Scheffher, J.Z. Gailini, and M.C. Allison. 1996b. Frequency Prediction for Vertical
Erosion of Dredged Material Mounds in the Mud Dump Site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cobb, J.S., and B. F. Phillips, Eds. 1980. Chapter 1-General Biology. In The Biology and Management
of Lobsters. Volume I. Physiology and Behavior. Academic Press, New York, NY. 463pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter3, Affected Environment Page 3-208
Cohen, E., and F.B. Bang, Eds. 1979. Biomedical Applications of the Horseshoe Crab (Limulidae):
Proceedings of a symposium held at the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, October, 1978.
Alan R. Liss., New York, NY. 688 pp.
Colton, J.B., Jr., W.G. Smith, A.W. Kendall, P.L. Berrien, and M.P. Fahay. 1979. Principal spawning
areas and times of marine fishes, Cape Sable to Cape Hatteras. Fish. Bull. 76(4):911-915.
Commito, J.A., and W.G. Ambrose, Jr. 1985. Predatory infauna and trophic complexity in soft-bottom
communities. Pp. 323-333 in P.E. Gibbs, Ed., Proceedings of the Nineteenth European Marine Biology
Symposium, Plymouth, Devon, U.K., September 16-21,1984. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
U.K.
Conlan, K. E. 1994. Amphipod crustaceans and environmental disturbance: a review. J. of Natural
History 28:519-554.
Connell, D.W. 1989. Biomagnification by aquatic organisms - a proposal. Chemosphere 19:1573-1584.
Conner, W.G., D. Aurand, M. Leslee, J. Slaughter, A. Amur, and F.T. Ravenscroft. 1979. Disposal of
Dredged Material within the NY District. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District 180pp.
Cook, P.M., RJ. Erickson, R.L. Spehar, S.P. Bradbury, and G.T. Ankly. 1993. Interim report on the
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risk to Aquatic life and Associated Wildlife. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN. Revised (draft)
January 26,1993.
Corso, W. 1996. USAGE NYD. Under sea cables. Personal communication to Kurt Buchholz, Battelle,
Duxbury, MA. January 1996
Csanady, G.T. 1973. Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment. Reidel, New York, NY. 248pp.
Dave, E.G. 1992. Predation by short-finned squid on Atlantic cod and other fish at Newfoundland,
Canada. International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), C.M. 1992/K:32. 11 pp.
Davis, T.H. 1994. Birds of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park
Service, Gateway National Recreation Area, Brooklyn, NY. Pamphlet. 4 pp.
Dawson, M. 1996. Associates of Cape Cod. Habitat, spawning, feeding information on horseshoe crabs.
Personal Communication to Karen Foster Battelle, Duxbury, MA. January 1996
Dayal, R., M.G. Heaton, M. Fuhrmann, and I.W. Duedall. 1981. A Geochemical and Sedimentological
Study of the Dredged Material Deposit in the New York Bight National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Boulder, CO. NOAA Technical Memorandum
OMPA-3. 174 pp.
Dayal, R., M.G. Heaton, M. Fuhrmann, and I.W. Duedall. 1983. A Geochemical Study of the Dredged-
Material Deposit in the New York Bight Pp. 123-150 in D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, I. Duedall, P.K.
Park, Eds., Wastes in the Ocean, Volume 2. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-209
Deane,. 1996. NJ Sandy Hook Pilots Association. Personal communication to Kurt Buchholz, Battelle,
Duxbury, MA. April 1996.
Dickson, K.L., Giesy, J.P., R. Parrish, and L. Wolfe. 1994. Summary and Conclusions. Pp. 221-230 in
J.L. Hamelink, P.F. Landrum, H.L. Bergman, and W.H. Benson, Eds., Bioavailability: Physical, Chemical,
and Biological Interactions. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Pellston Workshop, August 17-22,1992,
PeUston, ML Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Dragos, P., and D. Lewis. 1993. Plume Tracking/Model Verification Project. Report prepared by Battelle
Ocean Sciences for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0105.
62 pp. + appendix.
Dragos, P., and C. Peven. 1994. Plume Tracking of Dredged Material Containing Dioxin. Draft Final
Report prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, New York, NY. EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134. 49 pp. + appendix.
Draxler, A.FJ. 1995. Changes in the sediment biogeochemistry resulting from cessation of sewage sludge
dumping in the New York Bight. Pp.133-145 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds.,
Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium,
Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Seattle, WA.
Draxler, A.F.J., P. Hauge, and A.D. Deshpande. 1991. Organic contaminants in hepatic tissues of lobster
and flounder at the New York Bight 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dumpsite: 1987-1988. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Fisheries Service, Woods Hole,
MA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-83.
Duce, R.A., G.T. Wallace, Jr, and B.J. Ray. 1976. Atmospheric Trace Metals over the New York Bight.
NOAA Technical Report 361-MESA 4. Department of Commerce, Boulder, CO. 17pp.
Durski, S. 1996. Detection of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Plume by Satellite Remote Sensing. Bull. NJ.
Acad. Sci. 41(1) Special Issue:15-20.
Ecker R.M., and J.P. Downing. 1987. Review of State-Of-The-Art Modeling of Ocean-Dumped Wastes.
Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment No. 9. 90pp.
Eckert, S.A., D.W. Nellis, K.L. Eckert, and G.L. Kooyman. 1986. Diving patterns of two leatherback sea
turtles (Dermochelys coriaced) during internesting intervals at Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
42: 81-388.
Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson, Eds. 1989. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop
on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232. 306 pp.
Ecklund,A. 1988. Fishes Inhabiting Hard Bottom Reef Areas In the Middle Atlantic Bight. Seasonality
of Species Composition, Catch Rates, and Reproduction. Electric Power Partners Program (EPPP)
Monograph Series. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Lewes, DE. 98pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-210
Engler, R.M., and D.B. Mathis. 1989. Dredged Material Disposal Strategies. Pp. 53-74 in M.A. Champ
and P.K. Park, Eds., Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 3. Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Company, Malalbar, EL.
Ennis, G.P. 1973. Food, feeding, and condition of lobsters, Homarus americanus, throughout the
seasonal cycle in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland. /. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:1905-1909.
EPA. 1993. Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Technical Workshop,
PCBs in Fish Tissue, May 10-11,1993. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/823-R-93-
003. Washington D.C.
EPA. 1996. STORET Dissolved Oxygen Data for the New York Bight. Transferred from EPA Region n
to C. Hunt, Battelle, Duxbury MA, April 1996.
EPA Region 2. 1982. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the New York Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Criteria and
Standards Division, Washington, D.C. August 1982. 178 pp. + appendices.
EPA Region 2. 1991. Evaluation of Trace-metal Levels in Ambient Waters and Discharges to New
York/New Jersey Harbor for Waste Load Allocation. Final data report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA. Contract No. 68-C3-0105. Work
Assignment No. 2-202.
EPA Region 2. 1995. Public Announcement J.M. Fox, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY, February 3,1995. 2 pp. + attachments.
EPA Region 2. 1996a. Public Announcement. J.M. Fox, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2,
New York City, NY. September 11,1996. 2 pp + attachment.
EPA Region HI. 1992a. Mid-Atlantic near Coastal Water Program Statistical Analysis of Eutrophication:
Chlorophyll and Nutrients Trends 1987-1990. Final report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Water, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division and EPA Region m, New York, NY.
Contract No. 68-C8-0105, Battelle Ocean Sciences Duxbury, MA.
EPA/USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal. Testing Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C. EPA-503/8-91/001. February 1991, 219 pp. + appendices.
EPA Region 2/USACE NYD (New York District). 1992. Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged
Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District and
Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, New York, NY. Draft release December 1992, Revision 1:
June 1994. 46 pp + appendices.
EPA/DOT/USACE. 1996. Letter to New Jersey and New York U.S. Congresspersons, signed by Carol
M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Frederico F. Pena, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Transportation; and Togo D. West, Jr. Secretary of U.S. Department of the Army. July 24,
1996. 4pp.
Evans, P.G.H. 1987. The Natural History of Whales and Dolphins. Christopher Helms, NY. 343pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-211
Fauchald, K. 1977. The Polychaete Worms — Definitions and Keys to the Orders, Families and Genera.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series. Los Angeles, CA. 28:1-190.
Fedosh, M.S., and J.C. Munday, Jr. 1982. Satellite analysis of estuarine plume behavior. Pp. 464-469 in
Oceans '82 Conference Record. Conference sponsored by Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C.,
September 20-22,1982. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Council on Ocean Engineering,
New York, NY.
Flimlin, J. 1996. New Jersey State Sea Grant. Maraculture. Personal communication to Kurt Buchholz,
Battelle, Duxbury, MA. April 1996.
Foreman, Y.M. 1983. Feeding Spectrum of Food Relationships of Short-finned Squid (Illex illecebrosus,
Lesueur 1821). North Atlantic Fisheries Organization SCR Doc. 83/K/82. 22 pp.
Fowler, J., J. Sprague, and D. Toups. 1995. Dredged Material-Filled Geotextile Containers.
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes. EEDP-05-01. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 14p.
Frankel, G. 1960. Lethal high temperatures for three marine invertebrates, Limulus polyphemus, Littorina
littorea, and Pagurus longicarpus. Oikos 11:171-182.
Fredette, T.J. 1994. Disposal Site Capping Management: New Haven Harbor. Pp. 1142-1151 in E. Clark
McNair, Jr., Ed., Dredging '94. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and
Dredged Material Placement American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Freeland, G.L., and Merrill, G.F. 1976. Deposition and Erosion in the Dredge Spoil and Other New York
Bight Dumping Areas. Pp. 936-947 in P. Krenkel, J. Harrison, and J. Burlick, Eds., Proceedings of the
Specialty Conference on Dredging and its Environmental Effects, Mobile, Alabama, January 26-28,1976.
American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, NY.
Freeland, G.L., and D.J.P. Swift. 1978. Surficial Sediments. New York Bight Atlas Monograph 10.
Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. 93 pp.
Freeland, G.L., DJ.P. Swift, and R.A. Young. 1979. Mud Deposits Near the New York Bight Dumpsites:
Origin and Behavior. Pp. 73-95 in H.D. Palmer and M.G. Gross (Eds.), Ocean Dumping and Marine
Pollution. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
Freeland, G.L., R.A. Young, G. Drapeau, T.L. Clarke, and B.L. Benggio. 1983. Sediment Cap Stability
Study: New York Dredged Material Dumpsite. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
York District and Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Prepared under Agreement 110. NYD 80-124(C).
Friar, W., R.G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys coriacea: warm
turtle from cold water. Cited by Goff and Lien (1988) op. ciL
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-212
Gaines, J,. and R. Reid. 1995. Reduction in Clostridium perfringens and fecal coliform bacteria in the
shellfish closure area of the New York Bight. Pp. 227-232 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C.
Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite
Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Gaskin, D.E. 1984. The harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (L.): Regional populations, status, and
information on direct and indirect catches. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 34:569-586.
Gaskin, D.E. 1992. The status of the harbour porpoise. Canandian Field-Naturalist 106:36-54.
Gibbs, P.E., Ed. 1985. Proceedings of the Nineteenth European Marine Biology Symposium, Plymouth,
Devon, U.K., September 16-21,1984. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 541 pp.
Glenn, S.M., and W.D. Grant. 1987. A suspended sediment stratification correction for combined wave
and current flows. /. of Geophysical Research 92(C8):8244-8264.
GNRA NPS (Gateway National Recreation Area, National Park Service). 1996. Program Activity
Information for Visitors. Summer 1996. GNRA, Floyd Bennett Field Headquarters, Bldg 69, Brooklyn,
NY. 17pp.
Gobas, F.A.P.C., J.R. McCorquodale, and G.D. Haffner. 1993. Intestinal Absorption and
Biomagnification of Organochlorines. Environmental Toxicology Chem. 12:567-576.
Grant, W.D., and O.S. Madsen. 1979. Combined wave and current interaction with a rough bottom. J. of
Geophysical Research 54:1797-1808.
Greig, R.A., and D.R. Wenzloff. 1977. Trace metals in finfish from the New York Bight and Long Island
Sound. Marine Pollution Bulletin 8:198-200.
Greig, R.A., D.R. Wenzloff, A. Adams, B. Nelson, and C. Shelpuk. L977. Trace metals in organisms
from ocean disposal sites of the Middle Eastern United States. Arch. Environ. Centime. Toxicol.
6:395-409.
Gross, M.G., Ed. 1976. Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New York Bight. Proceedings of the
Symposium at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 3-5,1975. The
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc., Lawrence, KS. Special Symposia, Volume 2.
Grosslein, M.D,. and T.R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish Distribution. Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA)
New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. MESA New York Bight Project. New York Sea Grant Institute,
Albany, NY. 182pp.
Halgren, B. NJDEP. Information on distribution (winter, summer) and relative abundance offish.
Personal Communication to Karen Foster Battelle, Duxbury, MA. December 1995
Hamelink, J.L., P.F. Landrum, H.L. Bergman, and W.H. Benson, Eds. 1994. Bioavailability: Physical,
Chemical, and Biological Interactions. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Pellston Workshop, August 17-22,
1992, Pellston, ML Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 239 pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-213
Han, G.C. and D.A. Mayer. 1981. Current structure on the Long Island Inner Shelf. J. of Geophysical
Research. 86(C12):4205- 4214.
Hanson, A.K., Jr., and J.G. Quinn. 1983. The distribution of dissolved and organically complexed copper
and nickel in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Canadian J. Fish. Aquatic Sciences 40(Supplement 2):151-161.
Harris, W.H. 1976. Spatial and temporal variations in the sedimentary grain-size facies and the sediment
heavy metal ratios in the New York Bight apex. Pp. 102-123 in Gross, M.G. (Ed.), Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and the New York Bight, Special Symposia, Volume 2. American Society of Limnology
and Oceanography, Lawrence, Kansas.
Haas, G. 1996. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
Hauge, P.M., TJ. Belton, B.E. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, and R.T. Mueller. 1994. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF in blue crabs and American lobsters from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and the New York
Bight. Bull, of Environ.Contamination and Toxicology 52:734-741.
Helser, T. 1996. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
Hendrickson, L.C., J. Brodziak, M. Basson, and P. Rago. 1996. Assessment of the short-finned squid
stock, Illex illecebrosus, in the Northwest Atlantic for 1993. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. NEFSC Reference
Document In press. 27pp.
Hendrickson, L. 1996. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
Kenwood, T.A. 1987. Movements and seasonal changes in loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta,
aggregations in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida (1987-84). Biol. Conserv. 40:91-202.
Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of
Mexico. Pp. 447-453 in K.A. Bjomdal, Ed., Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. The Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 615 pp.
Hillman, R.E., MJ. Moore, C.S. Peven, D.A. Lewis, L. Hanson, C.D. Hunt, and J. Stegeman. 1994.
1993 Annual fish and shellfish report. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality
Department, Technical Report Series No. 94-9. Boston, MA. 195pp.
Hillman, R.E. and C.S. Peven. 1995. 1994 Annual fish and shellfish report. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Department, Technical Report Series No. 95-5. Boston, MA.
195pp.
Hood, D.W. A. Schoener, and P.K. Park, Eds. 1989. Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 4.
Scientific Monitoring Strategies for Ocean Waste Disposal. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company,
Malabar, FL. 286pp.
Huang, C.P., Ed. 1995. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference,
August 7-10,1994, Univ. of Delaware, Newark, DE. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA.
771pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-214
Hughes, R.G. 1985. A Hypothesis Concerning the Influence of Competition and Stress on the Structure
of Marine Benthic Communities. Pp. 391-400. In: P.E. Gibbs (ed.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth
European Marine Biology Symposium, Plymouth, Devon, U.K., September 16-21, 1984. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Hunt, C.D. 1979. The role of phytoplankton and particulate organic carbon in trace metal deposition in
Long Island Sound, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, Ct. 282p.
Hunt, C.D., D. Pabst and D. Redford. 1995. Waste Disposal at the 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal
Sewage Sludge Dumpsite: Historical perspective and overview. J. Mar. Emir. Eng. In press.
HydroQual. 1989a. Assessment of Pollutant Inputs to the New York Bight. Final report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. New York Bight Restoration Program.
HydroQual. 1989b. Assessment of Pollutant Fate in the New York Bight. Final report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. New York Bight Restoration Program.
JBR Associates, Inc. 1984. New York Bight 1983 Summer Survey. Preliminary chemical data report
submitted to Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington
D.C.
Jeffries, H.P. 1966. Partitioning of the estuarine environment by two species of Cancer. Ecology
47:477-481.
Johnson, I.G. 1966. The Friction Factor for a Current Superimposed by Waves. ProgressReportNo.il,
Coastal Engineering Laboratory and Hydraulic Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 12pp.
Kamlet, K.S., Ed. 1985. Contaminated Marine Sediment: Assessment and Remediation. Committee on
Contaminated Marine Sediment, Marine Board, Committee on Engineering and Technical Support,
National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 493 pp.
Katona, S.K., V. Rough, and D.T. Richardson. 1993. A Field Guide to Whales, Porpoises, and Seals from
Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Fourth edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D;C. 316 pp.
Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-
1986. VA J. Sci. 38:329-336.
Kelly, J.R. 1993. Nutrients and Massachusetts Bay: an Update of Eutrophication Issues. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Department, Technical Report Series No. 93-17,
Boston, MA. 119pp.
Kelly, J.R. 1995. Nutrients Issues Update 1995: Metabolism in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays, MA (USA) During 1992-1994. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental
Quality Department, Technical Report Series No. 95-19, Boston, MA. 119pp.
Kelly, J.R. and J. Turner. 1995. Water Column Monitoring for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay: Annual
Report for 1994. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Department,
Technical Report Series No. 95-17, Boston, MA. 163pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-215
Kennedy, V.S., Ed. 1984. The Estuary as a Filter. Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial International
Estuarine Research Federation Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, October 23-26, 1983. Academic Press,
Orlando, FL. 511pp.
Kenney, R.D. and H. E. Winn. 1986. Cetacean high-use habitats of the northeast United States
continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 84(2):345-357.
Kester,D.R., B.H. Ketchum, I. Duedall, P.K. Park, Eds. 1983. Wastes in the Ocean, Volume 2: Dredged
Material Disposal in the Ocean. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 299 pp.
Ketchum, B.H. 1951. The exchange of fresh and salt waters in tidal estuaries. /. Mar. Res. 10:18-38.
Ketchum, B.H., and D.J. Keen. 1955. The accumulation of river water over the continental shelf between
Cape Cod and Chesapeake Bay. Deep Sea Res. Suppl. 3:346-357.
Ketchum, B.H., J.M. Capuzzo, W.V. Burt, I.W. Duedall, P.K. Park. D.R. Kester Eds. 1985. Wastes in
the Ocean, Volume 6: Nearshore Waste Disposal. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 512 pp.
Kirkley, J.E., and W.D. DuPaul. 1991. Temporal variations in spawning behavior of sea scallop,
Placopecten maagellanicus (Gmelin, 1791), in the Mid-Atlantic Resource Area. J. Shell. Res.
10(2):389-394.
Klinkhammer, G.P., and M.L. Bender. 1981. Trace metal distributions in the Hudson River Estuary.
Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 12:629-643.
Kraus, N. C. 1991. Mobile, Alabama, Field Data Collection Project, 18 August - 2 September 1989.
Report 1: Dredged Material Plume Survey Data Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dredging
Research Program. US ACE Tech. Report No. DRP-91-3. Washington, D.C.
Krenkle, P.A., J. Harrison, and J. Burlick, Eds. 1976. Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on
Dredging and its Environmental Effects, Mobile, Alabama, January 26-28,1976. American Society of
Civil Engineers. New York, NY. 1037pp.
Krom, M.D., K.K. Turekian, and N.H. Cutshall. 1985. Fate of Metals in the Sediments of the New York
Bight, Chapter 9. Pp. 209-234 in B.H. Ketchum, J.M. Capuzzo, W.V. Burt, I.W. Duedall, P.K. Park.
D.R. Kester, Eds., Wastes in the Ocean, Volume 6. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Krouse, J.S. 1972. Some life history aspects of the rockcrab, Cancer irroratus, in the Gulf of Maine.
/. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29:1479-1482.
Krouse, J.S. 1980. Distribution and catch composition of jonah crab, Cancer borealis, and rock crab,
Cancer irroratus, near Boothbay Harbor, Maine. Fish.Bull. U.S. 77:685-693.
Lange, A.M.T. 1981. Evidence of summer spawning oflllex illecebrosus OLesueur) off the northeastern
U.S.A. North Atlantic Fisheries Organization SCR Doc. 81/VJ/33.
Lange, A.M.T. and M.P. Sissenwine. 1980. Biological considerations relevant to the management of
squid (loligo pealei and illex illecebrosus) of the Northwest Atlantic. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(7-8)23-38.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment __ _ Page 3-216
Langton, R.W., and R.E. Bowman. 1980. Food of Fifteen Northwest Atlantic Gadiform Fishes. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Washington, D.C. NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS SSRF-740. 21 pp.
Langton, R.W., J.B. Pearce, and J.A. Gibson, Eds. 1994. Selected Living Resources, Habitat Conditions,
and Human Perturbations of the Gulf of Maine. U.S. DepL of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-106. 70 pp.
Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980:290-295.
Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of the Western
North Atlantic. A Guide to Their Identification. U.S. Dept. Of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS CIRC-396.
176 pp.
LeBlanc, G.A. 1995. Trophic differences in the bioconcentration of chemicals: implications in assessing
biomagnification. Environ. Science and Tech. 29:154-160.
Lee, H., n, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.T. Specht, and R.C. Randall. 1989. Guidance Manual:
Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Test. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Ecosystem
Branch, Bioaccumulation Team, Newport, OR. 163 pp.
Lewis, D.A., D. Shea, B.E. Buxton, and C.D. Hunt. 1989. EPA New York Bight Sediment Survey
Review 1982-1986. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. Battelle Ocean
Sciences, Duxbury, MA. 71 p.
Limpus, C.J. 1984. A benthic feeding record from neritic waters for the leathery turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea. Copeia 1984:552-553.
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-sorbed Contaminants
Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. U. S. Dept. Of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Tech. Memorandum NOS OMA 52. 175 pp. + appendices.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects
with ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management
Macy, W.K., EL 1982. Feeding Patterns of the long-finned squid, Loligo pealei, in New England Waters.
Biol. Bull. 162:28-38.
Malone, T.C. 1977. Plankton Systematics and Distribution. Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA)
Program, MESA New York Bight Project, New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. 45 pp.
Malone, T.C. 1984. Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loading and Assimilation Capacity of the Hudson River
Estuarine System, USA. Pp. 291-311 in V.S.Kennedy, Ed., The Estuary as a Filter. Proceedings of the
Seventh Biennial International Estuarine Research Federation Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, October
23-26, 1983. Academic Press, Orlando, EL.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-217
Manning, J.P., L.Y. Oey, D. Packer, J. Vitaliano, T.W. Finneran, K.W. You, and S. Fromm. 1994.
Observations of bottom currents and estimates of resuspended sediment transport at the New York Bight
12-Mile Dumpsite. J. of Geophysical Research 99(C5):10211-10239.
Mayer, D.A. 1982. The structure of circulation: MESA physical oceanographic studies in New York
Bight, 2. J. of Geophysical Research 87(C12):9579-9588.
Mayer, D.A., D.V. Hansen, and D.A. Ortman. 1979. Long-term current and temperature observations on
the Middle Atlantic Shelf. J. of Geophysical Research 84(C4):1776-1792.
Mayer, D.A., G.C. Han, and D.V. Hansen. 1982. Circulation in the Hudson Shelf Valley: MESA Physical
Oceanographic Studies in New York Bight, 1. J. of Geophysical Research 87(C12):9563-9578.
Mayer, G.F., Ed. 1982. Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management.
Proceedings of a Symposium on the Ecological Effects of Environmental Stress, New York, NY, 10-15
June, 1979. Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC. 715 pp.
McCall, P.L., and M J.S. Tevesz, Eds., Animal-Sediment Relations: The Biogenic Alteration of Sediments.
Plenum Press, New York, NY. 336 pp.
McDowell, S. 1995. Oceanographic Measurements and Surveys Conducted in the New York Region.
SAIC presentation, November 7,1995 sponsored by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District -
Operations Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, and USAGE Waterways
Experiment Station - Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC).
McFarland, V.A., C.H. Lutz, and FJ. Reilly. 1994. Bioaccumulation Data and Analysis for Selected
Contaminants in Sediments and Biota of the New York Bight Apex Mud Dump Reference Site. USAGE
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Final Report prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer
District, New York, NY. 65 pp + appendices.
McNair, E.C., Jr., Ed. 1994. Dredging'94. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Dredging and Dredged Material Placement, Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL, November 13-16,
1994. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 2 vol.
Michaels, W.L., B.P. Hayden, and R.E. Bowman. 1986. Stomach Content Data of Marine Fish Collected
from NEFC Surveys during 1977-1980; Data Report of Miscellaneous Species — Part EL U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Fisheries Center, Laboratory Reference No. 75-3. Woods Hole, MA. 101 pp.
Minasian, S.M., K.C. Balcomb m, and L. Foster. 1984. The World's Whales. The Complete Illustrated
Guide. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. 224pp.
MMS. 1991. Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management. Comprehensive
Program 1992 - 1997. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume I. OCS EIS/EA. U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Minerals Management Service, Hemdon, VA.
MMS. 1996. U.S. Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOT). Request for
Information (RFDM), Federal Outer Continental Self Lease Sale for Sand and Gravel Resources off New
Jersey (Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 99, p. 25501). 4
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment ^ Page 3-218
MMSC. 1996. Marine Mammals Stranding Center. Stranding of pigmy whales. Personal communication
to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA. September 1996
Morreale, S.J., A. Meylan, and B. Baumann. 1989. Sea turtles in Long Island Sound, New York: An
Historical Perspective. Pp. 121-123 in S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson, Eds., Proceedings of
the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232.
Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora, 1992. Habitat Use and Feeding Activity of Juvenile Kemp's Ridleys in
Inshore Waters of the Northeastern U.S. Pp. 75-77 in X. Salmon and J. Wyneken, Eds., Proceedings of the
Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-302.
Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1993. Occurrence, Movement and Behavior of the Kemp's Ridley and
Other Sea Turtles in New York Waters. Report to the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Retum-a-Gift Wildlife Program, New York, NY. Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation,
Hampton Bays, NY. 70pp.
Morse, W. 1996 NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Sandy Hook, NJ. Presence offish
eggs in the microlayer. Personal Communication to Karen Battelle, Duxbury, MA. February 1996
Mountain, D.G. and L. Arlen. 1995. Oceanographic Conditions in the Inner New York Bight During the
12-Mile Dumpsite Study. Pp. 21-32 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of
the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long
Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle,
WA
Murawski, S. 1996. NMFS Woods Hole, MA. Habitat, spawning, feeding information on surf clams and
sea scallops. Personal Communication to Karen Foster Battelle, Duxbury, MA. January 1996.
Murray, J. 1995. AT&T Cable Protection, Atlantic Desk, Morristown, NJ. Commercial cables. Personal
Communication to Kurt Buchholz Battelle, Duxbury, MA. December 1995
National Park Service. 1985. Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of
Historic Places. National Register Bulletin 20. U.S. Department of Interior, Interagency Resources
Division. Washington, D.C.
Neal, W., G. Henry, and S. H. Green. 1978. Evaluation of the Submerged Discharge of Dredged Material
Slurry During Pipeline Dredged Operations. Tech. Report D-78-44. United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Neff, J.M. 1984. Bioaccumulation of organic micropollutants from sediments and suspended particulates
by aquatic animals. Frescnius Z. Anal Chem. 319:132-136.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 1994. Report of the 17th Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop. Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC). Consensus Summary of Assessments.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 94-06. Woods Hole, MA. 124pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-219
NEFSC. 1995a. 1993 Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Commercial Weighout Database. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, Woods Holes, MA.
NEFSC. 1995b. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Food Habits database (1986 -1990). National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, Woods Holes, MA.
Newman, M.C., and C.H. Jagoe. 1994. Ligands and the Bioavailability of Metals in Aquatic
Environments. Pp. 39-61 in J.L. Hamelink, P.P. Landrum, H.L. Bergman, and W.H. Benson, Eds.,
Bioavailability. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Interactions. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Pellston
Workshop, August 17-22,1992, Pellston, ML Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 1994. Locations of New Jersey Reefs,
NJDEP informational leaflet. Trenton, NJ. 4pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1988. Northeast Research and Management Plan for the
Ridley Sea Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Management Division, Habitat Conservation
Branch, Gloucester, MA. 6 pp.
NMFS. 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Report prepared by
the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
105 pp.
NMFS. 1994. Endangered Species Act Biennial Report to Congress. Status of Recovery Programs.
January, 1992 - June, 1994. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. 92 pp.
NMFS. 1995. Data produced by the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. 1981-1994. Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 1996. Letter from A.A. Rosenburg, Ph.D., Regional Director, U.S. Dept. Of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Division,
Gloucester, MA, to Robert Hargrove, Chief, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Strategic
Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch, New York, NY, May 8,1996. 1 p.
NMFS & USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of
Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 64 pp.
NNTC (Northeast Nongame Technical Committee). 1994. Legal Categories of Rare Species in the
Northeastern States. Unpublished document. 7pp.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1980. Fisheries of the United States, 1979.
Current Fishery Statistics No. 8000. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C. 131 pp.
NOAA. 1982a. Contaminants in New York Bight and Long Island Sound Sediments and Demersal
Species, and Contaminant Effects on Benthos, Summer 1980. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
F/NEC-16. Northeast Monitoring Program. Woods Hole, MA. 97pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-220
NOAA. 1982b. Fisheries of the United States, 1981. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8200. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 131pp.
NOAA. 1984. Fisheries of the United States, 1983. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8320. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 119pp.
NOAA. 1986. Fisheries of the United States, 1985. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8380. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 131pp.
NOAA. 1988a. Characterization of the Middle Atlantic Water Management Unit of the Northeast
Regional Action Plan. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center. Woods Hole, MA. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS/NEC-56. 322pp.
NOAA. 1988b. Fisheries of the United States, 1987. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8700. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 115 pp.
NOAA. 1990. Fisheries of the United States, 1989. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8900. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. lllpp.
NOAA. 1991. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Management Plan. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C. 238 pp.
NOAA. 1992. Fisheries of die United States, 1991. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9100. U.S.
Departmentof Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 113pp.
NOAA. 1994. Fisheries of the United States, 1993. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9300. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 121 pp.
NOAA. 1995a. Capping Policy. Memorandum to the Co-Chairs of the Mud Dump Site Closure Working
Group from C.T. Mantzaris, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Region, Gloucester, MA. June 16,1995. 2 pp.
NOAA. 1995b. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1994. U.S. DepL
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. 140 pp.
NOAA. 1995c. Our Living Oceans — Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources, 1995. U.S.
Dept. Of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-19. 160pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChapterB, Affected Environment Page 3-22]
NOAA. 1995d. Fisheries of the United States, 1994. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9400. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service. Washington, D.C. 113 pp.
NOAA. 1995e. Chemical Contaminant Levels in Flesh of Four Species of Recreational Fish from the
New York Bight Apex. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Highlands, NJ.
NOAA. 1996. Contaminant Levels in Muscle and Hepatic Tissues of Lobsters from the New York Bight
Apex. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Highlands, NJ. May 1996. 72 pp. + appendices.
NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles — Causes and Prevention. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp.
NYC (New York City). 1993. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey: Executive Summary 1993. New
York City, Department of Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 20 pp.
NYC. 1994. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey: Executive Summary 1994. New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 25 pp.
NYC. 1997. 1995 New York Harbor Water Quality Survey: Executive Summary. New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 40 pp.
NYDEC (New York Department of Environmental Conservation). 1996. Long Island Artificial Reefs,
Map and Loran Guide. Setauket, NY. 5 pp.
NYSOPRHP (New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation). 1996. New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, 1996 Guide to New York State Parks and
Historic Sites. Albany, NY. 23 pp.
O'Connor, J.M. and S.G. O'Connor. 1983. Evaluation of the 1980 Capping Operations at the
Experimental Mud Dumpsite, New York Bight Apex. Technical Report D-83-3 to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 78 pp.
O'Connor, J.M., and M. Moese. 1984. Distribution of Contaminants in Experimentally Capped Dredged
Material Deposits. Final report to the Research Foundation of the State University of New York, New
York University Medical Center, NY.
OORF (Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation). 1996. Kimberley Durham. Pers. Comm. Hampton Bays,
New York. (Note: OORF name changed effective November 1,1996 to River Foundation for Marine
Research and Preservation)
O'Reilly, J., L Katz, A.FJ. Draxler. 1995. Changes in the Abundance and Distribution of Clostridium
Perfringens, a Microbial Indicator, Related to Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping in the New York
Bight Pp. 113-132 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. OHeiUy, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of
Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June,
1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-222
Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda, and A.D. Martin. 1974. Seasonal Dispersal and Habitat Selection of Gunner,
Tautogolabrus adspersus, and Young Tautog, Tautoga onitis, in Fire Island Inlet, Long Island, New York.
Fish. Bull. 77(1)^55-261.
Overholtz, W.J., and J.R. Nicolas. 1979. Apparent feeding by the fin whale and humpback whale on the
American sand lance, Ammodytes americanus, in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 77:285-287.
Pabst, D. 1996. USEPA Region 2. Information on field observations in January 1996 Study Area Survey.
Personal communication to Carlton Hunt, Battelle, Duxbury, MA. January, 1996.
Pacheco, A.L., and J.C. Rugg. 1995. Disease prevalence of inner New York Bight winter flounder,
Plueronectes americanus collected during the 12-Mile Dumpsite Study, 1986-1989. Pp. 195-202 in A.L.
Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at
the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report
NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Packer, D., T. Finneran, I. Arlen, R. Kock, S. Fromm, J. Finn, S.A. Fromm, A.F.J. Draxler. 1995.
Fundamental and Mass Properties of Surficial Sediments in the Inner New York Bight and Responses to
the Abatement of Sewage Sludge Dumping. Pp. 155-170 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C.
Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite
Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Palermo, M.R. 199la. Design Requirements for Capping. Dredging Research Program, Tech. Note DRP-
5-03. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. February 1991. 14
pp.
Palermo, M.R. 1991b. Site Selection Considerations for Capping. Dredging Research Program, Tech.
Note DRP-5-04. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
November 1991. 8pp.
Palermo, M.R. 1991c. Equipment and Placement Techniques for Capping. Dredging Research Program,
Tech. Note DRP-5-05. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
November 1991. 14pp.
Palermo, M.R., T. Fredette, and R.E. Randell. 1992. Monitoring Considerations for Capping. Dredging
Research Program, Tech. Note DRP-5-07. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. July 1992. 12 pp.
Palmer, H.D., and M.G. Gross, Eds. 1979. Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution. Dowden, Hutchinson
& Ross, Stroudsburg, PA. 268 pp.
Panamerican. 1997. Cultural Assessment of Wrecks in the Potential Expansion Area for the Mud Dump
Site in the New York Bight Apex. Draft Report to Battelle Ocean Sciences under contact to the U.S. EPA,
Region 2. 58 pp. + appendix.
Parker, J.P., and R.M. Valente. 1987. Long-term Sand Cap Stability: New York Dredged Material
Disposal Site. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. Science Applications International Corporation, Newport, RL 27 pp. + figures.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-223
Parker, J.P., and R.M. Valente. 1988. Long-Term Sand Cap Stability: New York Dredged Material
Disposal Site. Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Contract No.
DACW39-86-C-0076. Contract Report CERC-88-2. 29 pp. + tables + figures.
Parsons, T.R, M. Takahashi, and B. Hargrave. 1977. Biological Oceanographic Processes, Second
Edition. Pergamon Press, NY, NY. 332pp.
Pearce, J.B., J.V. Caracciolo, M.B. Halsey, and L.H. Rodgers. 1976. Temporal and Spatial Distributions
of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the New York Bight. Pp. 394-403 in M. G. Gross, Ed., Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and the New York Bight. Proceedings of the Symposium at the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City, November 3-5,1975. The American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography, Inc., Lawrence, KS. Special Symposia, Volume 2.
Pearce, J.B., D.J. Radosh, J.V. Caracciolo, and F.W. Steimle, Jr. 1981. Marine EcoSystem Analysis
(MESA) Program. MESA New York Bight Program. Benthic Fauna. MESA New York Bight Atlas
Monograph 14. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, NY. 79 pp.
Pearson, T.H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and
pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 16:229-311.
Pence, D. 1995. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
Peterson, Captain J. H. Jr., 1996. Sandy Hook Pilots Association. Wreck listing, position, and use
summary provided to EPA. Personal Communication to Carlton Hunt Battelle, Duxbury, MA. February
1996.
Phelan, B.A. 1995. Patterns of Whiter Flounder, Pleuronectes Americanus, Abundance and Distribution
in Relation to the 12-mile Dumpsite Study, 1986-1989. Pp. 185-194 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and
M.C. Lngham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile
Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Phoel, W.C., S. Fromm, K. Sharack, C. Zeitlin. 1995. Changes in Sediment Oxygen Consumption in
Relation to the Phaseout and Cessation of Dumping at the New York Bight Sewage Sludge Dumpsite.
Pp. 145-154 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. OTteilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage
Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Piatt, J.R., D.A. Methven, A.E. Burger, R.L. Mclagan, and E. Creelman. 1989. Baleen whales and then-
prey in a coastal environment. Can. J. Zool. 67:1523-1530.
Port Authority of NY & NJ. 1996a. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey MudOne Database.
Regional Dredging Requirements, Maintenance Dredging, 1996-2000. Provided by L. Knutson, Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY. March 1996.
Port Authority of NY & NJ. 1996b. The Economic and Air Quality Impacts of Alternative Channel
Depths on the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Region. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
Office of Corporate Policy and Planning. New York City, NY. October 1996. 28 pp. + appendices.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-224
Pruell, R.J., N.I. Rubinstein, B.K. Taplin, J.A. LiVolsi, and C.B. Norwood. 1990. 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
TCDF, and PCBs in Marine Sediments and Biota: Laboratory and Field Studies. Final Report prepared
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. 74 pp.
Pruell, R. 1993. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Narraganset, RI. Bioaccumulation of dioxin in
lobster from sediments and prey species. Personal communication to Alex Lechich, EPA Region 2, New
York NY. January 1993.
Rappe, C., P.A. Bergquist, L.O. Kjeller, S. Swanson, T. Belton, B. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, and P.C. Kahn.
1991. Levels and patterns of PCDD and PCDF contamination in fish, crabs, and lobsters from Newark
Bay and the New York Bight. Chemosphere 22:239-266.
Redfield, A. 1958. The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. American Scientist.
46:205-221.
Reid, R.N., I.E. O'Reilly, and V.S. Zdanowicz. 1982. Contaminants in the New York Bight and Long
Island Sound Sediments and Demersal Species, and Contaminant Effects on Benthos, Summer 1980.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-16.
96pp.
Reid, R.N., D.J. Radosh, A.B. Frame, and S.A. Fromm. 1991. Benthic Macrofauna of the New York
Bight, 1979-89. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Tech. Report
NMFS-103. 50pp.
Reid, R.N., S.A. Fromm, A.B. Frame, D. Jeffress, J.J. Vitaliano, DJ. Radosh, and J.R. Finn. 1995.
Limited Responses of Benthic Macrofauna and Selected Sewage Sludge Components to Phaseout of
Sludge Disposal in the Inner New York Bight. Pp. 213-225 in A.L. Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C.
Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite
Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine seafloor.
American Scientist 66:577-586.
Rhoads, D.C., and L. F. Boyer. 1982. The Effects of Marine Benthos on Physical Properties of
Sediments. Pp. 3-52 in P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz, Eds., Animal-Sediment Relations: The Biogenic
Alteration of Sediments. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germono. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community structure: A
new protocol. Hydobiologia 142:291-308.
Roberts, M.A., et al. 1979. A Summary and Analysis of Cultural Resource Information on the
Continental Shelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras (4 Volumes). Institute for Conservation
Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, D.C.
Ropes, J.W. 1980. Biological and Fisheries Data on the Atlantic Surf Clam, Spisula solidissima
(Dillwyn). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA. NOAA Tech. Ser. Report. No. 24. 88pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 3, Affected Environment Page 3-225
Ropes, J.W., and A.S. Merrill. 1973. To what extent do surf clams move? Nautilus. 87:19-21.
Ross, J. S. 1996. MCI Transmission Services Operations, West Orange, NJ. No subsea MCI or old
Western Union cables seaward of Harbor entrance; Amtrak Tunnel and Holland Tunnel cables are the
nearest. Personal Communication to Kurt Buchholz Battelle, Duxbury, MA. February 1996.
Rowell, T., and R. Trites. 1985. Distribution of larval and juvenile Illex in the Blake Plateau region.
Vie Milieu. 35(3): 149-161. In Report of the 17th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 94-06. Woods Hole, MA. 124pp.
Rudloe, A. 1981. Aspects of the biology of juvenile horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus. Bull. Mar.
Sci. 31(1):125-133.
E. Ruff. 1996. Ruff Systematics, Puyallup, WA. Habitat reference for polychaetes.
Personal Communication to Karen Foster/Roy Kropp Battelle, Duxbury, MA. February 1996
Sadove, S.S., and P. Cardinale. 1993. Species Composition and Distribution of Marine Mammals and
Sea Turtles in the New York Bight. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern New England
— New York Bight Coastal Fisheries Project. Charlestown, RI. 21 pp. + appendices.
SAIC (Science Application International Corporation). 1992. Sediment/Tissue Baseline Surveys: New
York Mud Dump Site Dioxin Capping Monitoring Project. Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. November 1992. 17pp.
SAIC. 1993a. Sediment Capping of Subaqueous Dredged Material Disposal Mounds — An Overview of
the New England Experience, 1979-1993. Science Application International Corporation, Newport, RI,
for New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA. Contract No. DACW33-90-D-
001, Work Order #2. March 1993. 106pp + appendices.
SAIC. 1993b. Analysis of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York Mud Dump
Site: November 1992 to March 1993. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. EPA Contract No. 68-W2-0026. Work Assignment 6-1.
SAIC. 1993c. Analysis of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York Mud Dump
Site: June through September 1993. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. EPA Contract No. 68-W2-0026. Work Assignment 6-1.
SAIC. 1995a. Sidescan and Bathymetry Results from the Expanded Mud Dump Area in the New York
Bight Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. EPA Contract no. 68-W2-
0026, WA No. 56-11. SAIC Report No. 354.
SAIC. 1995b. The Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program the New York Mud Dump Site: Summary of
Geotechnical and Chemical Analyses of Cores from the December 1994 Postcap Survey. Draft Report
prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, New York, NY. Contract No. 68-W2-0026.
57 pp + appendix.
SAIC. 1995c. Analysis of waves and near-bottom currents during major storms at the New York Mud
Dump Site. Draft report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Federal
Activities, Washington, D.C. EPA Contract No. 68-W2-0026. Work Assignment 6-1. 84pp + appendix.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-226
SAIC. 1995d. The Dioxin Capping and Monitoring Program at the Mud Dump Site: Chemical Analysis
of Sediment and Tissue Samples from the May 1994 Postcap Survey. Final Report to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, New York District. Contract No. DACW 39-94-C-0117. 88pp.
SAIC. 1995e. The Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program the New York Mud Dump Site: Summary of
Geotechnical and Chemical Analyses of Cores from the May 1994 Postcap Survey. Draft Report prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, New York, NY. Contract No. 68-W2-0026. 58 pp.
+ appendices.
SAIC. 1996a. Sidescan Sonar and Bathymetry Results from the Expanded Mud Dump Area and
Northwest Regions, Final Report to U.S. ACE under Contract DACW51-95-D-0027 by SAIC. Report
No. 48 of the New York Mud Dump Site Studies.
SAIC. 1996b. Results from the May 1996 Bathymetric Survey of the Northwest Regions of the Expanded
Mud Dump Area. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. USAGE Contract
No. DACW51-95-D-0027. SAIC Report No. 377.
SAIC. 1996c. Numerical Modeling of Storm Induced Erosion of Sand at the New York Mud Dump Site.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. USAGE Contract No. DACW51-95-
D-0027. SAIC Report No. 368. 20pp.
SAIC. 1996d. The Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program at the New York Mud Dump Site: Chemical
Analysis of Sediment and Tissue Samples from the July 1995, Postcap Survey. Final report prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USAGE Contract No. DACW33-94-C-0117. SAIC Report No. 358.
SAIC. 1997. Capping Dredged Materials in the New York Bight: Evaluation of the effects of
Bioturbation. Report No. 39 of the New York Mud Dump Site Studies. SAIC Report No, 374.
January, 1997.
Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken, Eds. 1992. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-302. 195pp.
Scarratt, D J., and R. Lowe. 1972. Biology of the rock crab (Cancer irroratus) in Northumberland Strait
J.Fish. Res. Board Can. 29:161-166.
Schlee, J. 1973. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States - Sediment texture of the
northeastern part. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 529L. P. 64.
Scorer, R.S. 1957. Experiments on convection of isolated masses of buoyant fluid. J. of Fluid Mechanics
2:583.
Shepherd, A.N., R.B. Theroux, R.A. Cooper, and J.R. Uzmann. 1986. Ecology of Ceriantharia
(Coelenterata, Anthozoa) of the Northwest Atlantic from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia. Fish. Bull.
84(3):625-646.
Shepherd, G. 1996. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-227
Shoop, C.R., and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distribution and abundances of loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetol. Monogr. 6:43-67.
Shrock, M.E., Barrows, E.S., Rosman, L.B. 1996. Biota-to-Sediment Accumulation Factors for TCDD
and TCDF in Worms from 28-Day Bioaccumulation Tests. Chemosphere. In Press.
Shumway, S.E., R. Selvin, and D.F. Schick. 1987. Food Resources Related to Habitat in the Scallop
Placopecten Magellanicus (Gmelin, 1791): A Qualitative Study. J. Shell. Res. 6(2):89-95.
Shuster, C.N., Jr. 1950. Observations on the natural history of the American horseshoe crab Limulus
polyphemus. Pp. 18-23 in Third Report on Investigations of Methods of Improving Shellfish Resources of
Massachusetts. Contribution No. 564. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Woods Hole, MA.
Shuster, C.N., Jr. 1960. Distribution of horseshoe "crabs" in Delaware Bay. Estuarine Bull. 5(2):3-9.
Shuster, C.N., Jr. 1979. Session I: Biology of Limulus polyphemus. In E. Cohen and F.B. Bang, Eds.,
Biomedical Applications of the Horseshoe Crab (Limulidae): Proceedings of a symposium held at the
Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, October, 1978. Alan R. Liss., New York, NY. 26 pp.
Simpson, H.J., C.R. Olsen, R.M. Trier, and S.C. Williams. 1976. Man-made radionuclides and
sedimentation in the Hudson River Estuary. Science 194:179-183.
Smith, W.G. 1985. Temporal and Spatial Spawning Patterns of the Principal Species of Fish and
Invertebrates in the Georges Bank Region. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook
Laboratory. Report No. SHL 85-04. 35pp.
Snelgrove, P.V.R., and C.A. Butman. 1994. Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus effect.
Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 32:111-177.
Spacie, A., and J.L. Hamelink. 1985. Alternative models for describing the bioconcentration of organics
by fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1:309-320.
Squires, H.J. 1957. Squid, Ittex illecebrosus (LeSueur), in the Newfoundland fishing area. J. Fish. Res
Board Can. 14:693-728.
Standora, E.A., JJl. Spotila, J.A. Keinalh, and C.R. Shoop. 1984. Body temperatures, diving cycles, and
movement of a subadult leatherback turtle, Dermochefys coriacea. Herpetol 4-:160-176.
Stanford, H.M., and D.R. Young. 1988. Pollutant Loadings to the New York Bight Apex. Pp. 745-751 in
Oceans '88, Vol. 2. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Marine Technology Society of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Baltimore MD, October 31-November 2,1988. Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Piscataway, NJ.
Stehlik, L. 1993. Diets of Brachyuran Crabs Cancer Irroratus, C. Borealis, and Ovalipes oscellatus in the
New York Bight J. of Crust. Biol. 13(4):723-735.
Stehlik, L, CL. MacKenzie Jr., and W.W. Morse. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Four
Brachyuran Crabs on the Northwest Atlantic Shelf. Fishery Bulletin 89:473-492.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-228
Stehlik, L. 1996. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
Steimle, F.W. 1990. Benthic Macrofauna and Habitat Monitoring on the Continental Shelf of the
Northeastern United States. I. Biomass. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS-86. 28pp.
Steimle, F.W. 1994. Sewage Sludge Disposal and Winter Flounder, Red Hake, and American Lobster
Feeding in the New York Bight. Mar. Environ. Res. 37:233-256.
Steimle, F.W., and L. Ogden. 1982. Food of Fish Collected on Artificial Reefs in the New York Bight
and off Charlestown, South Carolina. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44(6-7):49-52.
Steimle, F.W., J.V. Caracciolo, and J.B. Pearce. 1982. Impacts of Dumping on New York Bight Apex
Benthos. Pp. 213-224 in G.F. Mayer, Ed., Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and
Management Proceedings of a Symposium on the Ecological Effects of Environmental Stress, New York,
NY, 10-15 June, 1979. Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC.
Steimle, F.W., D. Jeffress, S.A. Fromm, R.N. Reid, J.J. Vitaliano, and A. Frame. 1994. Predator-prey
relationships of winter flounder, Pleuronectes americanus, in the New York Bight Apex. Fish. Bull.
92:608-619.
Steimle, R., and R. Terranova. 1991. Trophodynamics of Select Demersal Fishes in the New York Bight.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries
Center. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-84. Washington, D.C. 11 pp.
Stevenson, D. 1996. Personal communication to Karen Foster, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.
Stoddard, A., J.E. OTteilly, T. E. Whitledge, T.C. Malone, J.F. Hebard. 1986. The Application and
Development of a Compatible Historical Data Base for the Analysis of Water Quality Management Issues
in the New York Bight. Pp. 1030-1035 in Oceans '86, Vol. 3. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by
the Marine Technology Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Washington D.C.,
September 23-25,1986. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Piscataway, NJ.
Stubblefield, W.L., R.W. Permenter, and D.J.P. Swift. 1977. Time and space variation in the surficial
sediments of the New York Bight Apex. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 5:597-607.
Studholme, A.L., J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham. 1995. Effects of Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping
at the 12 Mile Site. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle,
WA. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS 124. 257 pp.
Studholme, A.L., J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham. 1995. Executive Summary. Pp. 251-254 in A.L.
Studholme, J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at
the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report
NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Swift, et al 1972 as cited in Stubblefield, W.L., R.W. Permenter, and D.J.P. Swift 1977. Time and space
variation in the surficial sediments of the New York Bight Apex. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science
5:597-607.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-229
Terceir, M. 1996. NMFS Woods Hole Migrations of bluefish. Personal communication to Karen Foster,
Battelle, Duxbury, MA. March 1996.
Thomas, J. D. 1993. Biological monitoring and tropical biodiversity in marine environments: a critique
with recommendations, and comments on the use of amphipods as bioindicators. J. of Natural History
27:795-806.
Thomas, M.L.H. 1968. Overwintering of American lobsters, Homarus americanus, in burrows in
Biddeford River, Price Edward Island. J.Fish. Res. Board Can. 25:2525-2527.
Truitt, C.L. 1987a. Engineering considerations for subaqueous dredged material capping - Background
and preliminary planning. Environmental Effects of Dredging, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Note EEDP-01-3.
Truitt, C.L. 1987b. Engineering considerations for subaqueous dredged material capping - Design
concepts and placement techniques. Environmental Effects of Dredging, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Note EEDP-01-3.
Tsai, J J., and J.R. Proni. 1985. Acoustic Study of Dredged-Material Dumping in the New York Bight.
Pp. 357-381 in B.H. Ketchum, J.M. Capuzzo, W.V. Burt, I.W. Duedall, P.K. Park, and D.R. Kester, Eds.,
Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 6: Nearshore Waste Disposal. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Uchupi, E. 1963. Sediments on the continental margin off eastern United States. U.S. Geological Survey
Prof. Paper 475Q132-137.
Uptagrove, J. 1996. New Jersey Geological Survey, Trenton, NJ. Mineral exploration and geochemistry
of the New York Bight. Personal communication to Carlton Hunt, Battelle, Duxbury, MA. March 1996.
USAGE (U.S Army Corps of Engineers). 1988. Creation of Offshore Topographic Features with Dredged
Material. Environmental Effects of Dredging, Information Exchange Bulletin. November 1988. Vol.
D-88-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
USAGE NYD (New York District). 1995. New York Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan: Phase
I Report-Plan of Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. 115 pp. +
appendices.
USAGE NYD. 1996. New York Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan: Phase I Report — Plan of
Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY. July 1995. 89 pp. +
appendices.
USAGE WCSC (Waterbome Commerce Statistics Center). 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, New Orleans, LA. U.S. waterway system fact sheet and freight
traffic data tables. Provided by C. Cook, CEWRC-NDC-CP. February 1996.
USAGE NYD/EPA Region 2. 1997. Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the New York Bight
Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site). Final report prepared by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New York District and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. February 1997.
45pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 199?
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-230
USBC. 1994. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 12th Ed., County and City Data Book: 1994. Washington,
D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. August 1994.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
January 1,1986.
USFWS. 1995a. Letter dated April 6, 1995, from R.W. Hargrove, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY, to C. Day, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pleasantville NJ. 1 p.
USFWS. 1995b. Letter dated May 3,1996, to R.W. Hargrove, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY, from C.G. Day, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville NJ. 4 pp.
USGS (U.S. Geodetic Survey). 1996. Schwab, S. Information on bottom topography and side scan
findings. Personal communication to Carlton Hunt, Battelle, Duxbury, MA. September, 1996. Woods
Hole, MA.
Uzmann, J.R., R.A. Cooper, and K.J. Pecci. 1977. Migration and Dispersion of Tagged American
Lobsters, Homarus americanus, on the Southern New England Continental Shelf. U.S. Dept. Of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA
Tech. Report NMFS SSRF-705. 92 pp.
Vincent. C.E., D.J.P. Swift, and B. Hillard. 1981. Sediment transport in the New York Bight, North
American Shelf. Marine Geology (42):369-398.
Vogt, C,. and B. Walls. 1994. Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Disposal - EPA Concerns and
Regulations. Pp. 71-82 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Dredging Seminar, May 15,1991,
Las Vegas, NV. Compiled by J.B. Herbich, Center for Dredging Studies, Texas A&M University. Report
No. 321, College Station, TX. 356 pp.
Vovk, A.N., and L.A. Khvichiya. 1980. On Feeding of Long-finned Squid (Loligo pealei) Juveniles in
Subareas 5 and 6. North Atlantic Fisheries Organization SCR Doc. 80/VJ/50. 9 pp.
Walker, H.A., S.B. Saila, and E.L. Anderson. 1979. Exploring data structure of New York Bight benthic
data using post-collection stratification of samples, and linear discriminant analysis for species composition
comparisons. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9:101-120.
Warren, B.A., and C. Wunsch, Eds. 1981. Evolution of Physical Oceanography. MTT Press, Cambridge,
MA. 623pp.
Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, J.S. O'Connor, and D.A. Adams. 1996. A benthic index of biotic
integrity (B-ffil) for the New York/New Jersey Harbor. Draft manuscript received by Battelle, Duxbury,
MA, July 1996. 41 pp.
Whitehead, H. 1987. Updated status of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Canada.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 101(2):284-294.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
ChapterS, Affected Environment Page 3-231
Whitehead, H., and C. Glass. 1985. The significance of the southeast shoal of the Grand Bank to
humpback whales and other cetacean species. Can. J. Zool. 63:2617-2625.
Wigley, R.L. 1960. Note on the distribution of Padalidae (Crustacea, Decapoda) in New England waters.
Ecology 41(3):564-570.
Wilber, P. 1992. Case studies of the thin-layer disposal of dredged material — Fowl River, Alabama.
Environmental Effects of Dredging Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. EEDP Vol. D-92-5. November 1992. 5pp.
Wilber, P., and R. Will. 1994. New York Bight Study. Report 5: NY Bight Biological Review Program.
Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Technical Report CERC-94-4.
93 pp. + appendices.
Wilk,S. 1995. NOAA NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory. Personal
communication to Karen, Battelle, Duxbury, MA. October 1995.
Wilk, S.J., R.A. Pikanowski, A.J. Pacheco, D.G. McMillan, B.A. Phelan, and L.L. Stehlik. 1992. Fish
and Megainvertebrates Collected in the New York Bight Apex During the 12-Mile Dumpsite Recovery
Study, July 1986-September 1989. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
Woods Hole, MA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-90. 78 pp.
Wilk, SJ., R.A. Pikanowski, A.L. Pacheco, D.G. McMillan, and L.L. Stehlik. 1995. Response offish and
megainvertebrates of the New York Bight Apex to abatement of sewage sludge dumping—an overview.
Pp.173-184 in A.L. Studholme, I.E. OHeilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage
Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Williams, S.J. 1979. Geologic Effects of Ocean Dumping on the New York Bight Inner Shelf. Pp. 51-72
in H. Palmer and M.G. Gross Eds., Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution. Dowden, Hutchinson, and
Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, PA.
Williams, S. J., and D.B. Duane. 1974. Geomorphology and sediments of the inner New York Bight
continental shelf. Technical Memorandum No. 45. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Research
Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. 81 pp.
Wilson, W.H. 1990. Competition and predation in marine soft-sediment communities. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 21:221-241.
Witte, R. 1997. U.S. EPA Region 2 Endangered Species Coordinator Endangered listing status of harbor
porpoise. Personal communication to Joe Bergstein EPA Region 2, New York, NY. April 1997.
Woodward, B. 1959. Motion in and around isolated thermals. Quarterly J. of the Royal Meteorological
Society 85:144.
Yentsch, C.S. 1977. Plankton Production. Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program, MESA New
York Bight Project New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, NY. 25pp.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapters, Affected Environment Page 3-232
Young, D.P. 1982. Comparative study of trace metal contamination in the Southern California and New
York Bights. Pp. 249-262 in G.F. Mayer, Ed., Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and
Management. Proceedings of a Symposium on the Ecological Effects of Environmental Stress, New York,
NY, 10-15 June, 1979. Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC.
Zdanowicz, V.S. 1991. Determining the Fates of Contaminated Wastes Dumped in the New York Bight
Apex by Use of Metal Enrichment Factors. Environ. Sci. and Tech. 25:1760-1766.
Zdanowicz, V.S., S.L. Cunneff, and T.W. Finneran. 1995. Reductions in sediment metal contamination in
the New York Bight Apex with the cessation of sewage sludge dumping. Pp. 89-100 in A.L. Studholme,
I.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile
Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ, June, 1991. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 124.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA.
Zimmerman, Z. 1996. AT&T Cable Protection, Greensboro, NC. Military cables. Personal
Communication to Kurt Buchholz. Battelle, Duxbury, MA. January 1996
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter compares the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of the four
alternatives presented in Chapter 2 and evaluates the consequences of each. Based on the Chapter 3
characterization of historical and current conditions within the Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Study Area, the
positive and negative impacts of each of the alternatives are predicted and discussed. The most recent data
and information available from the MDS and Study Area are used to predict the type and degree of each
impact. Where site-specific data are not available, best professional judgement is used to identify and
quantify the impacts.
The MDS and Study Area information and data that have been synthesized in Chapter 3 allow a rigorous
comparison of the four alternatives, in order to reach a technically-sound, regulatory-based decision for
selecting the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is defined as the alternative that provides the
greatest practicable net benefit with the least environmental impacts, and is responsive to the 3-Party Letter
(EPA/DOT/USACE, 1996).1 EPA and the USAGE will continue to monitor the environment of the New
York Bight Apex, and will take appropriate actions through site management and monitoring plans
(SMMPs), rulemakings, and permitting, as necessary, to reflect new information.
EPA's five general and eleven specific criteria for selecting ocean disposal sites [40 CFR Sections 228.5
and 228.6(a), respectively] provide the structure for organizing and evaluating the predicted impacts for the
alternatives. Additionally, because three of the four alternatives include some ocean placement of
sediments: no action (Alternative 1); remediation (Alternative 3); or restoration (Alternative 4); and the
fact that the MDS was designated as an Impact Category I site, this chapter also considers the pertinent
portions of 40 CFR Section 228.10, Evaluating disposal impact, and 40 CFR 228.11, Modification in
disposal site use, of the Agency's ocean dumping regulations.
Each of the four alternatives described in Chapter 2 have both negative and positive ecological and
socioeconomic impacts. Like the characterization of historical and present conditions was the focus of
Chapter 3; the potential ecological impacts of the four alternatives are the focus of this chapter.
Socioeconomic impacts are addressed in Chapter 4 only to the extent that these impact evaluations are
relevant to the general and specific factors for selecting ocean disposal sites [40 CFR Sections 228.5 and
228.6(a)], and are typically evaluated for other NEPA evaluations of such sites (i.e., impact evaluations
related to fishing areas, navigation, mineral extraction, culturaMiistoric features, and amenity areas).
4.1 Approach to Evaluating Consequences of the Four Alternatives
As presented in Chapter 2, four alternatives were considered under this Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS).
Under Alternative 1, the size, location, and management of the MDS are unchanged. Only Category I
dredged material will be disposed at the MDS after September 1,1997 (since the remaining capacity for
Category H dredged material will be rilled before September 1,1997).
Under Alternative 2, the MDS is closed, no Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) will be designated,
and degraded sediment areas in and around the MDS will not be remediated or restored. No remediation
The July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter states: "This designation will include a proposal that the site be managed to
reduce impacts at the site to acceptable levels [in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 228.1 l(c)]."
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 7997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-2
Alternative 1: No Action
• No change to size or management of the present Mud Dump Site (MDS)
• No remediation of areas outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas
• Disposal of Category I dredged material continues per the MDS Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 21 USAGE NYD, 1997a) until current
remaining disposal capacity is reached
• Category n dredged material capacity will be reached by September 1,1997
Alternative 2: Close MDS-No HARS Designation
• Closure of the present Mud Dump Site
• No Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) designated
• No remediation of sediments outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded
by bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas created
by past dredged material disposal
Alternatives: HARS Remediation
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a Buffer Zone (BZ),
and No Discharge Zone (NDZ), including the MDS and sediments that have toxicity
or bioaccumulative contaminants. (Refer to Appendix B for HARS latitude/longitude
coordinates.)
• Remediation conducted by capping degraded sediment areas with at least 1 m of
Material for Remediation. Material for remediation is defined as "...uncontaminated
dredged material (i.e., dredged material that meets current Category 1 standards and
will not cause significant undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)."
• The Material for Remediation is defined as uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant
undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)
• Approximately 40.6 Myd3 required to remediate the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) PRA; actual
placement volume may be larger to ensure at least aim cap throughout the PRA
• Remediation work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation
Alternative 4: HARS Restoration
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the PRA, NDZ, and BZ, including the MDS, surrounding
areas that has been historically used for disposal of dredged material and other wastes
(e.g., building materials, sewage sludge, industrial wastes), and sediments degraded
by bioaccumulative contaminants or toxicity.
• Restoration work conducted by covering fine-grain sediment areas with at least 1 m of
sandy (0-10% fines) Material for Remediation
• Approximately 46.4 Myd3 required to restore the 10.3 nmi2 (35.5 km2) of fine-grained
sediments in the PRA; actual placement volume may be larger to ensure at least aim
cap throughout the PRA
• Restoration work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-3
operations will be undertaken within the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) area of the Bight Apex found to be degraded
by bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity, nor will restoration operations be conducted in the 15.7-
nmi2 (54-km2) area of fine-grain sediments attributable to dredged material disposal.
The Alternative 3 HARS includes the MDS and surrounding areas that have been used historically for
disposal of dredged material and other wastes (refer to Figure 4-1). The location of the Priority
Remediation Area (PRA) in the Alternative 3 HARS was determined from analyses of chemical and
lexicological samples from the SEIS Study Area (refer to Section 3.3.9.3 and Figures 3-45 to 3-48 in
Chapter 3). A cap of at least 1 m of Material for Remediation will be placed throughout the PRA.
The Alternative 4 HARS has the same external border location as the Alternative 3 HARS. It includes the
MDS and surrounding areas that have been used historically for disposal of dredged material and other
wastes, as well as fine-grain areas attributable to dredged material disposal activities. The location of the
Alternative 4 PRA (larger than the Alternative 3 PRA) was determined from analyses of sediment
chemical, lexicological, and grain-size distribution samples from the SEIS Study Area.
Under both Alternatives 3 and 4, the degree of degradation determines the priority for remediation/
restoration actions (refer to Appendix C).2
The approach used in this chapter to compare and contrast the impacts of the alternatives [according to the
criteria of Sections 228.5, 228.6(a), and 228.10] was to separate the potential impacts into two groups:
"discriminating" and "nondiscriminating." The discriminating impacts, presented in Section 4.3, have
substantial differences among the four alternatives. These impacts are used to rank the alternatives and
select the Preferred Alternative.
The nondiscriminating impacts, which do not significantly differ among the alternatives, are presented in
Section 4.2. While the evaluation of the nondiscriminating impacts is useful in assessing the acceptability
of the alternatives, because they are similar across all alternatives, they do not have substantial utility for
identifying the Preferred Alternative.
The environmental pros and cons of each discriminating impact are presented and discussed by the overlay
method and narrative descriptions. Overlays, usually presented as figures, are used when a discriminating
impact has a unique spatial element (e.g., extent of an alternative's effect on a fishing area or historical
artifact area). Narrative descriptions accompany both text and tables. Table 4-1 (located at the end of
Chapter 4) is a summary of all impacts, both discriminating and nondiscriminating, organized by the
corresponding criteria of 40 CFR Sections 228.5, 228.6(a), and 228.10.
The evaluation of each alternative included the consideration of all possible detrimental, mitigatable, or
beneficial impacts that could result from implementation of the alternatives. The evaluations were
conducted with an iterative, weight-of-evidence approach, using the following four criteria (in descending
order of importance):
1. Recent and verifiable numerical or otherwise quantifiable data specific to the Bight Apex or Study
Area environment;
Under both Alternative 3 and 4, the PRA is divided into 1-nmi2 areas for the purposes of prioritizing and managing
the placement of dredged Material for Remediation.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-4
02468 Kilometers
0246 Miles
Figure 4-1. Location of Mud Dump Site (MDS) and Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS)
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-5
2. Qualitative information from verifiable
sources, specific to the Bight Apex or
Study Area environment;
3. Quantitative and qualitative information
from verifiable sources, from other
environments similar to the Bight Apex;
4. Best professional judgement of the SEIS
authors and reviewers.
4.2 Nondiscriminating Impacts and Use
Conflicts — Common to All
Alternatives
Nine categories of impacts or potential use
conflicts were found to be "nondiscriminating"
among the four considered alternatives. As
described above, these impacts and use conflicts
either do not apply to any of the alternatives, or
have no substantial utility for comparing and
contrasting the four alternatives so as to select a
Preferred Alternative. The impacts and conflicts
are discussed below in terms of their compliance
with EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations-
Impact Assessments and Use-Conflict Overlays
Listed in Order of Presentation in Chapter 4
Nondiscriminating
• Marine sanctuaries, areas of special scientific
importance, and other special areas of concern
• Geographically limited fisheries and
shellfisheries
• Beaches, shorelines, and amenity areas
• Commercial and recreational navigation
• Mineral extraction and energy development
• Military operations
• Other legitimate uses of the ocean
• Endangered and threatened species habitat
and migration
• Topography, hydrography, and hydrology
Discriminating
• Ecological impact evaluations
- Degraded sediments
- Benthic infauna
- Contaminant bioaccumulation
- Fish and shellfish resources
• Natural and cultural features of historical
importance
Marine Sanctuaries, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance, and Other Special Areas of Concern [228.5(a), 228.6(a)(3),
228.6(a)(8), 228.10(b)(l),
42.1
As discussed in Section 3.5.9 of Chapter 3, there are no Federal or State-designated marine sanctuaries,
areas of special scientific importance, or special areas of concern in the MDS or Study Area.
Desalinization does not occur in the Study Area- The closest areas of concern are New York and New
Jersey coastal reserves for waterfowl and shore bird habitat (Table 3-39). The nearest and largest area is
the 26,000-acre Gateway National Recreation Area, one portion of which is on Sandy Hook, NJ, 3.5 nmi to
the northwest of the Study Area (Figure 4-2). Other areas of concern are at least 35 nmi from the
boundaries of the sites.
Desalinization does not occur in the Study Area.
Each of the coastal waterfowl and shorebird reserves under protection in the New York Bight are separated
from the MDS and HARS by distance or geological features (e.g., barrier islands) or both, and thus would
not be affected by any of the four alternatives described in Chapter 2. Birds inhabiting these protected
areas are unlikely or infrequent foragers of the offshore waters of the MDS or HARS, and it is extremely
remote that offshore birds will encounter and be adversely affected by any of the four alternatives.3
Refer to Section 3.4.4 in Chapter 3 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Assessment (EPA, 1997) for
additional information on marine and coastal birds.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-6
Figure 4-2. Location of Areas of Special Concern relative to the MDS and BARS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-7
Aquatic areas of concern are generally established for preservation or research purposes. Currently, there
are no such areas within the Study Area or the New York Bight Apex. Although heterogenous and
ecologically valuable, the Bight Apex has been affected and altered by numerous anthropogenic activities.
As discussed in Section 3.2, since the region was settled, a large volume and variety of materials and
wastes have been dumped into the New York-New Jersey Harbor and directly into the Bight Apex. Thus,
it is unlikely that offshore areas of the Bight Apex would be considered by a State or Federal agency as a
candidate for a special status designation.
Summary of Consequences: No marine sanctuaries, areas of special scientific importance, or other
special areas of concern will be impacted by any of the four alternatives.
4.2.2 Geographically Limited Fisheries and Shellfisheries [228.5(a), 228 .5(b), 228.6(a)(2),
228.6(a)(8),
There are no geographically limited fisheries or shellfisheries within the MDS or HARS.4 As discussed in
Section 3.4.3 of Chapter 3, the New York Bight is a transitional region for many fish and shellfish species.
Commercial catch statistics from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NMFS trawl surveys, and
surveys by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) reveal no species that are
caught exclusively in the Bight, Bight Apex, or MDS area.
More than 300 species offish and shellfish are permanent or migratory residents in the Middle Atlantic
Bight. Twenty-eight fish species (21 demersal, 4 pelagic, 3 pelagic/anadromous) and eight species of
shellfish (2 squid and 6 benthic invertebrates) have been identified as commercially, recreationally, and/or
ecologically important in the New York Bight. Alternative-specific impacts to fish and shellfish resources
are discussed in Sections 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.4, and 4.3.4.4 below.
Summary of Consequences: None of the commercially, recreationally, and/or ecologically important fish
and shellfish in the New York Bight have rare or limited habitats located in me MDS or the HARS.
Therefore, no geographically limited fisheries or shellfisheries impacts were identified from any of the four
alternatives.
4.23 Beaches, Shorelines, and Amenity Areas [228.5(b). 228.6(a)(3), 228.6(a)(6), 228.10(b)(l),
There are popular, heavily used beaches, public shorelines, and recreational facilities near the Study Area
on the southern coast of Long Island, NY, and the coast of northern New Jersey. Oceanfront beaches at
Highlands, NJ, will be as close as 3.5 nmi from the HARS proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Sediment
transport to these beaches is extremely unlikely for either alternative. Resuspension and transport of MDS
or HARS bottom sediments to these shorelines are equally unlikely.
Plume Development and Transport As described in Section 3.3.6 of Chapter 3, a dredged material
discharge plume follows three phases: convective descent; dynamic collapse; and passive diffusion. In the
relatively shallow waters of the Study Area, dredged material hits the bottom in the dynamic collapse phase
with considerable force. The collision with the bottom forces the material to spread radially from the site
and forces some of the material back up into the water column. This results in additional fine-grain
materials becoming temporarily suspended in the water column (plume creation) and contributing to the
Geographically limited habitats within the Study Area (e.g., shipwrecks) are evaluated in Section 4.3.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences ^ Page 4-8
layer of flocculent sediments on the bottom (also called the epibenthic "nephloid" layer). During the
passive diffusion phase, plumes can be carried from the discharge location by local oceanographic
conditions (currents and turbulence).
The amount of sediment that becomes suspended in the water column following a discharge depends on
the grain-size distribution of the dredged material, the cohesiveness of the material, and the water depth
and oceanographic conditions at the release point. A rigorous comparison of potential plume development
and transport among Alternatives 1,3, and 4 is not possible because of the variable factors associated with
different discharge sites and dredged material characteristics.5 SAIC (1994a) examined the mass balance
of several dredged-material excavation, disposal, and post-disposal fate projects, including one conducted
at the MDS which determined that 3.7% of MDS discharged material is entrained into plumes that drift
from the discharge point.
Related to the mass-balance projects reviewed by SAIC, EPA conducted two field-verification projects at
the MDS to evaluate data generated by dilution models used to make permit decisions6 (refer to Section
3.3.6). These studies showed that MDS dredged material plumes spread less than 500 m and that the
plumes are detectable no more than 1 km from the discharge point. Total suspended solids (TSS) and
contaminants in the plumes reach background concentrations within 1 hour, well within the 4-h initial
mixing period.
The conclusion drawn from these studies is that plumes developed under Alternatives 1, 3, or 4 will be
dispersed to background (nondetectable) levels before reaching beaches, shorelines, or amenity areas. The
suspended sediment plumes meets the ocean disposal criteria and will gradually disperse and settle to the
bottom, contributing to the fine-grained particle fraction in the benthic zone. Fine-grained material that
settles to the bottom in shallow waters (< 20 m) in the Bight Apex will eventually.be resuspended and
move to deeper areas that are less affected by erosional forces (e.g., currents and storm events).
Seafloor Dispersion. Following a disposal/placement event, the fine-grained fraction of the discharged
sediment spreads across the seafloor in a thin layer. Acoustic data gathered during the Port Newark/Port
Elizabeth Disposal/Capping Monitoring Project7 show that while most material disposed during this
project was deposited on the bottom where expected, some fine-grained fractions spread 200-400 m
beyond the flanks of the mound (SAIC, 1995a). In situ sediment profile imaging (camera) studies showed
a 600 m maximum extension of the thin apron of dredged material from the main part of the mounds
(SAIC, 1996b). The camera data also confirmed that the fine-grain material extended further in down-
sloping (downhill) areas than in up-sloping (uphill) areas. This information suggests that material
deposited in basin areas of the HARS will be more effectively contained and transported shorter distances
relative to the main dredged material mound. Regardless of local bathymetry, camera and acoustic data
Quantifying individual discharge plumes is hampered by lack of measurement precision at the dredging site (i.e.,
volume of material in disposal barge), at the discharge site (i.e., amount on the bottom after discharge), and events
and processes that can occur during transit to the discharge site (e.g., compaction, loss of water) (SAIC, 1994a).
EPA/USACE water column tests for dredged material include determination of marine water quality criteria
compliance and evaluation of potential water column toxiciry. Refer to EPA/USACE (1991) and EPA Region 21
USAGE NYD (1992) for additional testing information.
The Port Newark/Port Elizabeth Disposal/Capping Monitoring Project is an ongoing EPA Region 2/USACE NYD
monitoring program of the integrity of the cap covering Port Newark/Port Elizabeth dredged material, which was
disposed at the southern half of the MDS in 1993 (SAIC 1996a).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-9
show that, in general, bottom dispersion of the dredged material at the MDS is limited to a relatively small
area. There are no data to indicate that the situation will be different elsewhere in the HARS under
Alternatives 3 and 4.
Other factors such as bedload transport can move deposited surface sediments around the seafloor. These
processes, driven by tidal and storm currents, can carry fine-grain sediments in and out of the MDS or
HARS (SAIC, 1996a). The movement of fine-grain sediments at the sediment-water interface is a natural
phenomenon, and is sometimes discussed relative to the "nephloid layer"—the near-bottom flocculent
zone, in which many small epibenthic species (e.g., mysid shrimp) live and feed.
Summary of Consequences: In summary, many factors affect the transport and fate of discharged
sediment material. However, for all of the alternatives that include sediment discharge (Alternatives 1,3,
and 4), sediment transport impacts are not expected to be significant and can be monitored and managed
through the site management plans, permit conditions, and surveillance operations. No material will reach
beaches, shorelines, or amenity areas under any of the four alternatives.
4.2.4 Commercial and Recreational Navigation [228.5(a), 228.6(a)(8)]
As discussed in Section 3.5.3.2 of Chapter 3, the New York Bight Apex is a heavy ship traffic area (Figure
4-3). Tugs, barges, and hopper dredges traveling to and from the MDS or HARS will comprise a small
fraction of the total harbor traffic, and thus the alternatives would potentially cause only a small increase or
decrease in traffic congestion and accident risk. Canceled or deferred dredging projects in the Port would
also present adverse impacts to large commercial vessels (e.g., tankers and container ships) that need deep
water to safely transit and berth in the harbor. However, the impacts are difficult to quantify, time-
dependent on other factors, or include varying amounts of uncertainty. This is particularly evident when
comparing environmental and socioeconomic impacts across the four alternatives and among near-, mid-,
and long-terms after alternative implementation. For example, Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS
Designation) presents the least near-term risk of collision with a disposal/placement vessel in the Port or
Apex. However, if implementation of the alternative was associated with a reduction of Port dredging,
risks will increase for vessels engaged in lightering operations and deep-draft vessels forced to negotiate
shallow waterways of the Port at high tide. On the other hand, the potential for environmental impacts by
spills and collisions may decrease if undredged portions of the port are closed to commercial traffic due to
insufficient water depth. The complexity of predicting potential navigation impacts is similar for other
alternatives.
With regard to potential impacts (i.e., collisions, navigation interference) with disposal/placement vessels
transiting to and from the MDS or HARS, Alternative 2, with no vessel traffic to a designated site, presents
the least impact to Bight Apex navigation. The comparison of the other three alternatives, however, shows
that the traffic associated with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 is very small relative to the 11,850 commercial
vessels that transit through the Apex to the Port each year (USAGE Waterborne Commerce Statistics
Center, 1996). With wide annual variability of MDS, commercial, and recreational traffic hi the Bight
Apex in recent years, all four alternatives, while potentially having different impacts, do not present
significant incremental risks (either positive or negative) to Bight Apex navigation. A similar conclusion
can be reached for Bight Apex and Port/Hudson River environmental impacts directly associated with
navigation.
Summary of Consequences: With respect to navigation impact in the Bight Apex, disposal/placement
traffic to and from the MDS or HARS under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are expected to have wide annual
variations and are dependent on port and dredging economics. When compared to annual variability of
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-10
"••-..Precautionary
Area
Figure 4-3. Location of the MDS and HARS in relation to shipping lanes and navigation areas
of the New York Bight Apex
commercial and recreational harbor traffic, the potential consequences of Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are
roughly equivalent, and not significantly different from the impacts presented by the current operation of
the MDS. Alternative 2, with no associated MDS or HARS traffic, has the least potential for navigation
impact from disposal/placement operations, but the greatest near-and mid-term impacts relative to Port and
Apex congestion and the hazards if lack of a designated site were associated with canceled or deferred
maintenance of channels. The uncertainties associated with the navigation impacts of the four alternatives
make this impact criterion of poor utility for contrasting alternatives so as to select a Preferred Alternative.
4.2.5 Mineral Extraction and Energy Development [228.6(a)(8>]
4.2.5.1 Mineral Extraction [228.6(a)(8>]
As discussed in Section 3.5.5 of Chapter 3, the only identified mineral extraction that has been considered
for the Study Area around the MDS is benthic mining of sand and gravel aggregates for construction and
beneficial use purposes (e.g., beach restoration, capping of degraded sediments). To date, there have been
no agency or private proposals to mine aggregates within the MDS or the HARS area described under
Alternatives 3 and 4. Furthermore, mining of sand and gravel resources in the New York Bight Apex has
been precluded by a 1996 statement by the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS, 1996).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-11
The USAGE NYD and the State of New Jersey conducted a benthic coring survey in the HARS in late
1996 to locate potentially valuable aggregates. No coring data are yet available at this writing; however, it
is very unlikely that deposits found under historically discharged dredged material in the HARS, or under
recent dredged material in the MDS (much of which was Category n material and has been capped as a
precautionary measure) can be economically extracted. Additionally, potential mining operations in the
MDS or HARS would need to control the exposure of sediments that were buried by subsequent dredged
material disposal operations and/or natural processes, which would result in further difficulty and expense.
4.2.5.2 Energy Development [228.6(a)(8)]
MMS has reported that there may be several basins adjacent to the Study Area with low petroleum
potential. However, these areas are currently under moratorium for oil and gas exploration (EPA pers.
comm. L. Bielak, MMS, 12/11/96), and thus not considered further in this evaluation.
Summary of Consequences: None of the four alternatives considered in this SEIS would impact mineral
extraction or energy development.
42.6 Military Operations [228.6(a)(8)]
There are no known military uses of the MDS or proposed HARS. Military uses of the Bight Apex are
primarily navigation related to military ships and support vessels transiting to and from the military
installations listed in Table 3-37. Military navigation impacts from the four alternatives will therefore be
equivalent to impacts experienced by commercial and recreational navigation traffic in the area. Expected
incremental impacts of each of the four alternatives are expected to be insignificant when compared to the
overall large volume of navigation traffic of the Bight Apex.
Summary of Consequences: There are no identified military operation conflicts with Bight Apex military
operations.
42.7 Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean [228.6(a)(8)j
In addition to the nondiscriminating legitimate uses described above in Sections 4.2.1 - 4.2.6 (i.e., marine
sanctuaries, areas of scientific importance, special areas of concern; geographically limited fisheries and
shellfisheries; beaches, shorelines, and amenity areas; commercial and recreational navigation; mineral
extraction and energy development; and military operations) and the discriminating legitimate uses
evaluated in Sections 4.3 (i.e., fish and shellfish resources, recreational and commercial fishing industries,
and natural and cultural features of historical importance), the only other legitimate uses potentially found
in the MDS, HARS, or surrounding areas are cable and pipeline crossings and easements.
As discussed in Section 3.5.8 of Chapter 3, the "Cable Area" on NOAA Chart No. 12326 between
Monmouth, NJ, and Rockaway Beach, NY, appears to be an obsolete and inactive telegraph cable
crossing. If the old telegraph cables were still in place, they are deeply buried, and further
disposal/placement of sediment would not be expected to adversely effect any potential historic or cultural
importance of these features (refer to 4.3.1.5,4.3.3.5, and 4.3.4.5 for additional evaluation of
historic/cultural features). No pipeline crossings or easements have been identified in the New York Bight
Apex east of the Sandy Hook/Rockaway transect
Summary of Consequences: There are no identified conflicts with legitimate uses described in Sections
4.2.1-4.2.6.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences _^___ ^age 4'^
4.2.8 Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat and Migration [228.5(b), 228.6(a)(8)]
Endangered and threatened species potentially impacted by the four alternatives considered include marine
mammals and turtles foraging or migrating through the MDS, HARS or Bight Apex.
As discussed in Section 3.4.5 of Chapter 3, the New York Bight has a relatively high diversity of marine
mammals and sea turtles but a low number of resident, nonmigratory populations. Twenty-eight species of
marine mammals and five species of turtles have been sighted in the New York Bight over the past several
years (Sadove and Cardinale, 1993). Of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA), only the humpback whale, fin whale, loggerhead turtle, and Kemp's ridley
turtle are regular visitors to coastal waters of the New York Bight, and might visit the MDS or HARS
during feeding of migration.
The ESA requires consultation with Federal agencies to identify any threatened, endangered, or special-
status species that may be affected by the proposed action. In accordance with the ESA, EPA initiated a
threatened and endangered species consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on
April 4,1996. Based on this coordination, EPA prepared a Biological Assessment (BA; Battelle, 1997a)
for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles, and the humpback and fin whales within the MDS and
surrounding areas. NMFS concurred with this approach on May 8,1996. The BA, sent to NMFS in
May 1997, determined there is no effect to the four evaluated species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) expressed concerns regarding piping plover (Charadrius
melodus)and the northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cinindela dorsalis dorsalis). However, further
evaluation of these concerns led the Service to conclude that disposal, remediation, or restoration activities
in the MDS area is unlikely to adversely affect these Federally-listed species (USFWS,. 1995).
Summary of Consequences: None of the considered alternatives present new or significant impacts to
endangered or threatened species or habitat.
4.2.9 Topography, Hydrography, and Hydrology [228.6(a)(l)]
Although changes in topography will occur under Alternatives 1,3, and 4,Hie range of impacts to
hydrography (water-column structure) and hydrology (currents) of the Bight Apex is minimal and yielded
no discriminatory information that is useful for selecting the Preferred Alternative.
Under Alternative 1, the height of the dredged material mounds on the seafloor will continue to increase in
all areas of the MDS that now have water depths greater than minimum management depth. Management
depths (45 ft BMLW for Category I material) established in the MDS SMMP set the minimum allowable
depths and expected final mound configuration (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a). Areas within the
MDS that will experience major changes in topography include the southern one-third and the northeast
comer of the MDS. The major change in the present MDS mound configuration will be a southward
expansion toward the southern border of the site and lengthening of the mound by approximately 1 km.
This will also increase the length of the shallow basin between the New Jersey shoreline and the western
border of the MDS, increasing the area sheltered from offshore storm energy. Increasing the size of the
sheltered basin will likely trap additional quantities of fine-grained sediments and contaminants that enter
the Bight Apex with the Hudson River Plume or are in the reservoir of surface sediments that are
susceptible to bedload transport processes (including mounds of the MDS). Additional dredged material
disposal/placement in the northeast corner of the MDS will broaden the present mound to the east, but will
not alter general hydrographic or hydrodynamic conditions in the area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-13
Filling of the entire MDS to the 45-ft management depth will increase the area! extent of shallowest depths
from approximately 0.29 nmi2 (1 km2) (approximately 15% of MDS) presently in the site to the entire
disposal site. At site closure, there will be a contiguous area of approximately 7.55 km2 (2.2 nmi2) with a
depth of about 45-ft BMLW. A relative change of this magnitude is unlikely to affect the general
hydrology or hydrodynamics of the Bight Apex. Recent studies of bottom currents in the MDS between
1992 and 1994 (SAIC 1995b; McDowell et al., 1994) have shown that tidally driven currents are generally
oriented parallel to local topography and are weak (<10 cm/s). Further, currents were generally similar
throughout the site during periods of intense storms with the majority of low-frequency fluctuation less
than 20 cm/s and temporally variable. Recent storm-event studies (SAIC, 1994b; 1995b and 1995c) have
shown that bottom currents in the Bight Apex Study Area are not intensified by storm waves less than 5 m.
Currents at 12 m were intensified only during the major storm that passed over the area in December 1992.
Bathymetry and modeling studies conclude that surface sediments deposited between 45 and 65 ft may
experience storm-induced erosion, and that the erosional forces at these depths have winnowed fine-
grained sediments from the upper few centimeters of deposited dredged material mounds. This has created
surface layers of coarse sediment that armors the mound from further significant erosion except during the
most intense storms such as occurred in December 1992. (McDowell etal., 1994; SAIC, 1995b). Each
storm with greater intensity than previous storms will tend to increase the depth of armoring and grain size
of the surface sediment This armoring phenomenon is evident on portions of the disposal mound created
prior to 1982 and has been observed in more recent deposits in the MDS (SAIC, 1995a). Model
predictions of typical storm-induced sediment reworking and resuspension suggest minimal disturbance of
sandy sediments at the 20 m depth; however, substantial resuspension of coarse sands can occur at shallow
depths (< 20 m) during major storms like that of December 1992 (SAIC, 1995c; Clausner et al, 1996).
Under Alternatives 3 and 4, degraded sediment areas will be capped with at least 1 m of Material for
Remediation. Areas found to be degraded only exist at depths greater than 65 ft The additional 1 m
(3.3 ft) of sediment will cause topographic change that is a small fraction of the water column. Over time,
aim shallowing of the water column during remediation or restoration will occur. This small change in
water column depth within the HARS is not expected to affect the hydrodynamics or hydrology of the
Bight Apex or surrounding areas. Some small (meter)-scale topographic relief may develop depending on
disposal/placement practices and long-term sediment movement in the area. These small-scale changes
will gradually result in bottom roughness and grain-size characteristics similar to that observed in recent
side-scan mosaics of the Apex. (Schwab, 1996; SAIC, 1996b).
Summary of Consequences: None of the four alternatives considered will substantially change or impact
the hydrological characteristics of the water column or the hydrodynamic regime of the inner New York
Bight In general, topography, hydrography, and hydrology in the Bight Apex are controlled by regional
winds and water currents. There may be localized hydrodynamic changes in the area of the MDS under
Alternative 1, but these changes are not expected to substantially impact living resources in the area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-14
4.3 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts — Used to Select the Preferred Alternative
This section evaluates the discriminating impacts
and use conflicts of the alternatives. Five general
categories of discriminating impact or use
conflicts have been identified:
1. Degraded Sediments
2. Benthic Mauna
3. Contaminant Bioaccumulation
4. Fish and Shellfish Habitat and Resources
5. Natural and Cultural Features of Historical
Importance
4.3.1 Discriminating Impacts and Use
Conflicts of Alternative 1 (No Action)
43.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Degraded Sediments [228.6(a)(7), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6),
Reader Note for Section 4.3
Presentation of Impacts and Use Conflicts
Unlike in Section 4.2, where nondiscriminating •
impacts and use conflicts were evaluated
individually and contrasted across the alternatives,
discriminating impacts and use conflicts in >
Section 4.3 are presented and evaluated by each of
the four alternatives. . ,.• : :
As discussed in Section 3.3.9.3 of Chapter 3, about half of the surface sediments within the present MDS
were identified as degraded by presence of bioaccumulative contaminants or toxicity (Figure 4-4). Ten-
day acute bioassays (test organism: amphipod Ampelisca abditd) on sediment samples collected throughout
the Study Area revealed 0 to 99% organism survival, with reference-sediment survival at 94%. Under
Alternative 1, MDS stations that had less than 74% survival8 will be remediated by the continued disposal
of Category I dredged material at the site. Correspondingly, areas external to the MDS (in the Study Area)
with less than 74% survival will not be remediated, and Category II- and Hi-type sediments presently on
the bottom will remain exposed to the New York Bight ecosystem.
In general, the continued use of the MDS under Alternative 1 and the existing Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a) will gradually cover and cap the degraded
sediments within the MDS with Category I dredged materials. Filling the MDS to its 100 Myd3 capacity to
the management depth of 45 ft BMLW will ensure that all of the degraded surface sediments in the site are
permanently isolated from interaction with the biological community of the Bight Apex. When the MDS
is filled, the mound will constitute a 7:55 km2 (2.2 nmi2) contiguous area of nondegraded, heterogenous
grain-size surface sediments. Over time, the surface sediments of this shallow-water mound [above 65-ft
(20 m) BMLW] will lose fine-grain sediment fractions to the winnowing processes and retain a sandy,
erosion-resistant armor material. The winnowing and armoring process from the prevailing ocean currents
will essentially restore the top few centimeters of sediment in the 45 to 65-ft BMLW range to sediment
conditions described in Alternative 4. The flanks of the final MDS mound will grade from coarse-grain
material in shallow depths to fine-grain sandy mud at the site's borders in deeper water. Overall conditions
will be similar to those observed on the historic mounds north-northwest of the present site.
Outside the MDS boundaries, sediments degraded by bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity will not
receive any remediation or restoration. These areas will remain much as they are presently. Gradual
Based on data from reference-sediment samples used in this study, less than 74% survival is the level at which
sediment toxicity is considered to be biologically significant. Per the 1991 Green Book and the Regional Testing
Manual (EPA/USACE, 1991; EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1992), sediment from these areas would be
unacceptable for ocean dumping (i.e., Category HI).
-------
MDSWRSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-15
1996 Bathymetry
/V < 20 meters
20 meters
A/ > 20 meters
Figure 4-4. Study Area locations found to be degraded.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-16
reduction of the degraded areas can be expected as contaminant sources to the Bight Apex are reduced and
natural sediments entering the Apex become cleaner. The rate that this natural remediation occurs will
depend on the success of pollution controls throughout the New York Bight watershed, and the rate of
sedimentation outflows from the Hudson River and East River (including Long Island Sound). The
deposition of cleaner natural sediments will eventually remediate the degraded sediments to background-
level conditions. These same natural sedimentation processes will also affect the outcome of Alternatives
2-4.
43.1.2 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Benthic Infauna [228.10(b)(3), 228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii),
Two benthic infaunal communities were identified in the Study Area examined during the SEIS (see
Section 3.4.2). The distribution of the two communities is reproduced in Figure 4-5. As previously
described in Chapter 3, "Community Group A," referred to as the "muddy-sand community," is located in
sediments with relatively high total organic carbon concentrations and at depths greater than 20 m. This
community has a generally high abundance, moderate number of organisms per sediment sample, moderate
species diversity and is dominated by the nut clam and polycheates. "Community Group B," referred to as
the "sandy community," is found in sandy sediments that are low in organic carbon, and in water generally
shallower than 20 m. This community has a generally high infaunal abundance, a moderate number of
species per grab sample, and moderately low species diversity. The sandy community is dominated by
Polygordus (a polycheate), sand dollars, and amphipods.
In 1995 and 1996, Sediment Profile Imagery (SPI) was used to evaluate infaunal communities at the MDS,
calculate Organism-Sediment Indices (OSI), characterize habitat quality, and identify the deep muddy-sand
community as successional Stage 1 on 3 (SAIC, 1996c; SAIC, 1995a).
The sandy sediment areas of the MDS could not be as comprehensively analyzed as muddy areas because
(1) sand is more resistant to penetration by the sediment profile camera and (2) successional stage theory is
limited relative to sandy sediments (SAIC, 1995a). Where sandy area measurements were obtained, data
indicated a Stage 1 successional community. Highest OSI values, indicative of relatively healthy seafloor
conditions, were found in the deeper (> 20 m), relatively quiescent areas on the east side of "the MDS (and
eastward outside the site) and along the western border of the MDS (SAIC, 1 996c).
Within the MDS, the range of successional stages and OSI values are indicative of periodic habitat
disruption from disposal activities and storm events (SAIC, 1995a). This is particularly evident in the
monitoring results from the Port NewarkflPort Elizabeth Disposal/Capping Monitoring Project
(SAIC 1995a), where data show that areas that have recently received dredged material, especially the finer
grained sediment areas, are recovering9 from previous disposal activities or natural disturbances.
Recovery indicated by development of Stage 3 community structure or recolonization with benthic organisms.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-17
Community Group
• Group A
• Group B
* No Data
1996 Bathymetry
A/ < 20 meters
A/20 meters
A/ > 20 meters
If/ 48
73 48' W
Benthic community groups in and around the MDS. Community Group A (circle
symbols) is generally located in deep muddy areas, relative to Community Group B
(square symbols) which is generally in shallower sandy areas.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-18
Successional Stage Assessment at Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Successional stage assessment recognizes that organism-sediment interactions in low energy,
fine-grained sediments follow a predictable pattern of three Successional stages during recovery
from a major seafloor disruption (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982; Rhoads and Germano, 1982; 1986).
Disruptions can include such events as burial, seafloor erosion, changes in sediment chemistry,
foraging disturbances, and bottom trawling. Pioneering or Stage 1 assemblages usually consist
of small opportunistic near-surface, tube-dwelling polycheates or opportunistic bivalves.
Densities are usually higher than in surrounding sediments and the organisms are associated
with a shallow redox boundary and limited sediment bioturbation depths (Rhoads and Germano,
1982). Foraging fish and crustaceans are attracted to these areas because the pioneering
communities represent a rich source of food and the irregular topography of disposal mounds
provide refuge for organisms such as lobster (Battelle, 1990). These early Successional
assemblages are eventually replaced by infaunal deposit feeders; the start of this
"infaunalization" process is designated arbitrarily as Stage 2. Stage 3 assemblages generally are
composed of deeper living, head-down, deposit-feeding infauna. Stage 3 organisms are usually
larger in size and contribute to sediment bioturbation, thus are associated with redox zones that
are deeper in the sediment column.
Stage 2
Stag* 3
Representation of benthic communities associated with Successional stages
that develop in fine-grained sediments following a disturbance.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-19
Although benthic recolonization and recovery
have been demonstrated within the borders of
the MDS (SAIC, 1995a), the recovery period to
pre-disposal conditions depends on several
factors, including depth of disposed dredged
material (mound thickness), frequency of
disruption, sediment type and grain size, water
depth and temperature, organism recruitment,
and natural energy levels in the disposal area
Monitoring data from various disposal projects
at the MDS suggest that Stage in assemblages
on recently deposited (within 1 yr) fine-grained
sediments recover quickly from disposal events
(SAIC 1995a). In contrast, sandy sediments
used to cap the Category n materials in the MDS
tend to recover more slowly, with infaunal
communities from nearby areas of similar grain
size gradually becoming established and
colonizing the cap material (SAIC 1995a).
Recolonization of Disturbed Sediments
Disposal operations in a shallow-water disposal
site bury benthic infauna, which suffocate unless
they can migrate vertically to the new surface.
Recolonization usually starts soon after disposal
concludes, and is determined by several
processes, including larval recruitment, re-
emergence of buried sessile organisms at the
perimeter of a mound, and immigration of motile
benthic, demersal, and pelagic species from
adjacent areas. Generally, initial recolonization
occurs by larval recruitment; however, the ability
of some larger buried organisms to burrow
upward through the deposited material is
considerable, and recolonization through this
mechanism appears to be important (Maurer et
al, 1981a,b; 1982). For example, the bivalve
Nucula proxima has been shown to survive burial
under 40-50 cm of sediment; other macroinfaunal
organisms are able to resurface through several
cm of sediment (Kranz, 1974).
Benthic infaunal communities in shallow waters
(<20 m) are also affected by storm events that
disrupt and delay the community recovery
process. After site closure under Alternative 1,
the surface sediments of the MDS are expected
to experience continual stress and disruption
from a variety of storm events. Thus, the benthic community that develops on the dredged material mound
in the closed MDS will, over time, develop characteristics that are similar to those currently observed on
the historic mounds to the north of the MDS. The flanks of the MDS mound may develop transitional
communities mat tend toward muddy sand communities, as currently observed in the deeper areas of the
Study Area.
Considering the above information, short-term impacts to the benthic community will continue throughout
the period of active disposal under Alternative 1. Impacts will generally be confined to the areas receiving
dredged material. No direct impacts to communities outside of the MDS are expected, and the benthic
communities in the Study Area evaluated for the SEIS are expected to remain similar to those presently
observed. Recolonization of deposited material will continue in the disturbed areas of the MDS and
progress toward communities similar to those currently found in the major sediment types currently in the
area. Once the site is filled and closed, it is anticipated that the benthic community will be similar to that
currently observed on the historic mounds north of the MDS. Thus, no long-term changes are expected
other than the gradual change to a Group B infaunal community. The suitability of the resulting benthic
community as a habitat and food sources for fish and shellfish resources is discussed in Section 4.3.1.4.
43.13 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Contaminant Bioaccumulation [228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)]
Inside the Mud Dump Site. Continued disposal of Category I material in the MDS and exposure of the
material to the site's natural processes that winnow fine-grain materials from surface sediments,
particularly above the 65-ft BMLW depth, will ultimately reduce contaminant concentrations in the surface
sediments to levels similar to the older mounds of the MDS and the historical disposal mounds to the
north. Once rilled and closed, the relatively shallow MDS will be unlikely to accumulate new
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-20
contaminants from external sources (such as the Hudson River plume or bottom sediment transport).
Storm energy will periodically resuspend and sort the post-closure natural sediments, and disperse the fine-
grain, contaminant-associated particles from the area, while retaining the heavier sandy sediments on the
mound surfaces [see SAIC (1996d) and Clausner et al. (1996)].
Because much of the present MDS is sandy in nature (some from capping projects) with relatively low
concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants, Alternative 1 will result in a small contaminant-exposure
reduction to the Bight Apex. After the MDS is closed, and the sediments are recolonized, resident infauna
will exhibit lower burdens of bioaccumulative contaminants in their tissues, similar to other Bight Apex
areas of equivalent hydrographic and hydrologic conditions. Motile epifauna (e.g., lobster, crabs, demersal
fish), however, which forage over relatively large areas of the Bight Apex, are unlikely to show any change
in body burdens in response to Alternative 1 (refer to Section 4.3.1.4). Furthermore, the infauna
communities that develop on the sandy closed-MDS sediments are not expected to be preferred food
sources for some resource species (refer to Section 3.4.6), such as lobster,10 which currently has elevated
contaminants in the vicinity of the MDS. Motile macrofauna will accumulate lower levels of contaminants
only to the extent that contaminants are reduced in all prey items, throughout their forage areas.
Outside the Mud Dump Site. In the evaluation of current conditions in the Study Area (Chapter 3),
bioaccumulative contaminants were generally highest in sediments on the flanks of the historic mound and
MDS. These areas are mostly outside of the MDS borders (see Figures 3-39 and 3-42). Alternative 1 will
not remediate degraded sediments that lie outside of the MDS, thus will not reduce the availability of these
contaminants and any resulting bioaccumulation by infauna, epifauna, and pelagic species. Reductions in
contaminants external to the MDS will depend on other processes, including burial by cleaner natural
sediments, and chemical and biological degradation.
Alternative 1 will not substantially change bioaccumulation and trophic transfer potentials of sediment
contaminants outside the MDS.
43.1.4 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Fish and Shellfish Resources [228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8),
228.6(a)(ll), 228.10(b)(2), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii),
228.10(c)(l)(iv), 228.10(c)(l)(v)]
As discussed in Section 3.4.3 of Chapter 3, the MDS and surrounding areas provide habitat for numerous
species offish and shellfish. Twenty-eight fish and eight shellfish were identified as regionally important
to the commercial and recreational fishing industry and/or the ecosystem (e.g., major prey of a fishery
species). The 28 fish (listed in Table 3-14) include 21 demersal, four pelagic, and three
pelagic/anadromous species. Two species of squid and six species of benthic shellfish (i.e., lobsters, crabs,
clams, and scallops) were found to be commercially and/or ecologically important (Table 3-15).
Under Alternative 1, impacts to fish and shellfish resources will be generally unchanged from the present
Periodic habitat and spawning disruption within the MDS will continue to result from ongoing disposal
operations. When the MDS is filled to capacity, degraded sediments within the MDS will be buried and
isolated from the biotic environment, disposal-operation impacts (e.g., plumes) to demersal and pelagic
fauna will stop, and the site will be gradually colonized by sandy sediment infaunal and epifaunal benthic
communities. The stability of the final benthic communities, and associated fish and shellfish species, will
As evidenced by the lack of worm species recovered during the October 1994 bioaccumulation study in the sandy
sediments (Battelle, 1997b).
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Page 4-21
depend largely on their ability to endure erosional forces at the 45-ft BMLW level, including occasional
storm events (refer to Sections 3.3.8, 3.4.2.2, and 3.4.6).
The primary concerns of Alternative 1 impacts to fish and shellfish resources are water-column impact,
habitat change, contaminant trophic transfer, spawning impact, and socioeconomic issues. These five
issues are discussed separately in the following paragraphs.
Water-Column Impacts. The most likely time for fish and shellfish to be exposed to water-column
impacts is immediately following a discharge event. However, most fish and shellfish species of concern
in the MDS are relatively motile and can flee falling material. Acute and sublethal impacts from collision
with or burial by falling dredged material will be isolated and infrequent enough to be insignificant. The
greater potential water-column impact to fish and shellfish is impairment of oxygen exchange from
dredged material plumes.
Suspended dredged material can temporarily cause increased biological or chemical oxygen demand
(BOD, COD), lacerate or disrupt the gill epithelium, physically irritate the gill, or block gas exchange by
coating or clogging gill structure. Such impacts can cause mortality, but quantifying dose-response
relationships is conditional on a number of factors which include life stages of the exposed organisms,
duration of the impacts, and other environmental factors (e.g., temperature). The same holds for sublethal
effects, such as changes in feeding behavior, choice of habitat, foraging efficiency, and spawning.
O'Connor (1991) conducted a literature review of several turbidity experiments with fish and reports a
range of responses. In general, the lowest TSS concentration recorded to have any impact was about 100
mg/L, for a 10*-h exposure on a sensitive life stage. Turbidity and TSS of dredged material plumes at the
MDS are discussed in Sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.10 of Chapter 3. Within approximately 15 min of 4000-
6000 yd3 discharges at the site, initial dilutions range from 3,000:1 to 600,000:1. Plumes generally spread
less than 500 m. The time series plots in Figure 3-52 show that TSS dilutes to about 20 mg/L within about
15 min. and to background levels (0.5-1 mg/L) well within 1 h (Dragos and Peven, 1994; Dragos and
Lewis, 1993). Other EPA Region 2 and USAGE NYD field studies of the MDS have shown that dredged
material discharged at the site does not cause dissolved oxygen (DO) to be depressed greater than 25% in
the water column after allowance for initial mixing. The current Site Management and Monitoring Plan
for the MDS (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a) specifies a 4+-h period between disposal events at the
site to allow for initial mixing (40 CFR Section 227.29) and compliance with the limiting permissible
concentration (40 CFR Section 227.27).
The above information indicates that water-column impacts from dredged material discharges under
Alternative 1 would be brief and insignificant to fish and shellfish resources. Furthermore, as the MDS
fills and the water depths become shallower, particularly in the southern half of the site, the discharge
plumes will be smaller and even less persistent, because less water will be entrained by the falling material.
Habitat Change. Under Alternative 1, the composition of surface sediments within the borders of the
MDS will gradually change to an armored surface layer of relatively coarse material in the center of the
site, grading to muddier sediments on the deeper areas on the mound flanks at the borders of the site (refer
to Section 4.2.9). At site closure, the site will be a rough plateau, similar to the historic disposal mounds to
the north-northwest of the site. Hard-bottom or reef structures (incl. shipwrecks) do not occur in the MDS,
thus none will be covered, lost, or affected by Alternative 1.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-22
The major consequences of Alternative 1 will be the ongoing, short-duration disruption of fish and
shellfish MDS habitats as the site is filled. These habitat disruptions are expected to be partially offset by
the greater topographic relief along the borders of the disposal site, particularly along the southeastern
border of the site (the 17-Fathom fishing grounds). Multihabitat fish such as winter and summer flounder,
silver and red hake, cod, and ocean pout, and sand-habitat species such as yellowtail flounder, scup and sea
robins, should experience a net benefit from Alternative 1. Similarly, squid, sea scallop and jonah crab
should benefit by creation of new habitat, after the site is closed and fine sediments are winnowed from the
mid sections of the disposal area. Net habitat losers from Alternative 1 are likely to be the spotted and red
hakes, as well as crabs and demersal fish that depend on muddy bottoms for prey items (refer to Sections
3.4.3.4 and 3.4.6.1 in Chapter 3).
While the burial of toxic sediments and bioaccumulative contaminants in some areas of the MDS would
have some beneficial impact on fish and shellfish habitat, the improvement will not be measurable
because:
• There is no evidence that current chemical conditions within the MDS are detrimental to area fish and
shellfish;
• Most fish and shellfish at the MDS are temporary inhabitants, either migrating through the region or
foraging over a large area of the Bight; and
• Any habitat impacts are masked by overfishing.
A potential measurable benefit from Alternative 1 is increased fish and shellfish habitat from the increased
topographic relief created by filling the disposal site to capacity (see box below). The present MDS mound
attracts a number of fish species, and further increases in topographic relief, particularryTnThe southern
half of the site, will provide additional food and shelter to fish and macroinvertebrates (e.g., crabs and
lobsters). The habitats outside the MDS would remain unaffected.
Fish and Shellfish Attraction to Dredged Material Disposal Mounds
There are innumerable unpublished accounts that the construction of offshore underwater mounds from dredged
material creates and improves fishery habitat. Disposal site managers and field staff have long observed
disproportionate fishing activity (e.g., trawlers, party boats, trap lines) at and near nondispersive dredged material
disposal sites around the country. However, the beneficial effects of disposal mounds are generally understudied
and undocumented, primarily because site monitoring plans are geared toward detecting negative impacts, rather
than beneficial effects. ._ . ...
In recent years, the field of artificial reef technology has made significant advances in understanding fish
attraction to and habitat creation of underwater manmade structures (e.g., Seaman and Sprague, 1991; Nakamura
el al, 1991). Clarke et a/.(1988) and Clarke and Kasul (1994) describe two of the very limited number of studies
that have evaluated beneficial influences on fish and shellfish by dredged material mounds and berms. In
general, reef structures that occupy less than 10% of the water column tend to attract demersal species.
Attractional forces include the "lee wave" phenomenon (occurs as eddies form up and downstream of an
underwater structure) and the magnitude of eddy formation (function of structure height, current velocity, and
side slope). Clarke and Kasul (1994) specifically evaluated a 1.5-mi long, 0.75-mi wide, 25-ft high berm of
dredged material (smaller but comparable to the 2.2-mni2 MDS) constructed off Mobile Bay in Alabama, and
attraction to the berm by spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, and Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus, as well as
fish prey items that included shrimps, crabs, mysids, nekton, and polychaetes. The Clarke et a/.(1988) paper is a
more general evaluation of fish attraction to several New England dredged material disposal sites, as well as the
Mobile, AL, site. The information in these two papers strongly suggest that the topography of dredged material
disposal mounds benefit fishery resources in those areas.
-------
MDS/HARS SEJS May 1997
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Page 4-23
Trophic Transfer of Contaminants. The major concerns about contaminant bioaccumulation and trophic
transfer are discussed in Section 3.4.6.2. In general, the potential trophic transfer impacts that originate
inside the MDS are expected to be moderately reduced from present levels by Alternative 1.
Sediments outside of the MDS, to the east and northwest of the site, that are degraded with
bioaccumulative contaminants will be only passively remediated under Alternative 1 via fine sediments
that drift into and settle into the area. This includes areas referred to by local fishermen as the Scotland
Banks and 17-Fathom Areas. The present impacts from these degraded areas outside the MDS (a far larger
area than total area of MDS) are expected to continue affecting infaunal communities (refer to Chapter 3,
Section 3.4.2.3) and the fish and shellfish that feed on these communities.
On a Bight-wide basis, the benefits of isolating the degraded surface sediments in the MDS by the disposal
of Category I material are not expected to be measurable. Fish and shellfish of concern (e.g., flounder and
lobsters) that are subject to the degraded sediments currently in the MDS may experience an improvement
in habitat However, the relatively large foraging area of these species extends well beyond the MDS, and
overall incremental improvements will be immeasurably small and probably insignificant. Similarly,
habitat changes external to the MDS will be small but beneficial under Alternative 1 as disposal plumes
drifting from dumping operations, and sediments winnowing from disposal mounds, settle over degraded
areas. Both the Category I and n dredged material permitted for disposal at the MDS under the present
SMMP are substantially less contaminated than sediments dumped before 1992 [date at which revision of
the 1991 Green Book (EPA/USACE, 1991) began to be applied to MDS disposal project evaluations].
Likewise, pollution emitted from the Hudson River plume is gradually decreasing. It is logical to
conclude that, over a long period of time, the deposition of new sediments in degraded areas, both inside
and outside of the MDS, will improve the infauna habitat as well as the fish and shellfish that feed on these
communities. These habitat improvements will probably be nondetectable among the other habitat
influences (e.g., currents and storm events) and fishing pressure on the resources.
Spawning. Potential Alternative 1 impacts to fish and shellfish spawning include potential changes to
spawning behavior and sites and burial of demersal eggs. As discussed relative to water-column impacts,
actual disposal events will be short and infrequent, and spatially limited. Disruption of spawning activities
is therefore not considered to be significant
Any potential Alternative 1 spawning impact would occur disproportionally to demersal eggs on the
seafloor, particularly to fish and shellfish whose spawning periods coincide with their peak abundance in
the New York Bight and have the potential to lay a significant number of eggs within the area exposed to
disposal material. The species most likely to be affected, include winter flounder, sea raven, longhom
sculpin little skate, ocean pout, rock crab, surf clam, and sea scallop (refer to Section 3.4.3.3 in Chapter 3).
Potential impacts could be from contaminant toxicity to the eggs and/or suffocation from dredged material
burial." When the site is closed, the potential for impacts would be eliminated, and beneficial impacts to
spawning and habitat could result from the enhanced topographic relief created by the filled site.
For bioaccumulative contaminants to affect biological organisms, the exposure period must be sufficiently long to
allow the contaminant to be taken up and for a response to be elicited. Various experts have concluded that a
practical capping thickness for biological isolation of contaminated sediments is 30-50 cm (SAIC, 1997). Pursuant
to the SMMP, MDS project permits require that Category n sediment be expeditiously capped with aim layer of
Category I material for added protection against potential for bioaccumulation.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-24
No lethal or sublethal effects on fish and shellfish spawning in the Study Area have been detected or
attributed to degraded sediments caused by dredged material disposal. If spawning effects exist, they are
beyond the ability to be measured by current methods, and are most likely being masked by natural
variability of Bight-wide conditions, year-class variability of the individual species, and over fishing.
These same conditions will continue with implementation of Alternatives 2-4.
Socioeconomic Considerations. Alternative 1 is expected to affect the socioeconomic factors offish and
shellfish resources mostly through the public perceptions of whether fish and shellfish resources are being
negatively affected by the presence and management of the MDS, and whether there are health risks
associated with the consumption of seafood from the New York Bight.
With regard to negative effects to fish and shellfish resources in the Study Area, EPA concurs with NOAA
NMFS (1995) "...some species show evidence of contaminants in their tissues, especially those species
with relatively high levels of lipids or an affinity for accumulating pollutants. The problem however, is to
differentiate the source of the contaminants. Within the New York Bight itself, contaminants similar to
those at the Mud Dump Site pervade the harbor estuary and flow out of the Bight with river currents. In
addition, atmospheric deposition accounts for a considerable amount of Bight contamination." (NOAA
NMFS, 1995). Even if physical and chemical impacts from dredged material disposal are affecting fish
and shellfish at MDS, or in the larger Bight Apex, they are not detectable among the much larger and
simultaneous impacts caused by recreational and commercial fishing mortality and natural mortality
(NOAA NMFS, 1995). "Clearly, the recently completed fish tissue analysis undertaken by NMFS for the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers shows that recruited species live and thrive
in the New York Bight, even near the Mud Dump Site. In addition, our studies show that Newark Bay, a
source of contaminated sediments for the Mud Dump Site, apparently supports a wide variety of fish."
(NOAA NMFS, 1995).
Potential dredged material disposal impacts to fish and shellfish resources in the Bight Apex are only
related to the habitat loss and contaminant toxicity in the benthic areas that have significant accumulation
of historically discharged dredged material. As discussed earlier, Alternative 1 is not expected to
significantly impact fish habitat, and could actually be beneficial by increasing the topographic relief on
theseafloor. ,:.:.:
Contaminant levels of Study Area fish and-shellfish tissue samples were compared to Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels. Only PCB and dioxin levels in hepatic tissue (the "tomalley") of
lobster were above the action levels; no action levels were exceeded in muscle tissue of the lobster or other
resource species. Exceedance of the FDA action level in the hepatic tissue of the lobster is cause for
concern and may justify further study for high-risk exposure groups (e.g., pregnant women, children).
Both New York and New Jersey have seafood advisories that address human-health risks associated with
seafood consumption from the New York Bight.
It is reasonable to expect that under Alternative 1 public perception and responses toward dredged material
disposal operations at the MDS will be relatively unchanged because the site will continue to be operated
as it currently is, and potential seafood health risks will remain static or decrease as disposal of Category n
material ends and Category I material is used to fill/cap the site, and contaminant source reduction in the
Hudson River watershed is implemented. Correspondingly, potential health risks associated with the
degraded sediment outside the MDS will also remain static in the near term under Alternative 1. In the
long term, health risks from the sediment outside of the MDS can be expected to decrease as contaminants
from the New York Bight watershed and airshed are gradually reduced through pollution-control
programs. However, the socioeconomics offish and shellfish resources are strongly linked to the fishing
-------
UDS/HARS SEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-25
and seafood-buying public's understanding and reaction to health-risk information. Minor shifts in public
perception about fish/shellfish contamination or resource impacts can significantly increase or decrease
seafood consumption, fishing activity, and the associated economies of these industries (e.g., fishing gear
and boat sales/rentals, shoreline restaurant business).
43.1.5 Alternative 1 (No Action) — Natural and Cultural Features of Historical Importance
[228.6(a)(ll)]
As considered in Section 3.5.7, no natural or cultural features of historic importance were located in the
MDS. Although the continental shelf was once a relatively dry coastal plain suitable for prehistoric human
habitation, erosion associated with sea level rise would have severely impacted site preservation. Potential
prehistoric sites in the MDS have likely been deeply buried by dredged material disposal and natural
sedimentation.
Side scan surveys of the MDS did not reveal any shipwrecks on the seafloor in the MDS. Two vessels
were identified as having sunk within the boundaries of the MDS: one in 1938; the other was entered into
the NOAA Automated Ship Wreck and Obstruction System in 1990. Neither vessel is evident in the side
scan records obtained in the MDS in 1995. Either the vessels have been buried by disposal operations in
the area or drifted to locations outside of the MDS boundaries prior to settling on the seafloor.
In summary, no areas of historical or cultural significance are identifiable within the MDS boundaries.
Alternative 1 has no consequences under this evaluative criteria
43.1.6 Pros and Cons of Alternative 1
The following is a summary of the pros and cons of implementing Alternative 1. The pros and cons of all
four alternatives are compared in Section 4.4 to select the Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 1 Pros
No impact to fish and shellfish resources,
shorelines, or special areas of concern
Limited short-term impact to benthic
community within the disposal site
Extension of the dredged material mound
may provide longer berm and incrementally
improve fish and shellfish habitat
No new impacts to Bight Apex navigation
No impact to cultural resource sites
Provides approximately 31 Myd3 of Category
I capacity
Alternative 1 Cons
Contaminant trophic transfer and potential
human-health or ecological risks for areas
outside the MDS unaffected
Sediment areas degraded by toxic and
bioaccumulative contaminants outside the
MDS are not remediated or restored. This
area is 6.8 nmi2, three times bigger than the
current MDS.
Does not meet the intent of the July 24,1996,
3-Party Letter regarding: "The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current Category
I standards and will not cause undesirable
effects including through bioaccumulation)."
and "The designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term use of
category 1 dredge material."
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-26
43.1.7 Monitoring and Surveillance for Alternative 1 [228.6(a)(5>]
The feasibility of surveillance and monitoring (physical, chemical, and biological) in the vicinity of the
MDS has been demonstrated during the past 15 years (See Section 3.2.6). The location of the MDS, near
the mouth of the New York-New Jersey Harbor facilitates surveillance of disposal operations as well as
mobilization and operation of scientific surveys. Under Alternative 1, surveillance and monitoring of
dredged material disposal operations continues as defined in the MDS Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a).
4.3.2 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts of the No MDS-No HARS Designation
Alternative (Alternative 2)
43.2.1 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Degraded Sediments [228.6(a)(7),
228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(i), 228.10(c)(l)(ii)]
As discussed relative to Alternative 1 and in Section 3.3.9.3 of Chapter 3, approximately half of the
surface sediments within the present MDS are degraded, causing acute toxicity (a Category in
characteristic) or dioxin bioaccumulation exceeding Category I levels. Throughout the Study Area,
including the MDS, there are approximately 9 nmi2 (31 km2) of degraded sediment
Under Alternative 2, none of the 9 nmi2 of degraded sediment will be actively remediated or restored.
Gradual reduction of the degradation areas can be expected over a long period of time as contaminant
sources to the Bight Apex are reduced and natural sediments entering the Apex become cleaner. The rate
that this natural remediation occurs will depend on the success of pollution controls throughout the New
York Bight watershed, and the rate of sedimentation outflows from the Hudson River and East River
(including Long Island Sound). The deposition of cleaner natural sediments will eventually remediate the
degraded sediments to background-level conditions. Ironically, improvements in upstream soil-erosion
controls, by decreasing Bight Apex sedimentation, potentially would prolong the period over which
degraded areas are naturally remediated. However, because numerous factors influence natural
sedimentation in the Bight Apex, the degree and rate of natural remediation of degraded sediments cannot
be accurately predicted without chemical characterization data on the sediments entering the Hudson
River, a forecast of future erosion in the watershed, and development of a sedimentation model that
accurately predicts the fate of sediments entering the Apex.
Large storm events in the Bight Apex also have the potential to influence the degraded sediment of the
Study Area, although to a lesser degree than under Alternative 1. The small areas of degraded sediments
above 20 m BMLW (e.g., northeast corner of the MDS) will eventually be winnowed and sorted by winter
storms, resulting in coarse, erosion-resistant surface sediments that are less degraded than present As
previously discussed, the winnowing process will move the fine-grain, contaminant-containing sediments
from high-energy areas of the Bight to low-energy areas (i.e., below 20 m), resulting in sediment armoring
and remediation in shallow-water areas. By the same processes, degraded sediments currently deeper than
20 m, and isolated from all but very severe storm events (100-year frequency hurricanes/noreaster), will
remain degraded for longer periods than equivalent sediments in the shallow-water areas.
4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Benthic Infauna [228.10(b)(3),
228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii)]
As discussed in Section 3.4.2 and Section 4.3.1.1, there are two distinct benthic infaunal communities in
the Study Area. Neither the muddy-sand community ("Community Group A," located predominantly in
sediments with relatively high total organic carbon concentrations and at depths greater than 20 m) nor the
sandy community ("Community Group B," generally found on the dredged material mound surfaces less
than 20 m) will be substantially changed by Alternative 2. Each community group will continue to inhabit
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-27
their respective habitats and support the organisms in the corresponding next trophic levels. Infauna that
bioaccumulate contaminants from the sediments, particularly the Group A infauna, will continue to do so
(refer to Section 4.3.2.4).
With implementation of Alternative 2, short-term disposal-related impacts (e.g., smothering) currently
affecting MDS organisms will stop. Storm-related impacts will remain unchanged until the MDS disposal
mounds are eroded/winnowed to below 20 m or become armored and resistant to further erosion.
Gradually, benthic community composition within the MDS will become similar to that found on the
historic mounds north of the MDS. In general, however, Study Area benthic communities are not
expected to substantially change following closure of the disposal site and cessation of all dredged material
dumping.
4323 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Contaminant Bioaccumulation
[228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(ffi)]
Closing the MDS, ceasing all dredged material disposal at the MDS, and not conducting any benthic
remediation work will prolong the period for potential contaminant bioaccumulation. Fine-grain, degraded
sediments on the flanks of the historic mound and MDS will not be remediated and will continue to be a
potential source of contaminants to benthic infauna and epifauna, as well as the demersal and pelagic
predators. As discussed in Sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2, "natural remediation" of the degraded sediments
and associated reductions of bioaccumulation potential will take place over a long time frame, that will
depend on non-placement sedimentary processes, including natural deposition (i.e., from Hudson River
plume).
In general, Alternative 2 will not substantially change current levels of contaminant bioaccumulation in the
Study Area. Over the long term, deposition of cleaner natural sediments will gradually make the Study
Area bioaccumulation potential approach that of the background conditions of the Bight Apex. The degree
to which contaminant bioaccumulation is reduced, and the period needed to reach a steady-state condition,
will depend in large part on the quality of Hudson River plume sediments and other contaminant sources
(e.g., atmospheric deposition). Li turn, these pollution sources to the Bight Apex are dependent on
regional pollution control programs, watershed development, erosion control, and storm events.
Compared to the other three alternatives, Alternative 2 leaves the largest area (9 nmi2) of degraded
sediments exposed for the longest periods. Each of the other three alternatives include some amount of
isolation of contaminated sediment within the Study Area.
432.4 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Fish and Shellfish Resources
[228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8), 228.6(a)(ll), 228.10(b)(2), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6),
228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(iii), 228.10(c)(l)(iv), 228.10(c)(l)(v)]
Impacts to 28 fish and eight shellfish species (Table 3-15) that were identified as regionally important to
the commercial and recreational fishing industry and/or the ecosystem will be generally unchanged from
present conditions under Alternative 2. The following paragraphs summarize five areas of concern relative
to Alternative 2 and fish/shellfish resources.
Water-Column Impacts. Under Alternative 2, no further dredged material will be discharged in the MDS
for either disposal or remediation purposes. Consequently, there will be no water-column impacts from
falling material, nor will there be impacts to feeding behavior, choice of habitat, foraging efficiency, and
spawning attributable to water-column impact Of the four alternatives, Alternative 2 has the least
potential for water-column impacts to fish and shellfish resources.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-28
Habitat Change. Under Alternative 2, composition of surface sediments above 20 m BMLW within the
borders of the MDS will gradually be eroded/winnowed by storms and change to an armored surface layer
of relatively coarse material in the center of the site, grading to muddier sediments on the deeper areas on
the mound flanks at the borders of the site (refer to Section 4.2.9). No other habitat changes are expected.
No hard-bottom or reef structures (including shipwrecks) will be covered, lost, or affected by this
alternative. The potential negative consequences to fish and shellfish resources are the continued exposure
of bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity to the Bight Apex environment, and the potential
bioavailability of sediment contaminants to marine organisms. There is no enhancement of fish and
shellfish habitat (from increased topographic relief) under Alternative 2.
Trophic Transfer of Contaminants. Corresponding to the general lack of change regarding contaminant
bioaccumulation, there will not be any significant changes in the transfer of contaminants from the
sediments to Bight Apex organisms under Alternative 2. As discussed in Section 3.4.6.2 of Chapter 3,
infauna that inhabit degraded sediment areas will continue to take up contaminants from the sediment.
Reductions in potential trophic transfer of contaminants under Alternative 2 will only occur through
natural remediation processes. Deposition of natural sediments will gradually make the Study Area
bioaccumulation potential approach that of the background conditions of the Bight Apex. The degree to
which contaminant bioaccumulation is reduced, and the period needed to reach a steady-state condition,
will depend on the quality of Hudson River plume sediments and other contaminant sources (e.g.,
atmospheric deposition). These pollution sources to the Bight Apex are dependent on regional pollution
control programs, watershed development, erosion control, and storm events. In the near- and mid-term
periods, sediment contaminants in the eastern and southern portions of the MDS, as well as outside areas to
the east, south, and northwest of the disposal site, will continue to expose the Apex infauna to
contaminants, which can potentially be transferred to higher trophic levels with detrimental effects.
Fish and macroinvertebrates (e.g., lobsters) that forage on Apex infauna in predominantly muddy areas will
have the greatest exposure to contaminants and potentially experience impacts under Alternative 2. As
listed in Figure 3-73 in Chapter 3, mud-dwelling fish and shellfish in the Study Area include the spiny
dogfish, spotted hake, silver hake, red hake, fourspot flounder, longhorn sculpin, windowpane flounder,
and horseshoe crab. On a Bight-wide basis, however, trophic-transfer impacts from sediment contaminants
are not expected to be measurable, with or without the implementation of this alternative. Most of the fish
and shellfish of concern that live or forage in fine-grain sediments, including the degraded sediments of the
Study Area, also frequent nondegraded, less contaminated areas. These same fish and shellfish are also
exposed to background contamination throughout the Bight. Furthermore, migratory species (e.g.,
bluefish, lobster) are exposed to contaminant sources outside the Study Area or Bight
In summary, the trophic transfer of contaminants relative to Alternative 2 is exceedingly difficult to
measure by current sampling and analytical methods. Relative to the other alternatives, however,
Alternative 2 has the greatest potential for trophic transfer of contaminants because the largest area of
degraded sediments will be exposed for the longest period (due to no disposal of dredged material/
placement of Remediation Material).
Spawning. Alternative 2 presents the least impact to fish and shellfish spawning in the Study Area, as no
burial or other impacts will occur from dredged material dumping. The single negative impact to fish and
shellfish spawning is the remote potential for lethal or sublethal effects to demersal eggs by the sediment
contaminants in the degraded areas in the 9.0 nmi2 PRA. This potential impact is strictly hypothetical. No
lethal or sublethal effects on fish and shellfish spawning in the Study Area have been detected or attributed
to degraded sediments caused by dredged material disposal. If spawning effects exist, they are beyond the
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-29
ability to be measured by current methods, and they are most likely being masked by natural variability of
Bight-wide conditions, year-class variability of the individual species, and over fishing. These same
conditions apply to the other alternatives as well.
Sorioeconomic Considerations. Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 is expected to affect the socioeconomic
factors offish and shellfish resources mostly through the public's perceptions of whether fish and shellfish
resources are being negatively affected by the current operation of the MDS, and potential health risks
associated with the consumption of seafood from the Bight Apex after the site closes.
As discussed earlier, changes in contaminant impacts to fish and shellfish under Alternative 2, are
expected to be insignificant and nondetectable by current stock assessment methods. The effects of habitat
losses and eutrophication of shoreline areas, and fishing mortality nearshore and throughout the Bight
Apex, overwhelm any impacts from degraded sediments occurring in the Study Area. Despite the inability
to measure impacts from degraded sediments, and the degree that these impacts may continue under
Alternative 2, a weight-of-evidence evaluation concludes that this alternative presents the largest potential
for human health risk to area seafood consumers. This conclusion is primarily based on the fact that, under
Alternative 2, the most amount of degraded sediment will be exposed to the Bight Apex ecosystem for the
longest period. Unfortunately, quantifying the potential socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 2 to fish
and shellfish resources is not possible for two reasons:
• Most of the fish and shellfish resources in the Apex are composed of species that forage over large
areas and/or are highly migratory. Effects to these organisms by the relatively small area of degraded
sediments in the Study Area are masked by other anthropogenic impacts.
• Technical data regarding impacts to fish and shellfish resources in the Study Area are subject to
different interpretations. Dissemination of different interpretations can cause abrupt changes in the
socioeconomics of the resources.
As with Alternative 1, relatively minor shifts in public perception about fish/shellfish contamination or
resource impacts can significantly increase or decrease seafood consumption, fishing activity, and the
associated economies of these industries (e.g., fishing gear and boat sales/rentals, shoreline restaurant
business). Correspondingly, the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 2 will depend in large part on
whether the public believes that the implemented alternative increases or decreases health risks to seafood
consumers, and whether the perceived increase or decrease in the risk is sufficiently large to result in
changes in behavior (fishing practices) or purchase decisions (menu selection).
Another socioeconomic impact of Alternative 2 relates to potential impacts on the Port of New York and
New Jersey. Implementation of Alternative 2 would eliminate an EPA-designated site for Category I
dredged material. It would be inconsistent with the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter which is inter alia
intended to help remove the immediate obstacles to dredging the Port and assure long-term use of Category
I dredged material.
43.2.5 Alternative 2 (No MDS-No HARS Designation) — Natural and Cultural Features of
Historical Importance [228.6(a)(ll)]
As discussed in Section 3.5.7 of Chapter 3, a number of shipwrecks were identified within the Study Area
and several of these wrecks have potential historical importance. Some could be eligible for nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places following further evaluation.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-30
Because Alternative 2 does not involve any sediment disposal/placement, no impacts to shipwrecks will
occur from discharged sediment.
43.2.6 Pros and Cons of Alternative 2
The following is a summary of the pros and cons of implementing Alternative 2. The pros and cons of all
three alternatives are compared in Section 4.4 to select the Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 2 Pros
No impact to fish and shellfish resources,
shorelines, or Special Areas of Concern
No short-term impact to benthic community
within the Study Area
Reduced potential for impacts to Bight Apex
navigation
No impact to cultural resources
Alternative 2 Cons
• Does not address the need for benthic
remediation inside or outside the MDS
• Contaminant toxicity and bioaccumulation
potential from degraded sediments unchanged
• No change to potential human-health and
ecological risks, including potential impacts
to endangered and threatened species, from
contaminant trophic transfer.
• Does not meet the intent of the July 24,1996,
3-Party Letter regarding: "The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current Category
I standards and will not cause undesirable
effects including through bioaccumulation)."
and "The designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term use of
category 1 dredge material."
43.2.7 Monitoring and Surveillance for Alternative 2 [228.6(a)(5)]
Under Alternative 2, surveillance and monitoring of dredged material disposal operations per the MDS Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a) will stop when the
disposal site is closed. However, EPA and the USAGE will continue to work with applicable Federal
agencies on future monitoring work.
4.33 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts of Alternative 3 (Remediation)
433.1 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Degraded Sediments [228.6< a >(7), 228.10(b)(4),
228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(i), 228.10(c)(l)(ii)]
As presented hi Section 3.3.9.3 of Chapter 3, Study Area sediment samples were tested in 10-day acute
bioassays using the amphipod Ampelisca abdita. Test results ranged from 0 to 99% organism survival,
with reference-sediment survival at 94%. The PRA encompasses all of the HARS stations that had less
than 74% survival, the level that is biologically significant and unacceptable for ocean dumping (i.e.,
Category m characteristics), per the 1991 Green Book and the Regional Testing Manual (EPA/USACE,
1991; EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1992). The PRA also covers the vast majority of the New York Bight
area known to have received dredged material over the past 100 years. In general, the degraded sediments
in the HARS PRA are fine-grained, below the 20 m depth contour and located east and west of the present
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-31
MDS, and in the northeast quadrant and southeastern border of the MDS itself (refer to Figure 3-48, Figure
44, and Figure 4-6).
Placing aim cap of the Material for Remediation throughout the PRA will isolate Category n and
Category IE-type sediments presently on the bottom, and reduce the potential human-health and ecological
impacts presented by these sediments. In the small subpart of the PRA above 20 m, sandy Material for
Remediation may be required to ensure integrity of the cap during storm surges. When remediation
operations are completed in the PRA, the potential for contaminant bioaccumulation will be reduced, as
well as the potential for sublethal effects in benthic marine organisms and their predators (including human
consumers offish and shellfish from the area).
The long-term effectiveness of the Alternative 3 cap in the PRA will depend on two factors: (1) natural
processes that act to bind and hold contaminants to the sediments (e.g., organic carbon content, storms)
and (2) input, transport, and deposition of contaminants to the deeper, less energetic areas of the HARS
from other sources in the area (e.g., Hudson River plume, atmospheric sources, seafloor sediment
dispersion). Undiminished inputs of contaminants from nondredged material sources will likely result in
gradual recontamination of some areas of remediated sediments. The degree of recontamination will be a
function of the contaminant sources, level of organic carbon maintained in the sediments, and natural
cycling of carbon in the coastal ocean.
Future pollution sources to both harbor sediments (future dredged material) and remediated sediments in
the HARS is primarily under the control of the actions taken under the New York Harbor Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). It is very probable that if pollution sources from the
Hudson River plume and atmosphere continue unchecked, PRA sediments could return to an unacceptable
(degraded) quality within a period of years, regardless of the quality and effectiveness of the capping
operations. Additionally, the rate that the PRA is remediated with Material for Remediation will also
influence the overall effectiveness of the alternative relative to current and future impacts.
43 32 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Benthic Infauna [228.10(b)(3), 228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii),
As discussed in Section 3.4.2 and Section 4.3.1.1, there are two distinct benthic infaunal communities in
the HARS (Figure 4-7). The sandy community ["Group B"] is found on dredged material mounds within
the HARS that are less than 20 m (65 ft) BMLW (i.e., the No Discharge Zone) and will not be impacted by
implementation of Alternative 3. In contrast to the Group B community, a large fraction of community
Group A (located in predominantly muddy sediments) will be buried under Alternative 3. Most of the
infaunal organisms in the PRA will be smothered, and a short period (e.g., an annual cycle) will lapse until
the community is recolonized and reestablished from adjacent areas. At the community level, the impact
will be short term, and spatially and temporarily insignificant.
About 80% of the benthic community in the PRA of the HARS will be impacted by burial during the
course of Alternative 3 remediation operations. However, these impacts will be one-time events occurring
at discrete subareas of the PRA. Group A communities inhabiting nearby areas will recolonize subareas of
the PRA soon after the subareas are remediated. As has been documented in other dredged material sites
and in the MDS specifically (SAIC, 1995a; SAIC 1997), full recovery of Group A communities is
expected to occur over a period of several seasons.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-32
Degraded Sediments
• Yes
No
1996 Bathymetry
/V < 20 meters
20 meters
/V > 20 meters
Priority
Remediation Area
Buffer Zone
No Discharge Zone
Figure 4-6. Alternative 3 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) and locations of degraded
sediment The Priority Remediation Area (PRA) is the U-shaped, light-shade area. The
surrounding dark-shade area is the HARS Buffer Zone (BZ).
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-33
Community Group
Group A
GreupB
No Data
A/ < 20 meters
20 meters
/V > 20 meters
Figure 4-7. Benthic community groups in and around the HARS. Community Group A (circle
symbols) is generally located in deep muddy areas, relative to Community Group B
(square symbols) which is generally in shallower sandy areas.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1991
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-34
As described under Alternative 1, deposited New York Bight Apex dredged material is recolonized by (1)
benthic infauna that are able to unbury themselves (where the mound thickness is sufficiently thin), (2)
adult and juvenile infauna that migrate from uncapped areas, and (3) larval infauna that settle on the new
substrate (SAIC, 1997). The composition of the community that eventually colonizes the capped area will
depend largely on the texture (grain size) of the surface sediments. To the maximum extent practicable,
each remediation area will be remediated with Remediation Material of similar grain-size/composition as
sediments located within that particular remediation area. Thus, the community in the remediated PRA is
not expected to be greatly different than presently found.
Impacts to infaunal characteristics from changes in the water depth (in the range of 1 m) will be minor.
Thus, Alternative 3 will not place communities that recolonize the remediation sediments in a more
energetic environment such as that experienced at depths above 20 m. Alternative 3 will not increase the
potential for natural events (i.e., storms) to affect these communities.
As discussed under Alternative 1, the rate that benthic communities are buried under Alternative 3 will be
balanced by recolonization of the sediments. Recolonization of the remediated areas will occur within one
annual cycle, and take several years to fully develop the benthic community that corresponds to the new
conditions (EPA Region 2 Benthic Ecology Workshop, December 1996). The net effect of remediation
will be that, at any given time, only a small portion of the PRA will receive Remediation Material. Thus,
potential benthic impacts from remediation should be limited to a specific remediation area.
In summary, because the Material for Remediation placed in the PRA will be similar to existing habitat
conditions, and applied to relatively small areas, Alternative 3 impacts to benthic infauna are expected to
be quickly mitigated by rapid recovery of resident community organisms at the perimeters of the disposal
mounds, and recolonization by organisms from nearby areas. Benefits to HARS infauna will be the
removal or reduction of potentially lethal or sublethal effects caused by contaminants in the current PRA
sediments.
4 .33.3 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Contaminant Bioaccumulation [228.10(b)(6),
Alternative 3 will cap PRA areas exhibiting Category n and HI characteristics with Material for
Remediation. Post-remediation contaminant bioavailability to the benthic community (i.e., infauna and
infauna predators, including fish) will depend on:
• Contaminant levels
• Effectiveness of the remediation operations
• Erosion, bioturbation, and other forces that homogenize bottom sediments, and
• Contaminants and organic carbon loading from other sources (e.g., Hudson River plume,
atmosphere), which is expected to vary seasonally by natural processes and in the long-term by
actions to control New York Bight watershed and airshed pollution.
Geochemical relationships of the New York Bight suggest that sediments with low TOC (i.e., similar to
muddy sands outside the HARS) that are remediated will eventually develop contaminant concentrations
that are at the lower end of concentrations presently observed in the degraded areas. By extension, benthic
organisms living in these sediments will have lower contaminant burdens in their tissues. This will, in
turn, make lower concentrations available to higher trophic level organisms, resulting in lower contaminant
levels in higher organisms.
-------
MDS/HARS SE1S May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-35
Based on the above scenario, it is reasonable to expect that Alternative 3 will help lower contaminant
levels in higher organisms that inhabit the HARS. Organisms such as crabs, lobsters, and demersal fish
that currently feed on HARS infauna with high body burdens of contaminants will receive decreasing
contaminant exposure as the PRA is remediated. This exposure reduction will be a beneficial effect on
Bight Apex organisms, and human beings will have less risk of adverse effects from consumption of Bight
Apex seafood.
43.3.4 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Fish and Shellfish Resources [228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8),
228.6(a)(ll), 228.10(b)(2), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(ii), 228.10(c)(l)(ffi),
228.10(c)(l)(iv), 228.10(c)(l)(v)]
Relative to fish and shellfish resources, the primary effect of Alternative 3 will be a general improvement
of benthic habitat in the degraded sediment areas predominantly located west and southwest of the historic
disposal mounds in the center of the HARS, and along the eastern and southern borders of the present
MDS.
Over the long term, Alternative 3 will improve benthic habitat by reducing contaminant exposure, and thus
benefit regional fish and shellfish resources, particularly demersal species and pelagic species with
demersal eggs. In the near term, while remediation operations are underway, Alternative 3 will have
impacts comparable to Alternative 1. During the remediation operation period, localized and periodic
habitat and spawning disruption will occur from the placement of Remediation Material. Infaunal and
epifaunal communities in the degraded areas will be covered by a cap of at least 1 m of Material for
Remediation, and these areas will be temporarily removed as sources of food and habitat for demersal fish
and shellfish until they are recolonized. Similarly, until the site is closed, impacts to demersal eggs could
potentially occur from sediment plumes from remediation operations.
After the PRA is capped with at least 1 m of Material for Remediation:
• All degraded sediments within the HARS will be buried and isolated from the biotic environment,
• Remediation operation impacts (e.g., plumes) to demersal and pelagic fauna will stop, and
• The site will begin to recolonize by infaunal and epifaunal communities specific to the final surface
sediments.
The stability of the final benthic communities and associated fish and shellfish species will depend largely
on (1) quality of the sediments (e.g., grain size, organic carbon content, bottom roughness), (2)
susceptibility of the communities to storm events, (3) local ecosystem dynamics, and (4) commercial and
recreational fishing pressure.
The primary impacts during implementation of Alternative 3 are similar to those of Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 is expected to impact fish and shellfish resources through water-column impacts, benthic
habitat change, contaminant trophic transfer, spawning, and socioeeonomic issues related to the resources.
However, these impacts will be spatially limited, temporary, and probably nondetectable by resource
assessment measures (e.g., trawl surveys). In the long-term, the net result of Alternative 3 to fish and
shellfish resources is expected to be beneficial. The five areas of potential impact are discussed in the.
following paragraphs.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 19V
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-3t
Water-Column Impacts. As with Alternative 1 and 4, Alternative 3 potentially can result in impacts to
fish and shellfish through collision with falling dredged material and exposure to dredged material plumes.
As discussed in Section 4.3.1.4, most fish and shellfish species of concern in the Bight Apex are motile
and can flee falling material, or survive burial of a few centimeters of sediment following a given
disposal/placement event. Some juvenile, small-bodied, and slow-moving organisms will be buried and
smothered. However, as with Alternative 1, acute and sublethal resource-level impacts would be isolated
and infrequent enough to be insignificant.12
The greater potential for water-column impacts to fish and shellfish would be temporary impairment of
oxygen exchange from plumes. As previously discussed, plume tracking studies at the MDS have
demonstrated that:
• Plume behavior is variable depending upon the type of grain size (coarse to fine-grained material);
• Rapid settling of coarse material and turbulent mixing results in initial dilutions of the plume on the
order of 3,000:1 to 600,000:1 within 15 min of discharge, based on measurement of total suspended
solids (TSS), and dioxin and furan concentrations (Dragos and Peven, 1994);
• Plume dilutions after 2 hours range from approximately 64,000:1 to 557,000:1 (Dragos and Peven,
1994);
• TSS near the center of the plume body reach near background levels in 35-45 minutes;
• The release of dredged material into the water column results in rapid dispersal (turbulent mixing) of
the plumes within the first few minutes after release;
• A small amount of fine-grained sediment (silt and clay) remained measurable in the water column for
up to 3 hours (SAIC, 1994a);
« MDS plumes do not cause dissolved oxygen (DO) to be depressed greater than 25% in the water
column, after allowance for initial mixing.
• Recorded TSS concentrations are below the impact levels for sensitive life stages of water-column
organisms (e.g., fish larvae).
In summary, plume impacts are expected to rapidly dissipate and be insignificant to fish and shellfish
resources.
Habitat Change. To the maximum extent practicable, remediation will be conducted with material similar
to the sediments in that remediation area. However, because of the anticipated limited availability of sandy
Material for Remediation (due in part to the competing uses for sandy material such as for beach
nourishment), remediation operations under Alternative 3 will change some of the sandy surface sediments
presently within the HARS to sand-mud or silt/clay-mud composition. Current sandy areas shallower than
20 m that are remediated with silt and clay materials for remediation will eventually change back to sandy
sediment areas, due to benthic winnowing and armoring. The rate of change back to sand will depend on
As presented in Section 4.2.4, the estimated number of dredged material barge or hopper dredge trips to the MDS
under Alternative 3 is 382 per year. Conservatively estimating 5 min per discharge event equates to approximately
32 h/yr of potential impact
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-37
storm event occurrence and other physical oceanographic phenomena (i.e., currents). Correspondingly,
sandy areas deeper than 20 m that receive fine-grain materials for remediation would remain fine grain,
except to the extent that additional sandy material is used to cover such areas.
While no reef structures (including shipwrecks) will be covered, lost, or substantially affected by
Alternative 3 (refer to Section 4.3.3.4), some hard and rough bottom areas will be impacted by burial —
particularly east of the present MDS and in the vicinity of the former Cellar Dirt Site which overlaps the
part of the eastern BZ and a small area of the PRA (refer to Figure 4-8). Additionally, Figure 4-9 shows
that the PRA includes two major hook and line fishing areas to the east and west of the present MDS.
These areas are dependent on hard/rough bottom features which will be altered by the placement of at least
aim cap of Material for Remediation. This alteration can be mitigated by placement of materials similar
to the hard bottom types in these areas as it becomes available. Similarly, areas on the northern slope of
the historical disposal mound, adjacent to the BZ and NDZ, support hook and line fisheries as well as
trawling and lobster areas. These areas will also be potentially impacted by Alternative 3. Soft-bottom
species, such as spotted hake, will be temporarily affected by loss of habitat, but are expected to recolonize
the remediated areas as the infaunal and epifaunal communities become reestablished. If sandy Material
for Remediation is in short supply, present sandy areas deeper than 20 m within the PRA could be
transformed into silt and mud bottoms.
Loss of hard-bottom features under Alternative 3 will cause negative impacts to tautog, black sea bass,
cunner, and lobster habitat. Loss of gravel and pebble substrates will negatively affect silver hake, cod,
little skate, sea raven, longhorn sculpin, winter flounder, ocean pout, sea scallop, rock crab, and jonah crab.
Most of these gravel and pebble species are also found in other habitats which are not expected to be
permanently changed by remediation operations. Thus, gravel and pebble substrate species are expected to
still reside in the HARS following remediation operations. However, hard-bottom fish, and to some degree
lobster, may permanently lose habitat; the value of these resources will be proportionately impacted. No
known natural processes are likely to reestablish hard-bottom features in the HARS after remediation
operations are completed. However, it may be possible to mitigate for loss of hard-bottom habitat through
the placement of similar material or artificial reefs within the HARS.
Under Alternative 3, habitat impacts to multi-habitat and mud-habitat fish will be temporary, and similar to
Alternative 1. As placement of remediation sediment is conducted throughout the HARS, prioritized by
degree of degradation, both pelagic and demersal fish and shellfish species may experience temporary
habitat disruption. As previously discussed, water-column impacts will be brief and insignificant on the
large scale of the affected resources. Demersal fish and shellfish that forage or shelter on mud and silt
habitat will be little impacted, and the impacts will be self-mitigating as the remediation activities move to
other parts of the HARS and the benthic communities are reestablished. All impacts to multi-habitat and
mud-habitat fish and shellfish resources in the HARS will stop after completion of the remediation
activities; no permanent negative impacts are anticipated.
Trophic Transfer of Contaminants. The trophic transfer of contaminants (discussed in Section 3.4.6.2) is
another reason for establishing the HARS and conducting remediation of the degraded sediment areas.
Trophic transfer is a function of bioaccumulation of contaminants from the sediment by infauna, and the
efficiency of transferring the contaminants from prey to predator. Placement of at least aim cap of
Material for Remediation over the entire PRA will effectively and permanently isolate the contaminants in
the sediments from the biotic zone of the New York Bight Apex.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1991
Page 4-38
Muddy
jjjjp Muddy Sand
3>:¥: Sandy
1996 Bathymetry
'\ / < 20 meters
20 meters
> 20 meters
Figure 4-8. Major bottom habitat types of the MDS and HARS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-39
Fishing Types
Hook & Line
ii Lobstering
Lobstering/Hook
1996 Bathymetry
/ \ / < 20 meters
2Q meters
/\/> 20 meters
3 Kilometers
2 Miles
Figure 4-9. Major fishery areas of the MDS and HARS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences ^ Page 4-40
The rate that remediation operations are conducted will depend on availability of materials for remediation
to cover the 9-nmi2 PRA. While parts of the PRA are being remediated, other parts awaiting remediation
will be exposed to fish and shellfish resources. Pollution control advances in the metropolitan region in
the intervening period may alleviate part of this problem by leading to less contamination of natural
sediments entering the Bight Apex, thus providing natural remediation.
On an Apex-wide basis, a general weight-of-evidence evaluation indicates that isolating degraded surface
sediments in the HARS by capping them with remediation material will benefit the habitats offish and
shellfish resource species. However, the resulting habitat improvements are unlikely to be measurable by
any resource stock-assessment procedure (e.g., quantitative fish trawls, bioaccumulation analyses). As
discussed under Alternative 1, contaminant impacts to fish and shellfish from the presence of degraded
sediments in the HARS are relatively small compared to impacts from fishing mortality, habitat losses, and
eutrophication. Therefore, substantial improvements in habitat quality under Alternative 3 may not be
detectable because of the ongoing magnitude of these other impacts.
Spawning. Impact to fish and shellfish spawning from Alternative 3 is generally the same as for
Alternatives 1 and A—potential interruption of spawning activities and sites, and burial of demersal eggs.
As previously discussed relative to water-column impacts, placement events will be short and infrequent,
and while not as spatially limited as Alternative 1, location-specific disruptions will be solitary events (as
the remediation work is conducted across the PRA).
Potential spawning impacts will occur disproportionally to demersal eggs on the seafloor, particularly to
fish and shellfish whose spawning periods coincide with their peak abundance in the New York Bight and
who, then have the potential to lay a significant number of eggs within the PRA. The species most likely
to be affected include winter flounder, sea raven, longhorn sculpin, little skate, ocean pout, and rock crab
(refer to Section 3.4.3.3 in Chapter 3), through coverage of substrates (e.g., gravel and small rocks).
When remediation is completed, the impacts to demersal eggs will stop. Unlike Alternative 1, but like
Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not significantly enhance topographic relief, and therefore would not
result in any accompanying beneficial impacts to spawning and habitat.
As with fish and shellfish resource impacts related to habitat change and contaminant trophic transfer, total
impacts to spawning from Alternative 3 will probably be masked by the natural variability of Bight-wide
conditions, year-class variability of the individual species, and fishing activity. - :
Socioeconomic Considerations. Like Alternative 1, Alternative 3 is expected to affect the socioeconomic
factors offish and shellfish resources mostly through the public's perceptions of whether fish and shellfish
resources are being affected by the operation of the HARS, and potential health risks associated with the
consumption of seafood from the New York Bight
As discussed earlier, decreases in availability of sediment contaminants to fish and shellfish under
Alternative 3 are expected to be nondetectable by current stock assessment methods. Correspondingly,
resource impacts, while expected to be positive (beneficial) from Alternative 3, will probably be masked
by fishing mortality, habitat losses, and by contamination and eutrophication in the Bight
With regard to potential human health risk, a weight-of-evidence evaluation indicates that isolation of
contaminants in the degraded sediments from fish and shellfish resources should decrease potential for any
human-health risks. However, because most of the HARS fish and shellfish resources are composed of
species that forage over large areas, and some that are highly migratory, actual risk reduction may be low
and probably unmeasurable. As discussed earlier under Alternative 1, public interpretation of technical
-------
MDSfHARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-41
data can significantly affect the socioeconomics of fish and shellfish resources under Alternative 3. If the
public believes that HARS remediation under Alternative 3 decreases the risk associated with eating New
York Bight seafood, commercial and recreational fishing activities may increase. With this in mind,
meaningful prediction of the socioeconomic impacts on fish and shellfish resources of Alternative 3 is not
possible at the present time.
Another socioeconomic impact of Alternative 3 relates to potential impacts on the Port of New York and
New Jersey. Implementation of Alternative 3 would provide an EPA-designated site for Remediation
Material. This would be consistent with aspects of the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter related to dredging of
Port by helping assure long-term use of Category I dredged material.
4333 Alternative 3 (Remediation) — Natural and Cultural Features of Historical Importance
[228.6(a)(ll)]
As summarized in Section 3.5.7, features of potential cultural historic importance were identified in the
HARS following a cultural resources evaluation. These features included 6 shipwrecks and the old Cable
Area identified on NOAA navigation charts.
While natural features within the HARS may contain artifacts of cultural significance, these features have
been altered by erosion associated with sea level rise (Panamerican, 1997). Further, historic matter or
artifacts contained within such natural features have likely been buried under the dredged material mound
and are therefore preserved.
The former Cable Area that extends through the central and northwestern portion of the HARS (see Figure
3-86) was evaluated for potential historical significance (Panamerican, 1997). The evaluation found that
while the Cable Area is potentially historically significant, available information on the Area is insufficient
for a comprehensive evaluation, or determination of the exact location of any cables still buried. However,
because the cables are buried, additional burial during remediation will not adversely impact these features.
Should other Federal actions be proposed in the Cable Area, analysis of the cultural significance of these
features should be reopened.
Side scan surveys located 6 shipwrecks on the seafloor within the HARS (Figure 4-10). Two shipwrecks
(No's. 3 and 4) are located within the No Discharge Zone. One wreck (No. 2) is located in less than 20 m
of water and is within the Buffer Zone of the HARS. Sediment in the vicinity of these three wrecks is
sandy. The remaining three wrecks (No's. 1, 5, and 14) are located in water depths greater than 20 m and
are within the PRA.
A cultural resource evaluation conducted by Panamerican (1997) evaluated whether any of these wrecks
could be considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Wrecks
No. 1 (H.W. Long), No. 2 (Ormand), and No. 4 (G.L.#7S) could be assigned likely identifications. Wrecks
3,5, and 14 could not be assigned to any identification. The H.W. Long was found to be not eligible for
nomination to the NRHP and no recommendation for nomination has been made. The G.L.#78 and
Ormand were found eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Available information was insufficient to make
recommendations of eligibility for the other four wrecks. Overall, the cultural resource evaluation was
found consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and further investigation for
eligibility is not recommended for these wrecks (Panamerican, 1997). However, if other Federal actions
are proposed in the vicinity of the wrecks, the analysis of the cultural significance for any wrecks
potentially affected should be reopened.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 199,
Page 4-4:
1996 Bathymetry
/\/ < 20 meters
20 meters
/V >20meters
Priority
Remediation Area
Figure 4-10. Location of side scan-identified shipwrecks on the sea floor of the HARS.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-43
Based on these findings, avoidance or burial during placement of Remediation Material under Alternative
3 were considered as options to ensure the integrity of the wrecks. Each option has benefits and drawbacks
which are considered below.
The major benefits of burial include:
» Preservation of the wreckage, and
• Isolation of the wreck from looting.
The drawbacks to burial include the necessity to excavate the wrecks should this be required in the future
for those wrecks likely to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP or for which the potential for eligibility
could not be determined, and the loss of fish and shellfish habitat provided by the wrecks. Also significant
is the likelihood of further damage to the wrecks during burial, especially if the Remediation Material has
boulders or other consolidated material that could crush exposed portions of the wreckage. If such actions
were taken, any burial scenario would require that a marine archeologist define the appropriate materials
and precisely control placement of material near or on the wrecks.
The benefits of avoidance include:
• Accessability for future cultural studies, and
• Availability of the wrecks as fish habitat
The drawbacks include continued accessability of the wrecks to looting, physical, chemical and biological
decay of the wreckage that is above the seafloor, and exposure of biota to contaminants in the surrounding
degraded sediments. The latter factor is considered minimal given the ability of site managers to specify
an avoidance distance from wreck locations. For example, if an avoidance distance of 500 m (0.27 nmi)
radius from a wreck were established, approximately 0.79 Mm3 (approximately 1 Myd3) of Material for
Remediation per wreck would be excluded. The area in the HARS that would not be remediated under
this alternative is about 0.9 nmi2 (3.2 km2) or about 10% of the total area requiring remediation. Thus, the
impact of not remediating these sediments with respect to bioaccumulation of sediments and transfer of
contaminants to marine organisms is small and likely not measurable (see Section 4.3.3.3). The impact on
the overall availability of contaminants relative to the Bight Apex is even less.
While eligibility for nomination to the NRHP of most shipwrecks in the HARS is unknown, it is likely that
they are of some historical significance. Further, only two wrecks (No.'s 1 and 14) are located in the
highest priority area for remediation. Consideration of the above factors, and the benefits and drawbacks
of burial and avoidance during remediation, indicate that avoidance of the wrecks is preferable from a
cultural resource perspective. This conclusion is based on the following.
• The significance of many of the wreck targets is unknown; accessability to the targets for future
cultural resource evaluation is easier under the avoidance option than under the burial option.
• The relatively small areas in the vicinity of wrecks that would not be remediated will have minimal
ecological impact on the overall anticipated improvements in the Bight Apex.
• The wrecks will remain fully available as fish and shellfish habitat
• Potential damage to the wrecks from placement operations can be avoided using available technology.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-44
Although avoiding the wrecks during remediation will not have any effect on these cultural resources, the
option does not relieve any agency of the burden to pursue Section 106 of the NRHP for other Federal
actions that may affect these wrecks.
4.3.3.6 Pros and Cons of Alternative 3
The following is a summary of the pros and cons of implementing Alternative 3. The pros and cons of all
four alternatives are compared in Section 4.4 to justify the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 3 Pros Alternative 3 Cons
Meets the need for remediation
Degraded sediment areas (exhibiting
Category n and HI type characteristics)
throughout the PRA are capped with at least 1
m of Material for Remediation
Decreased contaminant toxicity and
bioavailabih'ty to fish and shellfish resources;
increased habitat quality
Reduced potential for trophic transfer of
contaminants, including to human beings
(seafood consumers)
Decreased ecological and human-health risk
The 500 m buffer zones delineated around all
identified shipwrecks (1) ensure that Material
for Remediation does not impact cultural or
historic resources, (2) allow for further study
of the sites for potential National Registry of
Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility, and (3)
have little impact on.overall PRA remediation
• Small areas of unremediated sediment in the
vicinity of HARS shipwrecks will remain
exposed, and may continue to potentially
impact fish and shellfish resources at these
habitats
• Habitat disruption during PRA remediation
operations
• Losses of some sandy and hard/rough-bottom
habitat in degraded sediment areas
Habitat associated with the shipwrecks are
maintained; no impact to reef fish and
shellfish habitat
Meets the intent of the July 24,1996, 3-Party
Letter regarding: "The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current Category
I standards and will not cause undesirable
effects including through bioaccumulation)"
and "The designation of the Historic Area
Remediation Site will assure long-term use of
category 1 dredge material."
-------
MDSMARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-45
43 3.1 Monitoring and Surveillance for Alternative 3 [228.6(a)(5)]
As discussed under Section 4.3.1.8 for Alternative 1, the feasibility of surveillance and monitoring
(physical, chemical, and biological factors) in the vicinity of the HARS has been demonstrated by
surveillance and monitoring activities conducted at the MDS during the past 1 5 years. The location of the
HARS near the mouth of the New York/New Jersey Harbor facilitates surveillance of placement operations
as well as mobilization and operation of scientific surveys to the site. Surveillance and monitoring
operations under Alternative 3 would follow activities similar to those defined in the MDS Site Monitoring
and Management Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD, 1997a).
43.4 Discriminating Impacts and Use Conflicts of Alternative 4 (Restoration)
43.4.1 Alternative 4 (Restoration) — Degraded Sediments [228.6(a)(7), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6),
Alternative 4 would use predominantly sandy material to cover and restore muddy surficial sediments that
are degraded by bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity in the PRA (refer to Figure 4-11 for
Alternative 4 PRA location). The result will be that this alternative will, in the near-term following
restoration operations, reduce contaminant levels in surface sediments of the PRA to levels lower than
would occur under Alternative 3. Additionally, the use of sandy material for restoration will change the
benthic habitat structure, particularly for infauna, epifauna, and demersal fish and shellfish that depending
on mud sediments for food or spawning purposes. Over time, however, restored areas that are below 20 m
will gradually accumulate new fine-grain sediment depositions from restoration operations elsewhere in the
HARS and from natural sources. The "rebounding" of the fine-grain sediments in the deeper areas of the
HARS will be most pronounced below 20 m — the depth below which only severe storm events (100-year
frequency hurricanes/noreasters) influence sediment resuspension and transport. Contaminant
concentrations in restored areas that subsequently receive new fine-grain materials from deposition of the
Hudson River plume will likely change (increase) over time.13 The limited area of degraded sediments
above 20 m are predominantly sandy, and will become less contaminated and generally remain sandy
following the placement of Remediation Material.
PRA areas that are deeper than 20 m will initially become less contaminated and sandier following ____________
restoration, but then will rebound back to muddy conditions due to natural sedimentation and transport
processes for adjacent bottom areas. As the mud (carbon) content of these deep areas increases,
contaminant concentrations will likely also rebound.
Another major factor of Alternative 4, compared to Alternative 3, is the additional time (and expense)
necessary to cap the PRA with sandy Materials for Remediation. PRA restoration under Alternative 4, will
be significantly longer than under Alternative 3 (possibly 3-5 times longer). The reason for this lengthy
restoration period is that only sandy materials could be used, and these are relatively scarce (compared to
other sediments). In addition, as discussed previously, there are competing demands for use of sand.
Therefore, it would take significantly longer to get adequate volumes of sand to restore this site, and the
sand that was obtained would likely be at greater expense. During this period, bioaccumulative
Ongoing natural sedimentation from the Hudson River plume and other sources will also occur under Alternatives
1,2 and 3. However, because sandy material would not be placed in fine-grain, depositional areas under these other
alternatives, there will not be an eventual "rebounding" of the bottom from sandy to fine sediments. Only in
Alternative 4 will the PRA sediment grain-size, and associated biological communities, change from fine-to-coarse-
to-fine conditions.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-46
( / ILL
1996 Bathymetry
/\f < 20 meters
20 meters
/V > 20 meters
Priority
Restoration Area
Ntgl No Discharge
Zone
Figure 4-11. Alternative 4 Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS). The Priority Restoration Area
(PRA) is the U-shaped, light-shade area. The surrounding dark-shade area is the HARS
Buffer Zone (BZ). The unshaded area within the HARS is the shallow-water No
Discharge Zone (NDZ), which contains no degraded sediments.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-47
contaminants and toxicity in the surficial sediments will continue to remain exposed to the biotic zone
(fish, shellfish, etc.) of the New York Bight Apex, and deep areas that are restored in the early years of the
program will very likely receive new sediments and contaminants from near-bottom transport and
deposition processes from adjacent areas awaiting restoration.
In summary, the positive aspects of restoring degraded sediment areas under this alternative are
counterbalanced by the great period and expense to conduct the work and the potential for rebound back to
muddy conditions in areas deeper than 20 m. During the restoration period, degraded sediment areas
scheduled for future restoration will continue to expose their physical and chemical properties to resident
organisms, as well as to adjacent areas that are nondegraded or have already been restored.
43.42 Alternative 4 (Restoration) — Benthic Infauna [228.10(b)(3), 228.10(b)(5), 228.10(c)(l)(ii),
As discussed in Section 3.4.2 and Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.3.1, there are two distinct benthic infaunal
communities in the HARS. The sandy community (Community Group B, found on sandy sediments and at
water depths less than 20 m) occupies 10-20% of the HARS and is generally not associated with sediments
requiring restoration. Thus, Alternative 4 will have no impact on this community. In contrast, muddy
sediment (Community Group A) organisms will be buried by restoration work. During the course of
Alternative 4, approximately 60 to 70% of Community Group A in the HARS will be impacted by burial.
However, these impacts will not occur simultaneously over the site, and will extend over a multi-year
period. As in the case of Alternative 3, burial of benthic communities in the areas being restored will be a
one-time effect Restoration work at specific locations is not expected to be repeated unless monitoring
shows that the capping operations were incomplete or ineffective.
The benthic communities that initially colonize the restored PRA are expected to be similar to the Group B
communities presently found in areas shallower than 20 m. As discussed in Section 4.3.4.1, the grain size
distributions of the surface sediments relative to those presently found in the degraded areas are expected
to change from predominantly fines to coarse fractions under this alternative, and the benthic infaunal
community will change correspondingly. Because this new Group B community will be located at more
quiescent depths (i.e., less impact from storms), the likelihood of continual disturbance from natural events
is low and the community will have a greater chance to become more stable.14
The long-term impact to benthic infauna under Alternative 4 will be influenced by several factors (i.e., the
final community structure that develops, and the communities' contribution of the ecology of the Bight
Apex ecosystem). Net community changes after restoration will be determined by (1) the rate that
degraded sediments are restored (capped), (2) the rate that infaunal communities colonize the sandy
sediments, and (3) natural factors such as transport and deposition of fine grained sediments into the
restored areas that may modify habitat characteristics. These three processes will occur over relatively long
time scales. While recolonization of these sediments will likely occur within an annual cycle after
coverage, full infaunal recovery of the restored areas is likely to take several years (SAIC, 1997). Faster
restoration rates will have greater immediate impact (faster reduction of degraded areas; faster change in
the benthic community type), and provide less time for the benthic ecosystem to adjust to the changes. In
contrast, slower restoration rates will enable the ecosystem to adjust more slowly which may mitigate the
impact of altering the sediment texture in the degraded areas.
At the >20 m level, the shallowing of the water column by approximately 1 m by restoration operations will not
expose the new Group B communities to a more energetic environment
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-48
The most important consideration, relative to benthic infauna changes under Alternative 3, is that all sandy
Material for Remediation placed in the HARS under Alternative 4 will eventually be covered by fine-grain
natural sediment, which is continually deposited in the Bight Apex. Infaunal communities presently
inhabiting fine-grain areas (Group A communities) of the Alternative 4 PRA will be displaced for a period
of years following restoration operations. During the Group A displacement period, Group B infauna that
prefer sandy environments are expected to colonize the restored areas. As the restored areas gradually
revert to fine-sediment environments by natural processes, Group A communities are expected to become
reestablished (and Group B habitat created by the restoration operations will be lost). A significant
unknown factor is how predator communities will respond to the temporary loss of Group A infauna prey,
and the temporary presence of Group B infauna. Another unknown factor is whether the natural sediment
deposited over restored areas will cause toxicity or contain less bioaccumulative contaminants than
presently in the PRA.
In summary, predicting the effects of Alternative 4 on benthic infauna is complicated by the transport and
deposition of fine-grain sediments into the restored areas from external sources such as the Hudson River
plume and bedload sediment movement. However, because most of the restored sediments will be located
in relatively quiescent areas (below the depth of storm induced erosion), gradual post-restoration
deposition of fine particles is expected to recreate Community Group A habitat that is capped by sandy
Material for Remediation. The import of external fine sediments to the restored PRA will be the rate-
limiting step for long-term response by benthic infauna.
43.43 Alternative 4 (Restoration) — Contaminant Bioaccumulation [228.10(b)(6),
Relative to Alternative 3 and the discussions in the preceding two sections, capping the PRA with sandy
Material for Remediation under Alternative 4 will lower bioaccumulation potential for benthic prey
species, because sand has generally less contaminants than fine-grain sediments.
In Battelle (1997b), infauna from sandy stations of the Study Area had substantially less contaminant body
burdens than infauna from muddy stations. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that as the PRA is restored
with sandy material under Alternative 4, infauna bioaccumulation will be lower, and infauna predators'
(e.g., demersal fish and lobsters) body burdens will be lower as well. On an ecosysten>wide basis, and
with regard to fish and shellfish resources in the Bight Apex, the change in bioaccumulation is expected to
be beneficial; however, it will also probably be nondetectable by current measurement technologies.
An unknown factor relative to Alternative 4 and its effect on contaminant bioaccumulation is how and
whether predators currently feeding on Community A infauna in the PRA will respond to the restoration
operations and the temporary removal of food sources. Lobster, for example, inhabit the muddy areas and
consume polycheates, which are generally lower in abundance in sandy sediments. It is likely that
Alternative 4 will negatively affect the lobster resource by forcing the animals either to change to a less-
preferred/mferior food source or to forage outside the PRA until fine sediments are redeposited by natural
processes and polychaete abundance is restored. Similar impacts may occur to winter flounder and
yellowtail flounder (see Table 3-18 in Chapter 3).
43.4.4 Alternative 4 (Restoration) — Fish and Shellfish Resources [228.6(a)(2), 228.6(a)(8),
228.6(a)(ll), 228.10(b)(2), 228.10(b)(4), 228.10(b)(6), 228.10(c)(l)(u), 228.10(c)(l)(iii),
228.10(c)(l)(iv), 228.10(c)(l)(v)]
The primary benefit of Alternative 4 to fish and shellfish resources will be the isolation of degraded
sediments and contaminants in the HARS. As discussed earlier, Figure 4-6 shows degraded areas are west
and southwest of the historic disposal mounds in the center of the HARS, and along the eastern and
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-49
southern borders of the present MDS. By covering degraded sediments with sandy Material for
Remediation, fish and shellfish resources that feed or shelter on this type of substrate should benefit.
Correspondingly, fish and shellfish that depend on mud or silt sediments or hard bottoms in the PRA will
be negatively impacted. In the short term, the impacts to these species will be unmitigatable.
Like Alternatives 1 and 3, Alternative 4 will cause periodic habitat and spawning disruption. As infaunal
and epifaunal communities in the degraded areas are covered with at least aim cap of sandy Material for
Remediation, the areas will be temporarily removed as sources of food and habitat for demersal fish and
shellfish until they are recolonized. Impacts from direct burial of sediment are expected to be about the
same as the other alternatives, but impacts from suspended material are expected to be substantially less.
When the HARS is fully restored, all of the degraded sediments within the PRA will be buried and isolated
from the biotic environment, restoration operation impacts (e.g., plumes) to demersal and pelagic fauna
will stop, and the site will eventually be colonized by infaunal and epifaunal communities that inhabit
sandy sediments. As with Alternative 3, the stability of final benthic communities and associated fish and
shellfish species under Alternative 4 will depend on surface sediment characteristics (grain size, organic
carbon content, contamination), storm events, ecosystem dynamics, regional pollution sources, and fishing
pressure.
As restoration operations are conducted in the PRA, shoreward areas of greatest degradation will be
restored first Commercially, recreationally, and/or ecologically important fish and shellfish in these areas
will be impacted to varying degrees. Most of these impacts will be spatially limited, temporary, and
probably nondetectable by present resource assessment measures (e.g., trawl surveys). Under Alternative
4, fish and shellfish dependent on sandy sediments should experience a net benefit and improved
environment. Multihabitat, soft-bottom, and hard-bottom fish and shellfish will be impacted during and
after restoration operations, but over time, their habitats will gradually recover as new fine sediments are
deposited by natural processes. Mitigative measures for any loss of hard bottom communities may also be
implemented if appropriate materials become available (see below).
Water-Column Impacts. Similar to the impacts-described under-Alternatives 1 and 3, restoration
operations will potentially affect individual fish and shellfish by collision with falling dredged material and
oxygen-exchange interruption by sediment plumes. Like the other alternatives, acute and sublethal impacts
from falling sediment are isolated and infrequent enough to be insignificant Furthermore, because of the
use of only sandy Material for Remediation under Alternative 4, direct impact from potential impairment
of oxygen exchange by plumes is expected to be less of a factor than from either Alternative 1 or 3.
As for Alternative 3, HARS restoration operations will require that the placement vessels evenly spread the
sediments along the bottom relatively evenly. The resulting sediment plumes may be somewhat larger than
those created following an MDS disposal event, like under Alternative 1, but the sandy Material for
Remediation used in Alternative 4 will have significantly fewer fine-grain particles and corresponding
lower TSS concentrations. Alternative 4 plumes are thus expected to (1) be less persistent than either the
Alternative 1 or 3 plumes, (2) be well below the 100 mg/L effects threshold concentration reported by
O'Connor (1991-SF Bay Rept), and (3) result in <25% DO depression after allowance for initial mixing.
Habitat Change. Under Alternative 4 the HARS will initially receive approximately 40.5 Myd3 of sandy
Remediation Material. Silt and mud surface sediments in the HARS will be changed to a large-grain sandy
substrate.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences ^ Page 4-50
No reef structures (including shipwrecks) will be covered, lost, or substantially affected by Alternative 4,
but several square kilometers of hard and rough bottom areas will be impacted by burial — mostly east of
the present MDS and in the vicinity of the former Cellar Dirt Site (refer to Figures 3-18 and 3-19). As
with Alternative 3, several large areas of the HARS that support various commercial and recreational
fishing operations will be permanently impacted (compare Figure 4-8 to Figure 4-9). Lost hard-bottom
habitat includes two major hook and line fishing areas to the east and west of the present MDS. Losses
will be due to placement of the 1 m cap of sandy Material for Remediation.
An additional hook and line area on the northern slope of the historical disposal mound, and several
trawling and lobster areas will be lost in the later stages of the HARS restoration. Soft-bottom (mud)
species, such as spotted hake, will permanently lose all habitat in the HARS. Multi-habitat species are
expected to continue to be present throughout the HARS during the restoration period. The resulting
densities and viability of these species will depend mostly on Bight-wide factors, including fishing
pressure, pollution sources, and eutrophication.
Loss of hard-bottom features and muddy sediments under Alternative 4 will cause negative impacts to
tautog, black sea bass, cunner, spotted hake, and lobster habitat Loss of gravel and pebble substrates will
negatively affect silver hake, cod, little skate, sea raven, longhom sculpin, winter flounder, and ocean pout,
sea scallop, rock crab, jonah crab. Most of these gravel and pebble species are also found in other habitats
which are not expected to be permanently changed by restoration operations. Thus, gravel and pebble
substrate species are expected to still reside in the HARS following site restoration. However, the hard
bottom and mud-bottom fish, and to some degree lobster, will permanently lose habitat; the value of these
resources will be proportionately impacted.
Construction of artificial reefs could be conducted to compensate for loss of hard-bottom features in the
HARS. No known natural processes are likely to reestablish hard-bottom features in the HARS.
Habitat impacts to multi-habitat fish will be temporary, and similar to the other alternatives. Both pelagic
and demersal fish and shellfish species may experience temporary habitat disruption. As previously
discussed, water-column impacts will be brief and insignificant on the large scale of the affected resources.
Demersal fish and shellfish that forage or shelter on sandy habitat will be little impacted, and the impacts
will be self-mitigating as the restoration activities move to other parts of the HARS and the benthic
communities are reestablished. All impacts to multi-habitat fish and shellfish resources in the HARS will
stop shortly after completion of the restoration activities; no permanent negative impacts are anticipated.
As discussed under Alternatives 1 and 3, contaminant impacts to fish and shellfish from degraded
sediments in the HARS are relatively small compared to impacts from fishing mortality, habitat losses, and
eutrophication. Given the lengthy restoration period, in addition habitat improvements under Alternative 4
are unlikely to be measurable by any resource stock-assessment procedure (e.g., quantitative fish trawls).
Substantial improvements in habitat quality by Alternative 4 will not be detectable because of the ongoing
magnitude of these other impacts, particularly from commercial and recreational fishing mortality. The
magnitude and scale of these other impacts could change dramatically during the lengthy course of the
PRA restoration operations.
Trophic Transfer of Contaminants. Control of contaminant bioaccumulation and the potential for trophic
transfer (discussed in Section 3.4.6.2) is a principal reason for establishing the HARS and conducting
restoration of the degraded sediment areas. As with Alternative 3, the placement of at least a 1 m cap of
sandy Remediation Material over the degraded sediments in the PRA will effectively and permanently
isolate the contaminants in the sediments from the biotic zone of the New York Bight Apex. The small
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-51
fraction of fine-grain sandy material that escapes into the water column will quickly (within 3 h) become
immeasurable and not degrade the bottom.
A main negative aspect of Alternative 4 relative to trophic transfer of contaminants is that the degraded
areas in the HARS will continue to be exposed to the environment for a prolonged period. This is
primarily due to the large size of the Alternative 4 PRA and the expected limited availability of sandy
Materials for Remediation. The lengthy restoration period will allow degraded sediments awaiting
restoration to continue to impact fish and shellfish resources. Pollution control advances in the
metropolitan region in the intervening period may lessen this problem by reducing contamination of
natural sediments entering the Bight. With the expected long period for PRA restoration operations, it is
very likely that some degraded sediments will be partially remediated by natural sedimentation before
restoration work is conducted. However, this natural remediation will be predominantly of fine-grain,
muddy and silty material.
Spawning. The primary impact to fish and shellfish spawning from Alternative 4 is expected to be minor.
Losses of fine-grain sediments during placement operations (i.e., plumes) will be infrequent and small.
Thus, impacts from plumes to demersal eggs are expected to be insignificant Impacts could result to fish
and shellfish that spawn or attach eggs to rocks or hard substrates (e.g., ocean pout). Artificial reefs could
be placed in the area to mitigate for losses in this habitat type.
When restoration is completed, the minor impacts from restoration activities to demersal eggs will stop.
Like Alternative 3, there will be no beneficial impacts to spawning and habitat from enhanced topographic
relief. Alternative 4 will not appreciably change large-scale topographic features in the HARS.
As with fish and shellfish resource impacts related to habitat change and contaminant trophic transfer, total
impacts to spawning from Alternative 4 will most certainly be masked by the natural variability of Bight-
wide conditions, year-class variability of the individual species, and fishing activity.
Socioeconomic Considerations. Like the other alternatives, Alternative 4 is expected to affect the
socioeconomic factors offish and shellfish resources through the public's perceptions of whether fish and
shellfish resources are being affected by the operation of the HARS, and potential health risks associated
with the consumption of seafood form the New York Bight
As discussed earlier, decreases in contaminant impacts to fish and shellfish under Alternative 4 are
expected to occur slowly and will likely be nondetectable by current stock assessment methods. Both
negative and beneficial impacts to the resources caused by this alternative will be masked by fishing
mortality, habitat losses, eutrophication and non-dredged material contamination in the Bight. Similarly,
the increment of human-health risk reduction from isolation of bioaccumulative contaminants and toxicity
in the sediments will probably be nondetectable over the course of the lengthy restoration period. During
this period, public perceptions toward seafood and fishing could change many times, as could other factors
that affect resource utilization (i.e., fishing) and the related socioeconomics of affected industries (e.g.,
gear and boat sales/rentals, shoreline business and tourism).
Another socioeconomic impact of Alternative 4 relates to potential impacts on the Ports of New York and
New Jersey. Implementation of Alternative 4 would provide an EPA-designated site only for sandy
Remediation Material. Alternative 4 thus is not as effective in assuring the long-term use of Category I
dredged material as Alternative 3 as stated in the 3-Party Letter.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences
May 1997
Page 4-52
4.3.4.5 Alternative 4 (Restoration) — Natural and Cultural Features of Historical Importance
[228.6(a)(ll)]
There are no substantive differences between Alternatives 3 and 4 relative to the historical features of
importance in the HARS. Therefore, the consequences and assessment result in a recommendation that
avoidance of the wrecks in the HARS, with appropriate management and control over placement
operations, has no impact to the cultural value of the wrecks located in the area to be restored.
43.4.6 Pros and Cons of Alternative 4
The following is a summary of the pros and cons of implementing Alternative 4. The pros and cons of all
four alternatives are compared in Section 4.4 to justify the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 4 Pros
Meets the need for remediation
Degraded sediment areas (exhibiting Category
n and HI type characteristics) throughout the
PRA capped with at least 1 m of sandy (1-
10%) Material for Remediation
Decreased contaminant bioavailability and
possible sublethal effects to fish and shellfish
resources; increased habitat quality
Reduced potential for trophic transfer of
contaminants, including to human beings
(seafood consumers)
Decreased ecological and human-health risk
The 500 m buffer zones delineated around all
identified shipwrecks (1) ensure that material
for restoration does not impact potential
cultural or historic resources, (2) allow for
further study of the sites for potential NRHP
eligibility, and (3) have little impact on overall
PRA restoration
Habitat associated with the shipwrecks are
maintained; no impact to reef fish and
shellfish habitat
Meets the intent of the July 24,1996, 3-Party
Letter regarding: "The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with
uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.,
dredged material that meets current Category I
standards and will not cause undesirable
effects including through bioaccumulation)."
Alternative 4 Cons
Loss of mud, muddy-sand, and rough/hard-
bottom habitats; possible negative effects to
living resources (e.g., lobster and winter
flounder)
Lengthy restoration period, and continued
exposure of degraded sediments to the biotic
zone of the New York Bight Apex
Limited availability of Remediation Material
from the Port of New York and New Jersey
and surrounding areas
Small areas of unrestored sediment in the
vicinity of HARS shipwrecks will remain
exposed, and may continue to potentially
impact fish and shellfish resources at these
habitats
Does not meet the intent of the July 24,1996,
3-Party Letter regarding: "The designation of
the Historic Area Remediation Site will assure
long-term use of category 1 dredge material."
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-53
43.4.7 Monitoring and Surveillance for Alternative 4 [228.6(a)(5)]
Monitoring and surveillance feasibility and questions for Alternative 4 are the same as described under
Alternative 3. In addition to the hypotheses tested under Alternative 3, monitoring will also test
hypotheses related to habitat and predator-prey interactions resulting from covering mud and silt areas with
sandy Remediation Material, and corresponding changes to recreational and commercial fish and shellfish
resources.
4.4 Preferred Alternative
An iterative comparison of the physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of the four
alternatives has led EPA to select Alternative 3 as the Agency's Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3 was
found to have the most benefits and the least negative impacts for meeting the need for remediation in the
Historic Area Remediation Site, and helping assure the long-term use of Category I dredged material.
Alternative 3 is the alternative that can most quickly remove from the biotic zone of the New York Bight
Apex the potential risks presented by the degraded sediments of the PRA. Capping the PRA with Material
for Remediation will also prevent the degraded sediment erosion and dispersion by seafloor processes and
storm events, and the associated exposure of bioaccumulation contaminants and toxicity in these
sediments.
The July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter states "designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site will assure
long-term use of category 1 dredge material." As Alternative 4 only allows for the use of sandy Material
for Remediation, otherwise acceptable Remediation Material from the Port that is composed of silts and
clays would be excluded from restoration operations, rather than being used for remediation. In addition,
such materials would potentially need to be disposed in non-ocean sites (e.g., harbor pits and landfills).
The placement of silt and clay material suitable for remediation in nearshore and upland locations will, in
addition to being expensive, unnecessarily consume disposal capacities of non-ocean sites that can accept
Category n and ffl material; it will also waste a resource that can expeditiously remediate the degraded
sediments of the HARS. Filling of nearshore and upland disposal sites with large volumes of silt and clay
material suitable for remediation is less preferable than using such sites for Category n and HI disposal,
where transportation and containment costs and environmental risks can be minimized.
Alternative 3 also presents the most positive and fewest negative impacts to commercial, recreational, and
ecologically important fish and shellfish. Fish and shellfish inhabiting degraded areas will be only
temporarily displaced by placement of at least aim cap of Material for Remediation. Few fish and motile
shellfish will be directly impacted by the remediation operations, but infauna and epifauna prey organisms
will be buried. The associated fish and shellfish will not be able to forage at the remediated areas until the
prey communities become reestablished. Recolonization of the prey communities (benthic infauna),
specific to the quality of the Remediation Material, is expected to occur within about one year, full
recovery may take several years. Area-specific recovery periods will depend largely on the season during
which the dredged material is placed on the site, recruitment success of infaunal and epifaunal species, and
storm events, if any.
Some areas of high-relief and mixed habitat (e.g., east of the Mud Dump Site) will be permanently lost
under Alternative 3, but no more so than would occur under Alternative 4. Leaving these areas
unremediated, as would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2, will allow continued exposure of degraded
sediments in these areas. Except for the isolation of the degraded sediment by burial, and the loss of some
hard-bottom habitat, the diverse habitat types that exist within the borders of the HARS will be maintained
during and after the remediation operations. After all remediation work is complete at the HARS, benthic
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-54
conditions within the site are expected to remain static, affected only by occasional severe storms, coastal
pollution, and fishing activities.
Management of the HARS under Alternative 3 is summarized in Chapter 5. Details are provided in EPA's
(1997) HARS SMMP document (see Appendix C). The division of the PRA into nine 1-nmi2 cells
facilitates comprehensive benthic characterization of the site, as well as management of the Remediation
Material placement operations and post-placement monitoring. If monitoring activities show that the
remediation work for a particular cell is incomplete, or otherwise not containing the underlying degraded
sediments, additional remediation or other work will be conducted.
Finally, compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) under Alternative 3 is met by
avoidance of the six shipwrecks in the HARS during remediation operations. Only four of the wrecks are
located in high-priority remediation areas. The continued exposure of degraded sediments within 500 m of
the wreck structures is considered by EPA to be acceptable for compliance with the NHPA, preservation of
the wrecks for future cultural-resource evaluations, and use of the wrecks as reef structures for fish and
shellfish species that preferentially inhabit the wreck for shelter and food sources.
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
i
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
40 CFR Sections 228.5(a-e): General Criteria frith* Setectidh of Sites
I
228.5(a): Avoid interference
with other activities
- areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries
- regions of heavy navigation
1. Several fish and shellfish
are found in the MDS; disposal
operations periodically disrupt
their habitats (M)
2. Anecdotal evidence of fish
attraction to disposal areas (N)
3. At site closure, sandy
habitat will predominate; fish
such as spotted hake and red
hake will loose habitat,
demersal fish and crabs will
loose access to some prey
species; no significant habitat
change outside the site (M/N)
4. MDS is outside of the
major navigation lanes but in
precautionary zone (M/N)
5. No reported interferences
under present disposal
practices (M/N)
Not applicable
1. Several fish and shellfish
areas may receive short-term
impacts as habitats in the PRA
are remediated (M)
2. Location of some
remediation areas in major
navigation areas; may cause
some short-duration
interference (M)
3. Experience at the MDS
indicates interferences can be
managed and mitigated (M)
1. Several fish and shellfish
areas may receive short-term
impacts as sandy habitats are
restored; muddy habitat fish
will have longer term impacts
(M)
2. Change of muddier bottom
areas to sandier sediment may
alter prey habitat and
community, resulting in
changes to fish and shellfish
resources (U)
3. Rate of restoration
operations will allow the
ecosystem time to respond and
will likely minimize long-term
impact (N)
4. Same as 2 and 3 of
Alternative 3
II
O,
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
228.5(b): Perturbations to the
environment during initial
mixing; reduction to ambient
levels
- before reaching beaches,
shoreline, marine sanctuary
- before reaching
geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery
228.5(c): Closure of interim
ODMDSs
Alternative 1: No Action
1. Dilution is rapid; plume
concentrations reach ambient
levels within 1 h (M )
2. Plumes do not reach any
shorelines or areas of special
concern (N) '
'
3. There are no geographically
limited fisheries or
shellfisheries in the area (N)
4. Management actions can be
implemented to ensure
transport beyond site
boundaries during initial
mixing are minimized (M)
5. Compliance with EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations
ensure that WQC are not
exceeded outside the MDS (M)
Not applicable
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Not applicable
Not applicable
Alternative 3: Remediation
1. Dilution is rapid; plume
concentrations reach ambient
levels within 1 h (M)
2. Plumes do not reach any
shorelines or areas of special
concern (N)
2. There are no geographically
limited fisheries or
shellfisheries in the area (N)
3. Buffer Zone ensures
transport beyond HARS
boundaries during initial
mixing are minimized (N)
4. Compliance with EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations
ensure that WQC are not
exceeded outside the HARS
(N)
Not applicable
Alternative 4: Restoration
1 - 4 are the same as
Alternative 3
2. Plumes do not reach any
shorelines or areas of special
concern (N)
5. Sandy nature of the
restoration material will likely
result in minimal plume
development (N)
6. Compliance with EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations
ensure that WQC are not
exceeded outside the HARS
(N)
Not applicable
Q 5:
?6
« ^
^ SJ
.*• S
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.5(d): The size of disposal
sites will be limited
- for identification
and control of any
immediate adverse
impacts
- for implementation
of monitoring and
surveillance to
prevent long-range
impacts
1. No evidence of immediate
adverse impacts attributable to
the operation at the MDS (N)
2. Ability to conduct
surveillance and to monitor for
short- and long-term impacts
have been demonstrated by
routine monitoring programs
and collection of information
to support development of this
SEIS and other studies (N)
Not applicable
1. HARS boundaries
delineated to encompass
sediment areas affected by
historic dredged material
disposal; PRA divided into 1
nmi2 cells to ensure
remediation is complete (N)
2. Same as #2 for
Alternative 1
1. HARS boundaries
delineated to encompass
sediment areas degraded by
dredged material disposal;
PRA divided into 1 nmi2 cells
to ensure remediation is
complete (N)
2, Same as #2 for Alternative 1
228.5(e): Designating
historically used sites or sites
beyond the continental shelf
1. Area is a designated site
(N)
2.The purpose of the SEIS was
to evaluate the need for
remediation/restoration of
historically used disposal areas
in the Bight Apex; candidate
disposal sites beyond the
continental shelf were not
evaluated (N)
Not applicable
1. HARS includes Bight Apex
areas that have received
dredged materials for over 100
years (N)
2. Sites beyond the
continental shelf were not
evaluated under this SEIS (N)
1-2. Same as Alternative 3
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
40'CFR Sections 228.6(d)(l-ll): Specific Criteria fair Site Selection
228.6(a)(l): Geography, depth,
topography, distance from the
coast
1. Located in inner New York
Bight, west of the drowned
Hudson Shelf Valley (N)
2. Site 2.2 nmi2 (7.8 km2)
located on naturally occurring
sand covered with dredged
material since 1978 or earlier
(N)
3. Present depths range from
15.8 to 28.8m (52 to 94 ft) (N)
4. Topographic high created
by dredged material disposal
dominates the northern 2/3 of
site; southern 1/3 is deeper;
mound flank forms eastern
slope of shallow basin to the
west; eastern flank grades into
the Hudson Shelf Valley (N)
4. Nearest coastline is 5.3 nmi
to the west (N)
5. Mound surface sediments
primarily sand; greater portion
of fine-grain sediments
material below 20 m; variable
grain size in southern 1/3 of
the MDS (N)
Not applicable
1. Same as Alternative 1
2. PRA is 9.0 nmi2 (31km2)
located on naturally occurring
sands covered with dredged
material since 1978 or earlier
(N)
3. Depths ranges from 14 to
42m (46 to 138ft) (N)
4. Apex of the historic
dredged material mound
extends through central portion
of the HARS; shallow basin
dominates western PRA;
eastern third slopes from
mound apex towards axis of
Hudson Shelf Valley (N)
5. Nearest coast line is 3.5
nmi east of Highlands, NJ (N)
6. Sediments in deeper areas
fine-grain; shallower areas
sandy (N)
1. Same as Alternative 1
2. PRA is 10.3 nmi2 (35.5
km2) located on naturally
occurring sands covered with
dredged material since 1978 or
earlier (N)
3-6. Same as Alternative 3.
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
s.
3
a
B
228.6(a)(2): Location relative
to breeding, spawning,
nursery, feeding or passage
areas of living resources in
adult or juvenile stages
1. Fish and shellfish resources
throughout Bight Apex are
diverse; 28 fish, 2 squid, and 6
benthic shellfish in the area are
commercially, recreationally,
or ecologically important (N)
2. Area is transitional habitat
for most fish species; many
spawn in or near Bight; most
spawn planktonic eggs;
demersal species spawn
throughout Bight (N)
3. Many fish in area are multi-
habitat species (N)
4 Pelagic fish and squid
unaffected by disposal
operations (N)
5. Relatively high diversity of
marine mammals and sea
turtles; low resident,
nonmigratory population; no
evidence of impact to these
species (N)
6. High diversity of pelagic
birds that breed outside Bight
Area; some feed in waters of
the Apex; no evidence of
impact (N)
Not applicable
1-6. Same as Alternative 1
7. Short-term loss of some fish
habitat during remediation
operations with silt and clay
material (M)
1-6. Same as Alternative 1
7. Short-term loss of some fish
habitat during restoration
operations with sandy material
(M)
8. Long-term alteration of
muddy habitats at >65 ft (20
m) BMLW (U in the short-
term; N in the long-term)
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and BARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Q 5;
ll
S-B3
i1
I
8
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.6(a)(3): Location relative
to beaches and amenities
1. Located at least 5 nmi from
nearest beaches and amenity
areas (N)
2. No areas of special concern
in or near the site (N)
Not applicable
1. Located at least 3.5 nmi
from the nearest beaches and
amenity areas (N)
2, No areas of special concern
in or near the HARS (N)
1-2. Same as Alternative 3
228.6(a)(4): Types and
quantities of wastes and
disposal methods (including
packaging methods)
1. Only material in
compliance with U.S. Ocean
Dumping Regulations, USAGE
Permits, EPA Region 21
USAGE NYD Regional
Testing Manual, and MDS
SMMP can be disposed; most
sediments are fine-grained and
predominated by clays and silts
(N)
2. Up to 31 Myd3 of Category
I material (N)
3. Approximately 2.5 Myd3
per year are disposed (N)
4. Split-hull barges and self-
contained hydraulic dredges of
4000-6000 yd3 capacities;
dispose at predetermined areas
marked by buoys and specified
in disposal permits; vessels
slowly moving when
discharging to avoid
development of steep mounds
that exceed site management
depth (N)
Not applicable
1. Per the July 24,1996,3-
Party Letter, the HARS is
designated to reduce impacts
to acceptable levels in
accordance with 40 CFR
228.11(c). (N)
2. PRA will be remediated
with at least 1 m (3 ft) of
Material for Remediation;
remediation operations
prioritized by degree of habitat
degradation; cells with greatest
degradation and closest to
shoreline remediated first (N)
3. PRA requires over 40.6
Myd3 Material for Remediation
(N)
4. Same as Alternative 1
1 and 4. Same as Alterative 3
except that the capping
material will be sand
2. PRA will be restored with at
least 1 m (3 ft) of Material for
Remediation; remediation
operations prioritized by
degree of habitat degradation;
cells with greatest degradation
and closest to shoreline
remediated first (N)
3. PRA requires over
46.4 Myd3 of sandy dredged
Material for Remediation (N)
II
-------
(^ 3j
il
3 &
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and BARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
I
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.6(a)(5): Feasibility of site
surveillance and monitoring
1. MDS surveillance and
monitoring conducted jointly
by EPA Region 2, USAGE
NYD.andUSCG (B)
2. Bight Apex location and
shallow depths facilitate
monitoring and minimize
monitoring costs relative to
more distant or offshore
locations (B)
3. Comprehensive knowledge
and data of present conditions
ensures unacceptable impacts
are readily detected, evaluated,
and managed as appropriate
(B)
1. Surveillance and
monitoring of dredged material
disposal operations per MDS
SMMP will stop when the site
is closed. EPA and the
USAGE will continue to work
with applicable Federal
agencies on future monitoring
work.
1-3. Same as Alternative 1
1-3. Same as Alternative 1
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
^ ffi
jp
I
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.6(a)(6): Site dispersion,
transport, mixing
characteristics, including
prevailing currents direction
and velocity
1. Prevailing long-term net
currents are to the south (N)
2. Local currents are
dominated by oscillatory tidal
forces and result in no net
transport of water (N)
3. Short-term dispersion in the
water column is a function of
tidal forces and currents at the
time of discharge (M)
4. Deposited sediments are
relatively stable under non-
storm conditions (N)
5. Resuspension and
dispersion after deposition is
primarily caused by major
storm activity such as 100 year
frequency storms (i.e.
hurricanes or noreasters); the
most intense storms can
resuspend and transport sandy
sediments deposited in less
than 20m of water (U)
6. Deposited sediment texture
and water depth control storm
effects/transport (M)
7. Potential for transport of
material to beaches and
amenities is negligible (N)
Not applicable
1-7. Same as Alternative 1
8. Material used for
remediation in the PRA would
be subjected to dispersive
forces only during very intense
storm events (ca. 100-yrs) (U)
1-7. Same as Alternative 1
8. Sandy materials used for
restoration will have greater
resistance to dispersive forces
than materials utilized for
remediation; hurricanes and
noreasters can influence
resuspension and transport
only during very intense storm
events (ca. > 100-yrs) (U)
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.6(a)(7): Existence and
effects of current and previous
discharges and dumping in the
area including cumulative
effects
1. Previous dredged material
disposal throughout site (M)
2. Approximately 25% of the
site is degraded from historical
activities; continued disposal
under SMMP will cover and
isolate any degraded sediment
materials in MDS (B)
3. Previous discharges have
affected the topography and
possibly enhanced fish habitat
(B)
4. No verifiable evidence of
direct detrimental effects from
dredged material disposal (N)
5. Possible cumulative effects
will be reduced by additional
dredged material disposal
under MDS SMMP (B)
1. No remediation of degraded
sediments in MDS or
surrounding areas (U)
1. Evidence of previous
disposal throughout the site
that has contributed to
degraded sediments in the
HARS (M)
2. Approximately 9.0 nmi2 (31
km2) of degraded sediments in
HARS will be remediated with
smaller grain sizes (i.e., silt
and clay) (B)
3. Previous discharges have
affected the topography
throughout site; possibly
enhancing fish habitat (B)
4. Remediation operations
will cause negligible changes
to habitat (N)
5. No verifiable evidence of
direct detrimental effects from
dredged material disposal (N)
6. Remediation will cover and
isolate degraded sediments of
the PRA reducing potential
cumulative effects (B)
1 and 3 - 6. Same as
Alternative 3
2. Approximately 10.3 nmi2
(35.5 km2) of fine-grain
sediments in the HARS will be
restored to predisposal
conditions with sandy material
(B)
1
ft
O\ ^G
Uj -sj
-------
if
< C*]
§'55
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
I
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.6(a)(8): Interference with
other shipping, fishing,
recreation, mineral extraction,
desalination, fish and shellfish
culture, areas of specific
scientific importance and other
legitimate uses
1. No known interferences
with legitimate uses of the
MDS or surrounding areas (N)
2. Larger mound at MDS may
enhance fishery resources (B)
3. Nearest artificial reef area is
3.4 nmi (6.3 km) west of the
MDS (N)
Not applicable
1. No known interferences
with legitimate uses of the area
(N)
2. Existing mound at the
current MDS may enhance
fishery resources (B)
3. Nearest artificial reef area is
approximately 1.5 nmi (2.7
km)westoftheHARS(N)
1-3. Same as Alternative 3
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
*£
s. B3
ft
f
^
I
8
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.6(a)(9): Existing water
quality and ecology of site
1. Water quality in and near
MDS is good; water quality
can be affected by Hudson
River outflow and natural
seasonal cycles (N)
2. All operations comply with
EPA Ocean Dumping
Regulations and site
management plans (N)
3. Demersal and pelagic fish
are abundant in the site; active
commercial and recreational
fishing area (N)
4. Two benthic infaunal
communities occur in the MDS
(sandy and fine-grain);
abundance in both is high;
diversity is moderate;
distribution of the two
communities appears to
correlate more closely with
sediment grain size and
organic carbon than
contaminant level (N)
Not applicable
1-4. Same as Alternative 1
1-4. Same as Alternative 1
It
Js >~-
*
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and BARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
9
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
228.6(a)(10): Potential for the
development or recruitment of
nuisance species in the
disposal site
228.6(a)(ll): Proximity to
natural or cultural features of
historical importance
Alternative 1: No Action
1 . No evidence for recruitment
of nuisance species (N)
2. No evidence for
enhancement of nuisance
species blooms in inshore
areas (N)
1. No known natural or
cultural features of historic
importance identified in the
MDS (N)
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Not applicable
Not applicable
Alternative 3: Remediation
1-2. Same as Alternative 1
1 . Several shipwrecks found
on seafloor in HARS have
potential cultural significance;
cultural significance of others
could not be determined (M)
2. Avoiding shipwreck targets
during remediation operations
(not covered; 500 m buffer
zone) will ensure no impact to
these features (N)
Alternative 4: Restoration
1-2. Same as Alternative 1
1-2. Same as Alternative 3
40 CFR Section 228.10: Evaluating Disposal Impact
228.10(b)(l): Movement into
estuaries, sanctuaries, beaches,
or shorelines
1. No evidence of past or
future discharged dredged
material moving into estuaries,
sanctuaries, beaches, or
shorelines (N)
Not applicable
1 . No evidence for
Remediation Material moving
into estuaries, sanctuaries,
beaches, or shorelines
expected (N)
1 . No evidence for
Remediation Material moving
into estuaries, sanctuaries,
beaches, or shorelines expected
(N)
3.8
3 &
I
I
S
8
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.10(b)(2): Movement
towards productive fish or
shellfish areas
1. Entire New York Bight and
Bight Apex is a productive fish
and shellfish area (N)
2. No evidence for significant
movement of dredged material
plumes or deposited material
towards fishing or shellfishing
areas (N)
3. Fine-grain sediments may
be transported out of the MDS
by storm surges (U)
4. No evidence of seafloor
sediment movement adversely
impacting fish or shellfish
resources (N)
Not applicable
1. Same as Alternative 1
2. Remediation may cause
disruption of muddy habitats
(U in the short-term; N in the
long-term)
3. No movement of
remediation material plumes
or deposited sediment towards
fishing or shellfishing areas
predicted (N)
4. Storm surges not likely to
move sediment in sufficient
amounts to adversely impact
fishing areas (N)
1. Same as Alternative 1
2. Restoration may cause
long-term alteration of fisheries
associated with muddy habitats
(U)
3. Same as Alternative 3
4. Sandy Remediation
Material will reduce potential
for storm-induced resuspension
and transport; minimizes
adverse impacts to fishing
areas (B)
1
228.10(b)(3): Absence from
the disposal site of pollution-
sensitive biota characteristic of
the area
1. Two infaunal community
types are in the MDS
- Community Group A is
generally found in high TOC,
muddier sediments that have
higher contaminant levels
- Community Group B is
found in sandier sediments
with lower contaminant levels
(N)
2. Both community groups are
diverse, healthy, and neither
show evidence of pollution
(contaminant) impact (N)
Not applicable
1-2. Same as Alternative 1
1-2. Same as Alternative 1
I
-o
X)
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: No
MDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
I
3
228.10(b)(4): Progressive,
nonseasonal changes in water
quality or sediment
composition, when attributable
to the dumping
1. No impacts to water quality
1 h after disposal (N)
2. Sediments with elevated
contaminants located within
and outside the MDS
boundary; dredged material
disposal likely but not sole
source of elevated
concentrations (U)
1. No remediation of degraded
sediments in MDS or
surrounding areas (U)
1. No impacts to water quality
1 h after disposal (N)
2. Historical dredged material
disposal likely but not sole
source of elevated
contaminants observed in
HARS (M)
3. Capping PRA sediments
will stop contaminant exposure
to biotic zone (B)
1-3. Same as Alternative 3
228.10(b)(5): Progressive,
nonseasonal changes in biota
composition
1. No evidence of past or
present progressive or adverse
changes in biotic composition
attributable to past disposal
operations (N)
2. There are several non-
disposal factors affecting
progressive non-seasonal
changes of fish and shellfish
resources (i.e. overfishing,
coastal habitat loss, and
eutrophication) (M)
Not applicable
1. Evidence from MDS
monitoring indicates relatively
rapid (within an annual cycle)
recovery of benthic
communities buried by
capping operations (N)
2. Non-disposal factors
affecting progressive non-
seasonal changes of fish and
shellfish resources (i.e.,
overfishing coastal habitat
loss, and eutrophication) will
not be changed (N)
1. Same as Alternative 3
2. Progressive changes in
biotic composition of restored
areas may occur as muddy
habitat is changed to sandy
habitat; however, non-disposal
factors affecting fish and
shellfish resources (i.e.,
overfishing, coastal habitat
loss, and eutrophication) will
not be changed (U)
^v§
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
.1
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
228.10(b)(6): Accumulation of
material constituents (including
pathogens) in marine biota at or
near the site
Alternative 1: No Action
1. Contaminant bioaccumulation
present in infauna prey species
collected in infauna and near the
MDS (U)
2, Dioxin and PCB levels are
elevated in hepatic tissue of
lobsters from New York Bight
Apex and Hudson Shelf Valley
(U)
3. Contaminants in recreational
fish do not exceed FDA human-
health action levels (N)
4. Contaminants in lobster and
infauna may result from sediment
disposed at the MDS or other
contaminant sources (M)
5. Definitely linking
contaminant levels in MDS
sediments to
contaminants in lobsters is not
possible because of the lobsters'
large foraging and seasonal
migration areas (N)
6. Continued use of the MDS for
Category I sediment disposal will
reduce sediment contamination
in <5 km2 of the Bight Apex (N)
Alternative 2: NoMDS/HARS
Not applicable
Alternative 3: Remediation
1 . Current contaminant
bioaccumulation present in
infauna prey species collected in
fine-grain sediments of the
HARS (N)
2. Current contaminants in
recreational fish do not exceed
FDA human-health action levels
(N)
3. Contaminants in lobster and
prey species may be reduced
resulting from remediation of
HARS or other contaminant
sources (B)
4. Remediation of the HARS
with a least a 1 m cap of dredged
material will reduce contaminant
bioaccumulation in the Bight
Apex (B)
Alternative 4: Restoration
1-4. Same as Alternative 3 Bight
Apex (N)
II
-------
13
S>
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: NoMDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.10(c)(l)(i): Progressive
movement/ accumulation in
detectable concentrations above
normal ambient concentrations
within 12 miles of shoreline,
sanctuary or critical area
1. The MDS is within 5.3 nmi of
the shoreline; sediment in
portions of the site and
contiguous areas contain
elevated levels of some
contaminants compared to the
historical baseline in the area and
in sediments not under the
influence of past and present
disposal sites in the Bight Apex.
Continued use of the MDS will
bury some of the contaminants,
and reduce exposure to the
benthic ecosystem (B)
Not applicable
1. The HARS is within 3.5 nmi
of the shoreline; sediment in
portions of the HARS contain
elevated levels of some
contaminants compared to the
historical baseline in the area and
in sediments not under the
influence of past and present
disposal sites in the New York
Bight. Remediation of HARS
sediments will bury these
contaminants (B)
2. Accumulation of
contaminants from other sources
such as the Hudson River
outflow or other areas of the
Bight may cause a rebound in
contaminant levels relative to
success of CCMP (U)
3. Bedload transport and other
seafloor processes are likely to
spread contaminants from
degraded sediment areas to
newly remediated areas nearby.
The degree of recontamination
will depend on the rate
remediation operations are
conducted and interim storm
events (U)
1-4. Same as Alternative 3
P
I
§
£1
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and BARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
i'3
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: NoMDS/HARS
Alternative 3: Remediation
Alternative 4: Restoration
228.10(c)(l)(ii): Sediment, biota,
or water column of the disposal
site, or areas outside the disposal
site where waste is detectable
above normal ambient
concentration, that result in
statistically significant decreases
in populations of valuable
commercial or recreational
species, or species essential to
the propagation of such species
1. Contaminants in surface
sediments within the MDS are
also found outside the site and
areas adjacent to historical
disposal mounds (M)
2. Some contaminants
bioaccumulate in infauna and
epifauna collected in the Bight
Apex (U)
3. No evidence to support
hypothesis that contaminant
bioaccumulation is adversely
affecting propagation or
populations of any species within
the Bight Apex (N)
4. No human health effects
identified (N)
5. Partial reduction possible of
undetected effects by covering
contaminated sediments in the
MDS (B)
Not applicable
1. Elevated levels of
contaminants are found in
historically discharged
sediments within the HARS (M)
2. Some contaminants
bioaccumulate in infauna and
epifauna collected in the HARS
and Bight Apex (M)
3. No evidence to support the
hypothesis that contaminant
bioaccumulation is adversely
affecting propagation or
populations of any species within
the HARS (N)
4. No human health effects
identified (N)
5. Remediation of contaminated
sediments will reduce potential
for undetected effects (B)
1-4. Same as Alternative 3
5. Restoration of contaminated
sediments will reduce potential
for undetected effects (B)
II
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of MDS and HARS Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Consequences
Key: N = No Impact; U = Unmitigable Impact; M = Mitigable Impact; B = Beneficial Impact
Ocean Dumping Regulation,
Key Words and Phrases
228.10(c)(l)(iii): Accumulation
of wastes such that impairment
of other major uses of the site or
other adjacent areas occurs
228.10(c)(l)(iv): Adverse affects
on the taste and odor of
commercial or recreational
species
228.10(c)(l)(v): Toxic levels (in
water column) consistently
identified outside ODMDS
above ambient levels outside the
site more than 4 hours after a
disposal event
;
i
Alternative 1: No Action I
1. 45-ft management depth will
ensure shallow areas of MDS do
not threaten commercial or j
military navigation (N) j
2. Potential socioeconomic i
impact regarding public j
confidence in seafood safety (M)
3. No impact to cultural features
or fishing uses (N)
i
i
1 . No impacts identified (N)
i
i
1 . No WQC exceedances outside
the site, or inside the site 1 h •
after disposal events (N) :
Alternative 2: NoMDS/HARS
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Alternative 3: Remediation
1. Depth of sediments to be
remediated are below 65 ft
(20 m); capping with
approximately 1 m of Material
for Remediation will not threaten
commercial or military
navigation (N)
2. Potential socioeconomic
impact — public confidence in
seafood safety will be improved
(B)
3. Impact to cultural features or
fishing can be avoided by not
burying shipwrecks (N)
1 . Same as Alternative 1
1. Same as Alternative 1
Alternative 4: Restoration
1-3. Same as Alternative 3
1 . Same as Alternative 1
1 . Same as Alternative 1
a £
s. ta
KJ -
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-73
4.5 References
Battelle, 1990 — Draft Phase I Reg. EIS. Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Revisions to
Ocean Dumping Regulations for Dredged Material. First Draft, Phase I. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC. Contract No. 68-C8-0105, Battelle
Work Assignment No. 1-55. June 1990. 94pp.
Battelle. 1997a. Biological Assessment for the New York Bight Apex Historic Area Remediation Site.
Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA, Rept, to U.S. EPA Region 2, New York, NY. EPA Contract No.
68-C2-0134. Work Assignment 4-233, Task 7. January 1997.
Battelle. 1997b. Contaminants in polychaetes in the Mud Dumpsite and Environs. Final Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 under EPA Contract 68-C2-0134.
Bielak, L. 1996 U.S. Minerals Management Service. Personal communication to J. Bergstein, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. December 11, 1996
Clarke, D., T. J. Fredette, and D. Ismsand. 1988. Creation of Offshore Topographic Features With
Dredged Material. Environmental Effects of Dredging. VolD-88-5. November 1988. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. 5 p.
Clarke, D. and R. Kasul. 1994. Habitat Value of Offshore Dredged Material Berms and Fishery
Resources. Dredging '94. Proceedings on the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement. LakeBuena Vista, FL, November 13-16, 1994. E. C. McNair, Jr.(ed) American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. pp 938-945
Clausner, J.E., Schefrher, N.W., Gailini, J.Z., and Allison, M.C. 1996. Frequency Prediction for Vertical
Erosion of Dredged Material Mounds in the Mud Dump Site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. October 1996.
Dragos, P. and D. Lewis. 1993. Plume Tracking/Model Verification Project (Draft Final Report).
Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA, for EPA Region 2 under EPA Contract No. 68-C2-
0134, Work Assignment No. 222.
Dragos, P. and CA. Peven. 1994. Dioxin plume tracking of dredged material containing dioxin. Draft
final report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY. 49 pp +
appendices
EPA/DOT/USACE. 1996. Letter to New Jersey and New York U.S. Congresspersons, signed by Carol
M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Frederico F. Pena, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Transportation; and Togo D. West, Jr. Secretary of U.S. Department of the Army. July 24,
1996. 4pp
EPA/USACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal — Testing Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, and United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC. EPA-503/8-91/001. 219 pp + appendices.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-74
EPA Region 2 Benthic Ecology Workshop. 1996. EPA Mud Dump Site Benthic Ecology Workgroup,
SEIS for HARS. December 17,1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York City,
NY.
EPA Region 21 USAGE NYD (EPA Region 2/USACE New York District). 1992. Guidance for
Performing Tests on Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New
York District and Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, New York, NY. Draft release December
1992, Revision 1: June 1994. 46 pp + appendices.
EPA Region 2/USACE NYD. 1997a. Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the New York
Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site). October 1996 Draft SMMP. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, New York District and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York City,
NY. 32 pp
EPA Region 2/USACE NYD. 1997b. Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Historic
Area Remediation Site (HARS). April 1997 Draft HARS SMMP. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York City, NY. 42 pp
Kranz P. 1974. The anastrophic burial of bivalves and its palaeontological significance. J. Geol. 82:237-
265.
MMS. 1996. U.S. Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Request for
Information (RFIN), Federal Outer Continental Self Lease Sale for Sand and Gravel Resources off New
Jersey (Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 99, p. 25501).
Maurer, D., et al. 1981a. Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material-Part I:
Mollusca. Mar. Environ. Res. 4:299-319.
Maurer, D., et al. 1981b. Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material. Part II:
Crustacea. Mar. Environ. Jtes. 5:301-317. . ._. _
Maurer, D., et al. 1982. Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material. Part HI:
Polychaeta. Mar. Environ. Res. 6:49-68.
McDowell, S., B. May and D. Pabst. 1994. The December Storm at the New York Mud Dump Site. In
Dredging '94. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material
Placement, Ed. by E. Clark McNair, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. pp 786-795.
Nakamura, M., R.S. Grove, C.J. Sonu (eds.). 1991. Recent Advances in Aquatic Habitat Technology.
Proceedings of the Japan-U.S. Symposium on Artificial Habitats for Fisheries. June 11-13,1991. Ninon
University Conference Hall, Tokyo, Japan. Printed by Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead,
CA. November 4,1991. 345pp.
NOAA NMFS. 1995. U.S. Dept. Commerce National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
June 16,1995 Memorandum from C. Mantzaris, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA, to
Mud Dump Site Closure Working Group. 4 pp
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-75
O'Connor, J.M. 1991. Evaluation of Turbidity and Turbidity-Related Effects on the Biota of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The San Francisco Bay-Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute, Richmond, CA.
RepL to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA. April 3, 1991 84 pp.
Panamerican. 1997. Cultural Assessment of Wrecks in the Potential Study Area for the Mud Dump Site
in the New York Bight Apex. Final Report prepared for Battelle Ocean Science under Contract with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Rhoads, D.C., and L.F. Boyer. 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of sediments:
A successional perspective. In: McCall, P.L., and M.J. Tevesz (Eds.), Animal - Sediment Relations.
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Rhoads, D.C., and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism - sediment relation using sediment
profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the sea floor (REMOTS® system).
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8:115-128.
Rhoads, D.C., and J.D. Germano. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community structure: A
new protocol. Hydrobiologia 142:291-308.
Sadove, S.S., and P. Cardinale. 1993. Species Composition and Distribution of Marine Mammals and
Sea Turtles in the New York Bight. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern New England
— New York Bight Coastal Fisheries Project. Charlestown, RI. 21 pp + appendices.
SAIC. 1994a. Rept. No. 311. Monitoring of Dredged Material Disposal: The Mass Balance Issue. Report
Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, USAGE Contract No.DACW33-93-D-
0002. SAIC Report No. 311.
SAIC. 1994b. Analyses of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York Mud Dump
Site: The Year 1 Program - March 1992 to March 1993. Report prepared under contract to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, New York District, USAGE Contract No. DACW51-92-D-0045.
SAIC. 1995a. RepL No. 337. The Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program the New York Mud Dump Site:
Baseline, Postdisposal, and Postcap REMOTS Investigation. Report prepared for US Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, USAGE Contract No. DACW39-94-C-0117. SAIC Rept. No.
337.
SAIC. 1995b. RepL No. 346. Analysis of waves and near-bottom currents during major storms at the
New York Mud Dump Site. Draft report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
Federal Activities, Washington, DC. EPA contract no. 68-W2-0026. Work Assignment 6-1. 84pp +
appendix.
SAIC. 1995c. Analysis of Waves and Near-Bottom Currents During Major Storms at the New York Mud
Dump Site. Report Prepared under contract to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station. Delivery No. 1.1.1 of Contract No. DACW39-94-C-0117.
SAIC. 1996a. RepL No. 358. The Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program the New York Mud Dump Site:
Chemical Analyses Sediment and Tissues Samples from the July 1995 Postcap Survey. Report prepared
for US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, USAGE Contract No. DACW33-94--
C-0117. SAIC RepL No. 358.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences Page 4-76
SAIC. 1996b. Rept. No. 384. Sidescan Sonar and Bathymetry Results from the Expanded Mud Dump
Area and Northwest Regions. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, USAGE
Contract No. DACW51-95-D-0027. SAIC Rept. No. 384.
SAIC. 1996c. Rept. No. 382. Results of the May 1996 REMOTS and Seafloor Photography Survey of the
Northwest Regions of the Expanded Mud Dump Area. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, USAGE Contract No. DACW51-95-D-0027. SAIC Rept. No. 382.
SAIC. 1996d. Rept. No. 368. Numerical Modeling of Storm Induced Erosion of Sand at the New York
Mud Dump Site. Report prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
USAGE Contract No. DACW51-95-D-0027. SAIC Rept. No. 368.
SAIC. 1997. Rept. No. 374. Capping Dredged Materials in the New York Bight: Evaluation of the Effects
of Bioturbation. Report Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
USAGE Contract No. DACW33-94-C-0117. SAIC Rept. No. 374.
Seaman, W. and L.M. Sprague (eds.). 1991. Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries.
Academic Press, Inc. Harcourt Brace Jonanovich, Publishers, San Diego, CA ISBN 0-12-634345-4.
285 pp.
Schwab, B. U.S. Geological Survey. Personal communication to C. Hunt, Battelle Ocean Sciences,
DuxburyMA. December 1996.
USAGE Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. 1996. Telephone communication from J. Hartman,
USAGE NYD. New York City, NY. March 26,1997.
USFWS, 1995. Letter from C.G. Day, Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pleasantville, NJ to R.W. Hargrove, U.S. EPA Region 2, Environmental Impacts Branch, New
York City, NY. July 28,1995. 2 pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May ] 997
Chapter 5, Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring Page 5-1
5.0 FEASIBILITY OF SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING
[40 CFR SECTIONS 228.5(d) AND 228.6(a)(5)]
5.1 HARS Site Management and Monitoring
Section 506 of the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, which amended the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), requires the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to prepare a Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the proposed HARS. WRDA provides that after January 1, 1995, no site
shall receive a final designation unless an SMMP has been developed. The draft document (contained in
Appendix C) constitutes the EPA Region 2 and USAGE New York District (NYD) required WRDA
SMMP, and identifies a number of actions, provisions, and practices to (1) manage operational aspects of
dredging and HARS remediation activities and (2) perform HARS monitoring tasks (including surveillance
and monitoring activities). EPA has determined that portions of the HARS are Impact Category I [40 CFR
228.1 l(c)], and the HARS SMMP has been developed to provide that the site be managed to reduce
impacts to acceptable levels, in accordance with 40 CFR 228.1 l(c).
The Draft HARS SMMP, is being released and distributed with this SEIS for public comment. Comments
on the SMMP should be directed to:
Douglas A. Pabst
Place-Based Protection Branch
U.S. EPA, Region H
290 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York City, NY 10007-1866
tel 212-637-3797
fax 212-637-3889
E-mail pabsLdouglas@epamail.epa.gov
The objectives of the HARS SMMP are as follows:
A. Provide for the remediation of required areas within the HARS by placing a one-meter cap (minimum
required cap thickness) of the Material for Remediation on sediments within the PRA (inside the
HARS). Sediments within the PRA have been found to exhibit Category n and Category HI dredged
material characteristics and will be remediated.
B. Provide that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur from the placement of the Material
for Remediation at the HARS. The phrase "significant adverse environmental impacts" is inclusive of
all significant or potentially substantial negative impacts on resources within the HARS and vicinity.
Factors to be evaluated include:
1. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront beaches, or
shorelines;
2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shell fishery areas;
3. Absence from the HARS of pollution-sensitive biota characteristic of the general area;
4. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment composition at the HARS, when
these changes are attributable to the Material for Remediation placed at the HARS;
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 5, Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring Page 5-2
5. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic
biota at or near the HARS, when these changes can be attributed to the effects of the Material for
Remediation placed at the HARS;
6. Accumulation of material constituents in marine biota near the HARS.
C. Recognize and correct any potential unacceptable conditions before they cause any significant adverse
impacts to the marine environment or present a navigational hazard to commercial and recreational
water-borne vessel traffic. The term "potential unacceptable conditions" is inclusive of the range of
negative situations that could arise as a result of the Material for Remediation placement at the HARS
such that its occurrence could have an undesirable affect. Examples could include things such as:
Remediation Material placement mounds exceeding the required management depth or Remediation
Material placement barges releasing materials in the wrong locations.
D. Determine/enforce compliance with MPRSA Permit conditions.
E. Provide a baseline assessment of conditions at the HARS.
F. Provide a program for monitoring the HARS.
G. Describe special management conditions/practices to be implemented at the HARS.
H. Specify the quantity of Remediation Material to be placed at the HARS, and the presence, nature, and
bioavailability of the contaminants in the Material for Remediation.
I. Specify the anticipated use of the HARS, including the closure date (the date upon which EPA
Region 2/USACE NYD determines that all areas within the PRA of the HARS has been remediated
by placement of at least 1 m of Remediation Material).
J. Provide a schedule for review and revision of the HARS SMMP.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-1
6.0 COORDINATION
This chapter contains information on public involvement and interagency activities related to the
Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement on the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) in the New York Bight
Apex (Section 6.1 and 6.2); evidence of endangered and threatened species consultation (Section 6.3); and
public distribution of the SEIS (Section 6.4).
6.1 Public Announcement
On February 3,1995, EPA issued a Public Announcement (PA) stating that the Agency would commence
a study of a 23-nmi2 area surrounding the existing Mud Dump Site (MDS). The product of the study was
to be a Supplemental Environmental impact Statement (SEIS) that would evaluate the potential expansion
of the MDS for the disposal of Category I and n material (Exhibit 1). Subsequent to the February 3,1995
PA, EPA added an additional 7- nmi2 to the SEIS study area to encompass all benthic areas that showed
evidence of previous dredged material disposal activities in the New York Bight Apex. During the course
of its environmental investigations, EPA determined that some parts of the study area could be classified
as Category EL This factor, coupled with issues raised by the concerned public, led regulators to question
the appropriateness of continued use or expansion of the MDS for the disposal of dredged material from
the New York Bight, and to identify the need to remediate the MDS and surrounding areas. The
development of the SEIS for the expansion of the MDS was terminated in light of a July 24,1996 3-Party
Letter (Exhibit 2) signed by the agency heads of the EPA, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, calling for closure of the MDS and simultaneous designation of the HARS.
In light of the July 24,1996, 3-Party Letter, EPA issued a second PA on September 11, 1996, stating that
the Agency would prepare an SEIS for the closure/de-designation of the MDS and simultaneous
designation of the HARS (Exhibit 3). This action is consistent with EPA's procedures for voluntary
preparation of environmental impact statements for significant regulatory actions (39 FR 37119). As such,
a formal public scoping meeting is not required. However, alternative mechanisms have enabled EPA to
receive information from other regulatory agencies and members of the public to develop this SEIS. These
activities are identified below.
62 Coordination Activities Conducted during the Preparation of the SEIS
During the development of the SEIS, a number of public and technical meetings were held to solicit a
broad input on the proposed SEIS.
The Dredged Material Management Forum (Forum) was convened in June 1993 by the EPA, the USAGE,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection to facilitate discussions among governmental, environmental, commercial, and
public interest groups on a variety of issues associated with the dredging and disposal of sediments from
the Port of New York and New Jersey and surrounding areas. The Forum has met six times since its
inception. In light of the many policy issues associated with the management of dredged material, a
number of workgroups were established by the Forum: Dredging, Transport and Disposal; Containment;
Criteria; Decontamination Technologies/Siting; and the MDS/HARS workgroup. The MDS/HARS
workgroup has been charged with the responsibility of assisting EPA to develop this SEIS. Toward this
end, the workgroup has met regularly to discuss key issues that would be included in the SEIS, and has
reviewed preliminary drafts of the SEIS chapters. A list of workgroup members is provided in Exhibit 4.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-2
Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 228.6 (a)(8), EPA evaluated the proposed project's potential impacts to
fishing. Toward this end, EPA held two public meetings in Freeport, New York (April 25, 1996), and
Monmouth Beach, New Jersey (May 6,1996). EPA's intention at both sessions was to share with the
fishing community the results of scientific surveys that have been conducted in the SEIS Study Area that
would be used in guiding policy decisions concerning the placement of Remediation Material and to
discuss these findings. Approximately one dozen people participated in the meeting at Freeport, New
York; about 300 people participated in the meeting held in Monmouth Beach, New Jersey. The
information obtained at these meetings from members of commercial and recreational fishing
organizations, divers, environmental organizations, and private citizens, has been factored into the
development of the SEIS for the designation of the HARS.
Also, as part of the coordination activities, EPA invited recognized experts in the field of benthic
community ecology and oceanography to provide technical input in a Benthic Ecology Workshop on
December 17,1996. The workshop evaluated the benthic community structure data (collected from the
various surveys in support of the SEIS and any available historical data) along with sediment chemistry,
toxicity, and worm body-burden level data. The workshop participants were asked to provide scientific
recommendations and evaluations from the perspective of the "value" of the benthic community currently
existing in the SEIS Study Area and the need for remediation or restoration. The workshop members also
discussed various approaches to conducting remediation and restoration operations. A list of the workshop
invitees and participants is provided in Exhibit 5.
63 Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires consultation with Federal agencies to identify any
threatened, endangered, or special-status species that may be affected by the proposed action. EPA
initiated its consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 6,1995. The
consultation process was concluded with USFWS on July 28,1995, with USFWS's concurrence that
EPA's action was not likely to adversely affect Federally listed species under USFWS's jurisdiction
(Exhibits 6-9).
In accordance with the ESA, EPA also initiated a threatened and endangered species consultation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on April 4,1996. Based on this coordination, EPA concluded
that the preparation of a Biological Assessment was warranted for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea
turtles, and the humpback and fin whales "within the MDS and surrounding areas; NMFS concurred with
this approach on May 8,1996 (Exhibits 10-11). The Biological Assessment was sent to NMFS in
May 1997.
6.4 Public Distribution of the SEIS and Proposed Rule for the Designation of the
Historic Area Remediation Site
The aforementioned September 11,1996 PA for the preparation of the SEIS was sent to approximately 800
parties—Federal and State agencies, environmental, commercial, and public interest groups that constitute
the Dredged Material Management Forum's mailing list These same parties, together with the appropriate
congressional offices and local municipalities within the geographic scope of the proposed action, were
provided with the subject SEIS. Additional copies of the SEIS may be requested by contacting Joseph
Bergstein, EPA Region H, at (212) 637-3890, or e-mail bergstein.joseph@epamail.epa.gov.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-3
EPA issued the Notice of Availability and the Proposed Rule for the designation of the HARS in May
1997. Approximately one month after the publication of the Notice of Availability of the SEIS in the
Federal Register, EPA will commence public hearings on the Proposed Rule to designate the HARS.
The following tentative dates and locations have been established for the public hearings.
June 16,1997: 7 p.m., Monmouth Beach Municipal Hall Auditorium, Monmouth Beach, NJ
June 17,1997: 7 p.m., Social Services Building Auditorium, Mineola, Long Island, NY
June 18,1997: 2 p.m., Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York City, NY
The comment period for the SEIS and the Proposed Rule is anticipated to close on June 30,1997.
Comments received at the public hearings and on the SEIS and Proposed Rule will be considered in the
development of the Final Rule, which EPA intends to issue in order to meet the September 1,1997 date
specified in the July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter for simultaneous designation of the HARS and de-
designation of the Mud Dump Site.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination pa,e ^
EXHIBIT 1
-------
Page 6-4(i)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O278-OO12
FEB 3 1995
To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups and
Citizens:
In 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
designated the New York Bight Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud
Dump Site [MDS]) to receive up to 100 million cubic yards of
dredged materials generated in the Port of New York and New
Jersey and nearby harbors. Approximately 67 million cubic yards
of dredged material has been disposed of at the MDS since its
designation; the remaining capacity of the MDS for Category II
sediments (see Endnote) has been reduced due to a variety of
factors, including disposal strategies and mound height
restrictions for different categories of dredged material.
In consideration of the limited remaining capacity of the
MDS, there is a need to develop a dredged material management
plan to 'establish immediate, short-, mid-, and long-term dredged
material disposal alternatives. Towards this end, the Dredged
Material Management Forum was convened in June 1993 by the EPA,
the Army Corps of Engineers, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection to facilitate discussions among
governmental, environmentalr commercial, and public interest
groups on a variety of issues associated with the dredging and
disposal of sediments from the Harbor. As part of this effort,
and in response to input from the Forum principals and
participants, EPA has decided to consider expansion of the MDS.
Accordingly, pursuant to EPA's procedures for voluntary
preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS) 'for
significant regulatory actions (39 FR 37119), EPA is announcing
its decision to prepare a supplement to the 1984 EIS on the
designation of the MDS to address the impacts associated with its
expansion. The geographical scope of the study will be an area
of approximately 23 square nautical miles surrounding the MDS
(see Enclosure 1). The supplemental EIS will address the five
general; and 11 specific criteria for designating ocean disposal
sites presented in 40 CFR Parts 228.5 and .6, respectively (see
Enclosure 2). Additionally, because the subject action involves
the possible expansion of an existing ocean disposal site, the
IB ON RKTCLED PAPCK
-------
Page 6-4(11)
2
evaluation will also consider the impacts of past disposal at the
MDS pursuant to 40 CFR Part 228.10 (see Enclosure 3). At a
minimum, the supplemental EZS will evaluate the following
alternatives:
• no-action (i.e., no expansion of the MDS);
• expansion of the MDS for Category I material; and
• expansion of the MDS for Category I and Category II
material.
In evaluating the action alternatives, the supplemental EIS
will identify the locations within the study area that are best
suited to receive the two categories of dredged material.
Additionally, if the MDS is expanded for the disposal of Category
ZZ material, the use of the site will only be permitted if there
are no environmentally preferred, practicable, non-ocean disposal
alternatives. Moreover, the supplemental EZS will evaluate the
potential remediation and, insofar as possible, restoration of
the MDS, adjacent impacted areas, and historical disposal areas.
Concurrently, EPA is terminating the preparation of the EIS
for the designation of an Alternate Mud Dump Site (AMDS) for the
disposal of dredged material unacceptable for disposal at the
present MDS. This action is in response to Section 412 of the
1990 Water Resources Development Act which removes the statutory
requirement to designate an offshore AMDS.
Zf you have any questions concerning this announcement, need
additional information regarding the preparation of the
supplemental EZS, or would like to be included in the mailing
list for the project, please contact Robert Hargrove, Chief,
Environmental Zmpacts Branch, at (212) 264-1892.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Jeanne
Regio:
Note: Dredged material from New York Harbor and its environs is
separated into three (3) categories: Category Z material is
acceptable for unrestricted ocean disposal; Category ZZ material
is acceptable for ocean disposal with appropriate management
practices (e.g., capping); and Category ZZZ material is
unacceptable for ocean disposal.
-------
4040N
Page 6-4(iii
4030N
4020N
40 ION
Lower New York Boy
7420 W
7400W
7340W
7320W
Location of the Mud Dump Site
and the Expanded Mud Dump Site Study Area
-------
Page 6-4(iv)
Enclosure 2
40 cnt Part 22I.S General criteria for the selection of sites
(a) Th« dumping of material* into the ocean will b« permitted
only at sites or in are»j selected to minimize the interference
of disposal activities with other activities in the narine .
environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational
navigation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other
environmental conditions during initial nixing caused by disposal
operations anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant
concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline,
marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or
shellfishery.
-------
Page 6-4(v)
(4) Types and quantities of wastes rreposed to be disposed of,
and proposed methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste, if any;
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;
(t>; Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any;
(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects);
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas
of special scientific importance and other legitimate uses
of the ocean;
(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or
. baseline surveys;
(10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site;
(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical
importance.
(b) The results of a disposal site evaluation and/or designation
study based on the criteria stated in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (11) of this section will be presented in support of
. the site designation promulgation as an environmental
assessment of the impact of the use of the site for
disposal, and will- be used in the preparation of an
environment impact statement, for each site where such a
statement is required by EPA policy. By publication of a
notice in accordance with this part 228, an environmental
impact statement, in draft form, will be made available for
public comment not later than the time of publication of the
site designation as proposed rulemaking, and a final EIS
will be made available at the time of final rulemaking.
-------
Page 6-4(vi
Enclosure 3
22i.lO Evaluating disposal impact.
(a) Impact of the disposal at each site designated under section
102 of tha Act will be evaluated pariodically and a raport
will ba submitted as appropriata as part of tha Annual Raport
of Congrass. Such raports will ba praparad by or undar the
diractioh of tha EPA management authority for a specific site
and will ba basad on an avaluation of all data available from
bt «eline and trend assessment surveys, monitoring surveys,
and other data pertinent to conditions at and near a site.
(b) Tha following types of effects, in addition to other
necessary or appropriate considerations, will be considered
in determining to what extent the marine environment has been
impacted by materials disposed of at an ocean disposal sitt:
(I/ Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries,
or onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Movement of materials toward productive fishery or
shellfishery areas;
(3) Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive biota
characteristic of the general area;
(4) Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or
sediment composition at the disposal site, when these changes
are attributable to materials disposed of at the site;
(5) Progressive non-seasonal, changes in composition or numbers
of pelagic, demersal, or banthic biota at or near the
disposal site, when these changes can be attributed to the
effects of materials disposed of at the site;
(6) Accumulation of material constituents (including without
limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota at or near the
(c) The. determination of the overall severity of disposal at the
site on the marina environment, including without limitation,
the disposal site and adjacent areas, will be based on the
evaluation of the entire body of pertinent data using
appropriate methods of data analysis for the quantity and
type of data available. Impacts will be categorized
according to the overall condition of the environment of the
disposal site and adjacent areas based on the determination
by the EPA management authority assessing the nature and
extent of the effects identified in paragraph (b) of this
section in addition to other necessary or appropriate
considerations,. The following categories shall be used:
(1) Impact Category I: The effects of activities at the
disposal site shall* be categorized in Impact Category I
when one or more of the following conditions is present
and can reasonably be attributed to ocean dumping
activities;
-------
2 Page 6-4(vii
(i) There is identifiable progressive movement or
accumulation, in detectable concentrations above normal
ambient values, of any waste or waste constituent from
the disposal site within 12 nautical *'ies of any
shoreline, marine sanctuary designated under title III of
the Act, or critical area designated under section 102(c)
of the Act; or
(ii) Th* biota, sediments, or water column of the disposal
site, or of any area outside the disposal site where any
waste w waste constituent from the disposal site is
present in detectable concentrations above normal ambient
values, are adversely affected by the toxicity of such
waste or waste constituent to the extent that there are
statistically significant decreases in the populations of
valuable commercial or recreational species, or of
specific species of biota essential to the propagation of
such species, within the disposal site and such other
area as compared to populations of the same organisms in
cc.parable locations outside such site and area; or
Uii) Solid waste material disposed of at the site has
accumulated at the site or in areas adjacent to it, to
such an extent that major uses of the site or of adjacent
areas are significantly impaired and the Federal or State
agency responsible for regulating such uses certifies
that such significant impairment has occurred and states
in its certificate the basis for its determination of
such impairment; or
(iv) There are adverse effects on the taste or odor of
valuable commercial or recreational species as a result
of disposal activities; or
(v) When any toxic waste, toxic waste constituent, or toxic
byproduct of waste interaction, is consistently
identified in toxic concentrations above normal ambient
values outside the disposal site more than 4 hours after
disposal.
(2) Impact Category ZZ: The effects of activities at the
disposal site which are not categorized in Impact
Category I shall be categorized in Impact Category ZZ.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-5
EXHIBIT 2
-------
Page 6-5(i)
ENCLOSURE
July 24,1996
fte Honorable Frank Pallone
United States House of Repitsenutives
Washington, D.C. 20510
PaUonci
Your leadership and support have been essential in advancing our (bared goals of protecting
(be ocean environment, white ensuring tht competUivertess of the Port of New York tod
New Jersey and the economic health of the region. We are writing to announce our
commitment to several substantial new steps to provide additional Administration support for
those goals. We believe the three-point plan outlined below demonstrates oils
Administration's commitment to the continued growth and vitality of the port, to protective
regulation of ocean, disposal, and to a stronger partnership with the states in protecting
regional commerce and the marine environment.
I. We will close the Mud Dump Site by September 1. 1997
After years of contention, this Administration is prepared to help resolve the controversy
.over disposal at the Mud Dump Site (MDS) off the New Jersey coast.
Environmental, tourism, fishing, and other community groups have long contended that the
MDS should be closed immediately. These views reflect the important environmental values
that New Jersey's communities identify with their coastal environment.-Community concerns
hive been heightened by the unhappy history of other environmental threats that these
communities have had to endure — ranging from oil spills to the littering of shorelines with
medical waste. This history warrants sensitivity to concerns about the MDS, including
concerns about continued use of the site for so-called 'category 2* material. When these
concerns are coupled with the limited category 2 disposal capacity we expect the she to
provide, we must conclude that long-term use of this site for disposal activity is not realistic.
Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will immediately begin the
administrative process for closure of the MDS by September 1,1997. The proposed closure
Ml be finalized BO later than that date. Poit-closnre use of the site would be limited,
consistent with the management standards m 40 C.F.R. Section 22tT.l](c). Simultaneous
with closure of the MDS, the site and surrounding areas that have been used historically as
disposal sites for contaminated material will be tedesignated under 40 C.F.It Section 22S as
the Historic Area Remediation She. This designation win include a proposal that the site be
managed to reduce impacts at the site to acceptable levels (in accordance with 40 C.F.R.
Section 228.11(c». The Historic Area Remediation Site will be remediated with
^^contaminated dredged material Q.e. dredged material that meets current Category X
ttindards and win not cause significant undesirable effects including through
bkaccumulation). Our ongoing environmental assessment activities at the site will be
-------
Rage 6-5(1-
The Honorable Frank Pallone
Page 2
modified to reflect these new commitments. We also will seek to reinforce this approach in
appropriate legislation.
Although we recognize that eventual closure of the MDS. foDowed by remediation, is
appropriate, immediate closure could jeopardize the Port, which may need short-term use of
the site to dispose of category 2 material. To strike (he appropriate balance, use of the site
for category 2 material win have to be supported with certifications by the permit applicant,
and a finding by the Corps of Engineers that: 1) the affected states or ports were asked to
provide alternative sites for disposal of the material identified by the permit, and that the
states or ports failed to provide a reasonable alternative site; and 2) the disposal of category
2 material at (be MDS wOl not increase the elevation at the MDS higher than 65 feet below
the surface. Any elevation limits wQl be designed to contain material within the current
lateral limits of the MDS. and will be act based on scientific evidence.
2. We will Mp remove the immediate obstacles to dredging &e fort
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, terminal operators, shipping lines, and
labor groups have identified numerous ways in which we can help expedite dredging in the
Port We have heard, and are responding to, their concerns.
Making the MDS available for category 2 material for the next 12 months, and allowing (he
elevation at the site for category 2 material to increase, would remove (be most immediate
and major federal obstacles to dredging. The designation of the Historic Area Remediation
Site wiU assure long-term use of category 1 dredge material.
Our outreach to the companies, longshoremen, harbor pilots, and others whose livelihood
•depends on the Port, has identified many additional steps our agencies can take to further
facilitate adequate dredging in the Port A major source of concern and potential cost for
permit applicants has been uncertainty surrounding the testing that must support permit
applications. Accordingly, by the end of August, EPA will finalize its proposal that tests of
only two species, not three, will be required of permit applicants. EPA then will invest at
least nine months in a process for aH affected groups - industry, labor, and environmental
groups - to help the Agency review the ocean disposal testing requirements and ensure that
any further revision reflects both sound policy and sound science,
The Corps of Engineers wDl expedite ne processing of dredging permit applications and
completion of its Own dredging projects. The Corps wOl issue public notices for dredging
permits within 15 days after a completed application is submitted, or wfll have requested any
additional information necessary to make (he application complete. Within 90 days, (he
Corps win either issue (he permit, deny (be permit, or commit b writing to a deadline for
(he permit decision. The Corps responsibility for the federal channels will also he met: with
cooperation from the states and the funding requested by the President, (he Corp. win ensure
maintenance dredging for 10 high-priority federal channel projects before the end of 1997.
-------
Page 6-5(iii
The Honorable Frank Pallone
Page3
lo addition, the Corps and EPA will accelerate their work with the affected state and local
governments on * sound dredge material management phn, and complete the interim plan by
August 30,1996. This interim plan will identify any steps that are necessary to sustain
dredging through 1997. Tbe final plan will be completed by September. 1998.
Most importantly, we expect that our commitments concerning the MDS will diminish or
eliminate the possibility of litigation challenging permits and the EPA rule change during the
period prior to September 1.1997. TUs proposal is predicated on that result.
J. We wilt help ensure the health oflh&ort and the environment for the 21* Century
Tbe short-term efforts identified here cannot tnuy help the Port without effective long-term
strategies to ensure that dredge material is managed property. We recognize the significant
efforts and commitments that New York and New Jersey have snade with us to put those
strategies in place. We will reinforce those efforts, so that long-term growth of the Port is
sustained and sustainable.
Recognizing that a vital Port should be able to accommodate the full range of world-class
ships, the Corps will soon begin an expedited feasibility study of alternatives for a 50 foot
deep Port, including recent legislative proposals on this issue. The Corps will seek
Congressional authorization and take steps to reprogram funds to allow the study to begin in
1996. and the study will be designed for completion in 1999. Recognizing that dredging is
not the only issue affecting the future of mis and other Ports, the Department of
Transportation is committed to a six-month study of the causes of cargo diversion from our
East Coast ports. This study, which will be developed in consultation with other affected
agencies, will recommend any additional measures that are needed to enhance the
iatematipnai competitiveness of our East Coast ports.
Continued growth of the Port must be coupled with aggressive development of disposal
alternatives and expanded efforts to reduce toxic pollution in the harbor. Tbe Administration
will continue to support legislation and appropriations to support cost-sharing of upland
disposal alternatives. The Administration will also seek support for the range of continuing
efforts to develop acceptable alternatives. For example. EPA is today announcing $1.2
minion in contract awards to support development of decontamination technologies for
dredge material. In addition, the Corps will irnmediatery aeek necessary authorization and
funding to begin the technical design and feasibility studies needed for environmentally sound
confined containment facilities, in anticipation mat such facilities may be part of the final
dredge material management plan. We also win pursue additional steps to reduce and
•ddress toxic pollution in the estuary. We wfll aeek to minimize polluted runoff by funding
*Qd supporting local and region-wide watershed planning and implementation activities. By
September 1996; EPA will invest $100,000 to facilitate pollution reduction in the Arthur
Kill. All of these efforts will be coordinated with the Harbor-Estuary Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan, which is the blueprint for working cooperatively with
-------
Page 6-5(H
The Honorable Frank Pallone
4
state and local governments. businesses, and citizens to reduce toxic pollution in the
watershed.
We will be calling upon every member of the New Jeney and New York delegations, as well
as the affected state and local governments, to continue our constructive and cooperative
efforts So sustain port growth and environmental protection. We will also be submitting
periodic report* to the President on our surmt in implementing this plan and on any
continuing obstacles to harbor dredging*.
We appreciate your continuing leadership and advice as we work together to ensure a healthy
economy and a healthy environment for the region.
Sincerely.
•*-•'ft*
Carol MfBrowner
Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Federico F. Pena
Secretary *
United States Department
of Transportation
sT
//Togo D. West. Jr.
/ / Secretary
L/Onited States Department
of the Army
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination page 6-6
EXHIBITS
-------
Page 6-6(1]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK. NY 10007-1866
SEP 1 1 1996
To Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
In accordance with the Clinton Administration's July 24, 1996
plan for the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is modifying the scope of .the supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the expansion of the Mud
Dump Site (MDS) to evaluate only the designation of the Historic
Area Remediation Site (HARS). Concurrently, EPA is beginning the
official administrative process for closure of the MDS.
On February 3, 1995, in response to recommendations contained
within the proposed Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) for the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, as well
as input received from the Dredged Material Management Forum, EPA
announced plans to prepare a SEIS on the possible' expansion of the
MDS. The SEIS was to evaluate the following specific alternatives
within a 23 square nautical mile area surrounding the MDS: no
action (i.e.,, no expansion of the MDS); expansion for the disposal
of Category." 1 material; and expansion for the disposal of Category
1 and 2 material. In accordance with the CCMP, the SEIS was also
to include an evaluation of the potential remediation and, insofar
as possible, restoration of the MDS, adjacent areas, and historical
disposal areas.
• '-- K.
Subsequent to the February 1995 announcement, a number of
scientific surveys were conducted, which indicate that impacts of
historical disposal exist outside the aforementioned study area.
Accordingly, the study area was enlarged to approximately 30 square
nautical miles to include those portions of the New York Bight Apex
in the vicinity of the MDS that are indicative of historical
disposal (see enclosure) . While the study area has been enlarged,-
it was never EPA's intention to designate the entire study area as
the Expanded MDS. Moreover, enlargement of the study area does not
mean that.it has surface contamination throughout. In fact, the
studies indicate that much of the study area is not contaminated.
On July 24, 1996, Vice President Gore announced the Clinton
Administration's plan to help protect and preserve the environment
and promote economic growth in the Port of New York and New Jersey.
This announcement begins the official administrative process for
closure of the MDS by September 1, 1997 outlined in the Clinton
Administration's plan. The proposed closure shall be finalized no
later than"that date. Post-closure use of the site would be
limited, consistent with the management standards in 40 CFR Section
228.11{c);;V Simultaneous with closure of the MDS, the site and
surrounding areas that have been used historically as disposal
Ftocyctodfftecydabfe 'Printed wtth V«g*Ubto Ol Based MB on 100% ftocvcM Pao«r tunt. P
-------
Page 6-6(i
sites 'for /contaminated material will be redesignated under 40 CFR
Section 228 as the HARS. This designation will include a proposal
that the site be managed to reduce impacts at the site to
acceptable levels (in accordance with 40 CFR Section 228.11 [c]) .
The HARS will be remediated with uncontaminated dredged material
(i.e., dredged material that meets current Category 1 standards and
will not cause significant undesirable, effects including
bioaccumulation).
Accordingly, EPA is hereby revising the scope of the SEIS to
evaluate only the designation of the HARS for the purposes of
remediation. Towards this end, the SEIS will identify those
portions of the study area to be included in the HARS, the type of
uncontaminated dredged material (sand, silt, or clay) to be used,
and the priority for remediation in each portion of the HARS. EPA
expects to issue the SEIS on the designation of the HARS and the
proposed rule on the closure of the MDS and designation of the HARS
in January 1997. The final rule for the closure of the MDS and
designation of the HARS will be issued before September 1, 1997.
If you have any questions concerning this announcement, need
additional information regarding the preparation of the SEIS, or
would like to be included in the mailing list for the project,
please contact Robert Hargrove, Chief, Strategic Planning and
Multi-Media Programs Branch, at (212) 637-3495.
Sincerely,
-m
Enclosure
Jtfahne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
-------
Page o-o(iii;
Long Island
New
Jersey
Location of mud dump site and study area.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-7
EXHIBIT 4
-------
MUD DUMP SITE WORKGROUP as of June 28. 1995
Page 6-7(
Chairpersons ;
Bob Hargrove
USEPA - Region II
Environmental Impacts Branch
290 Broadway, 28th floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Jim Tripp
Environmental Defense Fund
257 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10010
Phone:
Fax:
212-637-3495
212-637-3548
Phone:
Fax:
212-505-2100
212-505-2375
1. Doug Pabst
USEPA - Region II
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
290 Broadway, 24th floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
2. Joe Bergstein
USEPA - Region II
Environmental Impacts Branch
290 Broadway, 28th floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
3. Larry Schmidt
NJDEP
Office of Program Coordination
401 East State Street, CN402
Trenton, NJ 08625
4. Thomas Tote
Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Comm.
22 Cruiser Court
Toms River, NJ 087.53
5. Bill Greaux
38 Hutchinsdn Drive
Port Monmouth, NJ 07758
6. David Buerle, PhD.
NYSDOS
Division of Coastal Resources
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
7. Shirley Delnero
74 Pelican Road
Middietown, NJ 07748
8. Jack l,ipton
Hudson River Fishermans Assoc.
520 Marion Lane
Paramus, NJ 07652
Phone: 212-637-3797
Fax: 212-637-3891
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
212-637-3521
212-637-3548
609-292-2662
609-777-0942
908-270-9102
908-506-6409
Phone: 908-787-7716
Fax: 908-308-0847
(Mon - Thurs)
518-474-3642
518-473-2464
908-615-0150
908-583-0708
201-262-6664
201-944-9038
-------
Page 6-7(i
9. Ralph Pastore
United Fishennans Assoc.
64 Tynan Street
Staten Island, NJ 10312
10. Monte Greges
USAGE - New York District
Water Quality Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
11. Brian May
USAGE - New York District
Water Quality Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
12. Matt Masters
Port Authority of NY/NJ
1 World Trade Center, Room 4011
New York, NY 10048
13. Joe Monaco
Port Authority of NY/NJ
1 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048
14. Linda O'Leary
American Waterways Operators
17 Battery Place, Suite 1408
New York, NY 10004
15. Cindy Zipf
Clean Ocean Action
P.O. Box 505
Sandy Hook, NJ 07732
16. Peter L. Battler
Interstate Sanitation Comm.
311 W. 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
17. Mr. Kevin Tyne
Coriresswoman Molinari's Office
2435 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
18. Rav Freidel
Concerned Citizens of Montauk
P.O. Box 733
Montauk, NY 11954
19. Georgina Morgenstem
Bureau of Env. Engineering
NYCDEP
59-17 Junction Boulevard
Corona, NY'. 11373
Phone:
Fax:
718-317-1582
718-967-6304
Phone: 212-264-5620
Fax: 212-264-4260
Phone: 212-264-5620
Fax: 212-264-4260
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone
Fax
Phone:
Fax:
Phone
Fax
212-435-7416
212-435-4750
212-435-8013
212-435-8014
212-943-8481
2JL2-344-9097
908-872-0111
908-872-8041
212-582-0380
212-581-5719
Phone: 202-225-3371
Fax: 202-226- 1272
Phone: 516-668-9483
Fax: Same No.
Phone: 718-595-5969
Fax: 718-595-5037
-------
Page 6-7(i
20. Manny Dosil
Concerned Businesses of NJ
P.O. Box 261, Highway 36
North Middle-town, NJ 07734
21. Stanley Gorski
NMFS
74 McGruder Road
Highlands, NJ 07732
22. Michael Ludwig
NMFS
Milford Labs
212 Rogers Avenue
Milford, CT 06460
23. James Peterson, Jr.
Sandy Hook Pilots Association
60 Dale Drive.
Chatham, NJ 07923
24. Fred Grassle, PhD.
Inst. of Marine and Coastal Sciences
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
25. Angelina & Steven Magelnicki
41 Kim Court
Toms River, NJ 08755
26. Deling Wang
Network for a Sustainable NYC
150 West 28th Street
Suite 1501
New York, NY 10001
27. Julie Evans
Coalition to Stop Dioxin
P.O. Box 1264
Montauk, NY 11954
28. Larry H. Klein
Maritime Administration
North Atlantic Region
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3737
New York, NY 10278
29. Roberta Weisbrod, PhD.
NYSDEC
Hunters Point Plaza
Long Island City, NY 11101
30. Art Newell
NYSDEC
Division of Marine Resources
205 Belle Meade Road
East Setauket, New York 11733
Phone: 908-787-3853
Fax: 908-787-0578
Phone: 908-872-3037
Fax: 908-872-3077
Phone: 203-783-4200
Fax: 203-783-4295
Phone: 201-377-9042
Fax: N/A
Phone: 908-932-6555
Ext. 506
Fax: 908-932-1820
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
908-286-6802
908-286-7934
212-645-2213
212-645-2214
516-668-2154
Same No.
212-264-8787
212-264-1958
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
718-482-4949
718-482-4954
516-444-0430
516-444-0434
-------
Page 6-7(i\
31. David Barber
Vietnam Veterans of America
Chapter #12
P.O. Box 276
Allenhurst New Jersey 07711-0276
33. Eugenia Flatow
Coalition for the Bight
121 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 501
New York, NY 10013
34. Dennis Suskowski
Hudson River Foundation
40 West 20th Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
35. Greg Storey
New York Shipping Association, Inc.
2 World Trade Center, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10048-0075
Phone:
Fax:
201-643-7811
Same No.
36.
Catherine McClave
New York Aquarium
Boardwalk & West 8th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11224
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
Fax:
Phone:
FAX:
37.
Dennis A. Thoney, Ph.D. Phone:
Cura€or Marine Fish and Invertebrates FAX:
NYZS The Wildlife Conservation Society
Aquarium for Wildlife Conservation
Boardwalk at West 8th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11224
38.
Frank Eadie Phone:
Sierra Club
310 West ,18th Street IB
New York, NY 10011
39. John J. Szeligowski Phone:
TAMS Consultants, Inc. FAX:
The TAMS Building
655 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
40. Bernard J. Blum Phone:
Friends of Rockaway, Inc. FAX:
67-11 Beach Channel Drive
Arverhe. New York 11692
41. Bill Corso .. Phone:
USACE-Environmental Analysis Branch FAX:
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-431-9676
212-431-9783
212-924-8290
212-924-8325
212-323-6616
212-524-9304
718-265-3400
718-265-3420
718-265-3436
718-265-3420
212-243-2319
212-867-1777
212-697-6354
718-474-4193
718-945-1163
212-264-1275
212-264-5472
-------
Page 6-7(
42. LeRon Bielak
MMS/INTERMAR
381 Elden Street
Mailstop 4030
Herndon, Virginia 22070
43. Jennifer Dilorenzo
P.O. Box 397
West Long Branch, New Jersey
07764
Phone:
FAX:
703-787-1292
703-787-1284
Phone:
FAX:
908-229-6070
908-229-6323
44. Andrew voros. Executive Director
Coast Committee
C/0 Inst. of Marine and Coastal Sciences
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Phone: 908-932-6555x503
45. Lingard Knutson
Port Authority of NY/NJ
1 World Trade Center, 34 North
New York, NY 10048
Phone:
FAX:
212-435-6622
212-435-8014
-------
HDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Coordination Page 6-8
EXHIBITS
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 6, Coordination
May 1997
Page 6-9
Benthic Ecology Workshop Members
NAME
Douglas Pabst
Joel O'Connor
Bob Will
Michael Murray
Kevin Ward
Bob Reid
Fred Grassle
Frank Steimle
Bob Whitlach
John Tiedeman
Eugene Gallagher
Bob Diaz
Angela Cristini
Mike Ludwig
Carlton Hunt
Jack Word
Roy Kropp
Robert Cerrato
Dennis Suszkowski
Henry Bokuniewicz
Larry Swanson
Bill Corso
Tom Fredette
Brad Butrnan
Scott McDowell
Judy Wilson
ORGANIZATION
EPA Region II
EPA Region U
U.S. Army Corps
IT Corp.
Hazen & Sawyer
NMFS
Rutgers
NMFS
UCONN
COA
Boston Univ.
VIMS
Ramapo College
NMFS
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
SUNY Stony Brook
HRF
SUNY Stony Brook
WMI
U.S. Army Corps
U.S. Army Corps
USGS
SAIC
MMS
TELEPHONE #
212-637-3797
212-637-3792
212-264-1275
908^69-5599x317
212-777-8400
908-872-3020
908-932-6555 x540
908-872-3000
860-405-9154
908-872-0111
617-287-7453
804-642-7364
201-529-7724
203-783-4228
617-934-0571
617-934-0571
617-934-0571
516-632-8666
212-924-8290
516-632-8674
516-632-8713
212-264-1275
617-647-8291
508-457-2212
401-847-4210
703-787-1075
FAX#
212-637-3889
212-637-3889
908-469-7275
212-614-9049
908-872-3088
908-932-8578
908-872-3088
860-445-3484
908-872-8041
617-287-6650
201-529-7637
203-783-4295
617-934-2124
617-934-2124
617-934-2124
516-632-8820
212-924-8325
516-632-8820
516-632-8064
508-457-2309
401-849-1585
703-787-1115
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 6, Coordination
May 1997
Page 6-10
Benthic Ecology Workshop Members
NAME
Carlton Hunt
Kurt Buchholz
Douglas Pabst
Bob Diaz
Doug Clarke
Drew Carey
Frank Steimle
Michael Ludwig
Alex Lechich
Gabrielle Tenzer
Mike Murray
Bill Corso
Howard Ruben
John Tiedemann
Bob Reid
Bob Will
Bob Cerrato
Mark Burlars
Joel O'Connor
Larry Swanson
John Scott
Scott McDowell
Jack Word
Roy Kropp
Mark DelVicario
Judy Pederson
Eric Adams
Tom Fredette
Joe Bergstein
AGENCY
Battelle
Battelle
EPA Region 2
VIMS
Corps, Waterways
SAIC
NOAA-NMFS
MPAA/NMFS
EPA Region 2
Cong. Frank Pallone, Jr.
IT Corp.
COE-NYD
COE-NYD
Clean Ocean Action
NMFS
COE
MSRC, SUNY
COE
EPA Region 2
MSRC, SUNY
SAIC Newport
SAIC Newport
Battelle, MBL
Battelle, Duxbury, MA
EPA
MIT Sea Grant
MIT Sea Grant
COE
EPA
TELEPHONE*
617-934-0571
703-875-2947
212-637-3797
804-642-7364
601-634-3770
401-847-4210
908-872-3059
203-783-4228
212-637-3797
202-225-4671
808-469-5599
212-264-1275
212-264-1275
908-872-0111
908-872-3020
212-264-1275
516-632-8666
212-264-4663
212-637-2795
516-632-8704
401-847-4746
401-847-4210
360-681-3668
617-934-0571
212-637-3781
617-252-1741
617-253-6595
617-647-8291
212-637-3890
FAX*
617-934-6199
703-527-5640
212-637-3889
804-642-7097
601-634-3205
401-847-1585
908-872-3088
203-783-4295
212-637-3889
202-225-9665
808-469-7275
212-264-5472
212-264-5472
908-872-8041
908-872-3088
212-264-5472
516-632-8820
212-204-6454
212-637-3889
516-632-8064
401-848-4746
401-849-1585
360-681-3681
617-934-6199
212-637-3889
617-258-1615
617-258-8854
617-647-8303
212-637-3771
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-11
EXHIBIT 6
-------
Page 6-lK
w o'
Mr. Clifford Day
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
927 N Main Street, Building D
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
Dear Mr. Day:
I am writing to request the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) input to determine whether there-are any federal
endangered/threatened species under FWS jurisdiction present in
the vicinity of the Mud Dump Site (MDS) and its environs. I have
enclosed, for your review, the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) public announcement initiating the preparation of a
supplemental environmental impact statement for the expansion of
the MDS. The enclosure includes a map identifying both the
existing MDS and the area being evaluated for possible site
expansion.
In compliance with the mandate of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, the EPA is requesting a written
statement from you indicating whether any endangered or
threatened species under FWS jurisdiction may be present in the
project area. Please advise us concerning the range of territory
covered by any federal endangered/threatened species that may be
found in the area, and whether activities at the site may result
in impacts to these species. Please note that EPA is also
initiating Section 7 consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service to assess any potential endangered/threatened
species Issues under its jurisdiction.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact
Joseph Bergstein of my staff at (212) 264-6677.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Enclosure
cc: D. Beach, NMFS
Sv Morgan, USFWS-Cortland
N. Schlotter, USFWS-Long Island
2PM-EI:JBERGSTEIN:X6677/4/5/95 LAN; CORDiATN.FWS
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6. Coordination fage 6-12
EXHIBIT?
-------
Page 6-12(
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
927 North Main Street (Bldg. Dl)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
(IH0LY REFER TO:
Tel: 609-646-9310
FAX. 609-646-0352
May 3, 1995
Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
Dear Mr: Hargrove:
This responds to your April 6, 1995 request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) for information on the presence of endangered and threatened
species within the vicinity of the study area for the proposed expansion of
the Mud Dump Site, an area designated in 1984 by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for the disposal of dredged materials generated in the
Ports of New York and New Jersey and nearby harbors. The EPA is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address impacts associated with the
proposed expansion of the Mud Dump Site. The "study area includes the Mud Dump
Site and a 23-square-nautical-mile area surrounding the site.
Authority
This response is provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87
Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of
endangered and threatened species and does not address all Service concerns
for fish and wildlife resources. These comments do not preclude separate
review and comments by the Service as afforded by the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), if any permits are
required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean water Act
of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.')-, nor do they preclude comments on any
forthcoming environmental documents pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 as amended (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Federally-listed Species
Enclosed are current summaries of the federally-listed and candidate species
in New Jersey for your information. Although not within the 23-square-
nautical-miie study area surrounding the Mud Dump Site, two federally-listed
threatened species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and northeastern
beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis), have been documented to
occur along the Atlantic coastline within three nautical miles of the study
site.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Page 6-121
The piping plover is a small, territorial shorebird that nests on sand beaches
or within dunes, sometimes on sandy gravel or dredge spoil. Piping plover
nests consist of only a shallow scrape in the sand, frequently lined with
shell fragments. Nests are often found near small clumps of vegetation.
Piping plovers feed primarily on marine macroinvertebrates in the intertidal
zone of ocean beaches and in mud flats on bayside beaches. The piping plover
is susceptible to a variety of impacts including beach stabilization and
renourishment projects, and disturbance from humans.
The northeastern beach tiger beetle was historically found along New Jersey's
undeveloped Atlantic coastal beaches from Sandy Hook to Holgate. The Service
has recently initiated recovery activities to.restore .this diurnal, predatory
insect to portions of its former range. In October 1994, a reintroduction of
the northeastern beach tiger beetle was undertaken by the Service at the
Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit along two sections of
Atlantic coastal beach.
northeastern beach tiger beetle larvae occur over a relatively narrow band of
the upper intertidal to high drift zone, thus many larvae are regularly
covered during high tide. Tiger beetle larvae are "sit-and-wait predators,"
which dig vertical burrows in the sand and wait at the burrow mouth, rapidly
extending from their burrows to seize small prey passing nearby. Primary prey
items are small amphipods., flies, and other beach arthropods. Additionally,
adult northeastern beach tiger beetles have been observed scavenging on dead
amphipods, crabs, and fish. Northeastern beach tiger beetle larvae pass
through three developmental stages or instars during a full two-year life
cycle, over-wintering twice as larvae, pupating at the bottom of their
burrows, and emerging as winged adults during their third summer. The
.northeastern beach tiger beetle is threatened by destruction and disturbance
of its natural beach habitat from shoreline development and beach
stabilization projects, high recreational use, offshore spills of oil or other
contaminants, pesticide spraying for mosquito control, and natural phenomenon
such as winter beach erosion, flood tides, and hurricanes.
Except for the aforementioned species and an occasional transient bald eagle
(flaliaeetus leucocephalus) or peregrine falcon (Faico peregrious), no other
federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered flora or fauna under
Service Jurisdiction are known to occur within the vicinity of the project
site.
The Service recommends that potential impacts to the piping plover and
northeastern beach tiger beetle from movement of materials disposed of at the
proposed expansion of the Mud Dump Site onto oceanfront beaches, shorelines,
or intertidal areas be addressed through preparation of a Biological
Assessment., The lead federal agency for a project has the responsibility
under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act to prepare a Biological
Assessment if the proposal is a major construction project that requires an
EIS. The assessment should contain information concerning listed species or
species proposed for listing that may be present in the action area and an
analysis of any potential effect of the proposed action on such species. The
following/may be considered for inclusion in a Biological Assessment of the
proposed project, although actual contents are at the discretion of the
federal authorizing agency:
-------
Page 6-12(iii)
(1) results of field surveys to determine if listed species are
present or occur seasonally;
(2) views of recognized experts on the species;
(3) literature review;
(4) analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action on
the species; and,
(5) analysis of alternative actions.
Biological Assessments may be consolidated with interagency cooperation
procedures required by other statutes such as the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The satisfaction
of the requirements of these other statutes, however, does not in itself
relieve a federal agency of its obligation to, comply with the Biological
Assessment procedures of the Endangered Species Act. the results of a
Biological Assessment may be incorporated into the EIS. If the Biological
Assessment indicates that no listed or proposed species are present or will be
affected, and the Service concurs, in writing, with the assessment, then no
formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 will be required.
Candidate Species
Candidate species are species under consideration by the Service for possible
inclusion on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Although candidate species receive no substantive or procedural protection
under.the Endangered Species Act, the Service encourages federal agencies and
other planners to consider candidate species in project planning. The
Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) has been
documented to occur along the Atlantic coastline within three nautical miles
of the study site.
The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program (NHP) provides the most up-to-date
information on candidate species in New Jersey, as well as maintaining
information on State-listed species. The NHP may be contacted at the
following address:
Mr. Thomas Breden
Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Forestry
CN 404
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609/984-0097)
-------
Page 6-12(
All candidate species identified within the study area as a result of the NHP
data search and any project-related adverse impacts to these species should be
addressed in the EIS.
Further information on New Jersey's State-listed wildlife species may be
obtained from the following office:
Mr. Larry Niles
Endangered and Nongame Species Program
Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife
CN 400
Trenton, -New Jersey 08625
(609/292-9400)
Information contained in this letter and additional information obtained from
the aforementioned sources represents the public .interest for fish and
wildlife resources and should warrant full consideration in the project
planning process. The Service requests that no part of this letter be taken
out of context and if reproduced, the letter should appear in its entirety.
Please contact Annette Scherer of my staff if you have any questions or
require further assistance regarding threatened or endangered species.
Sincerely,
Clifford G. Day
Supervisor
Enclosures
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-13
EXHIBITS
-------
Page 6-13(
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION II
S 290 BROADWAY
30
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1 0007-1 866'
Clifford G. Day, Supervisor
Pleasantville Field Office ,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
927 N Main Street, Building D
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
Dear Mr. Day:
This is in response to your May 3, 1995 letter regarding the
presence of endangered /threatened species within the vicinity of
the study area for the proposed expansion of the Mud Dump Site
(MDS) . Your letter states that two federally-listed threatened
species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodusl and the
northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsal is dorsalis) ,
have been documented to occur along the Atlantic coastline within
three nautical miles of the study area. Accordingly, you
recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) of the impacts of expanding
the MDS on these two terrestrial species.
.' :•' ' '-o
Following receipt of your letter, Joseph Bergstein and Annette
Scherer/ pf our respective staffs, discussed your concerns in
greater, detail . Ms. Scherer indicated that the Fish and Wildlife
Service^(FWS) routinely recommends the preparation of BAs
whenever federally-listed species may be found in the vicinity of
a study- area for an environmental impact statement. Further, she
clarified^ that, in this case, the FWS recommendation reflects a
concern about the possible movement of materials disposed of at
the expanded MDS onto oceanfront beaches, shorelines, or into
intertidal areas.
Over the last several years, the EPA has conducted numerous
hydrodynamic surveys in the New York Bight. These surveys
indicate that dredge plumes dissipate rapidly (i.e., within two
hours) ,:; Moreover, the surveys demonstrate that the mean current
flows in the New York Bight Apex are away from oceanfront
beaches, shorelines, and intertidal areas. (Copies of the
reports? are enclosed for your information and review.) Based on
the aforementioned hydrodynamic surveys, it is clear that
material-disposed of at the MDS and environs is not transported
to shoreline or intertidal habitats that support the piping
plover and 'the beach tiger beetle. Accordingly, EPA does not
believe that the proposed expansion of the MDS will adversely
affect these species. With this in mind, we request your written
concurrence with this conclusion, pursuant to 50 CFR Part 402.13,
within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
-------
Page 6-13(
«•
If you have any questions or require additional information,,
please contact me at (212) 637-3495, or have your staff contact
Joseon Berqstein at (212) 637-3521.
Joseph Bergstein at (212)
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Enclosures
cc: D. Beach, NMFS
N. Schlotter, USFWS-Long Island
S. Morgan, USFWS-Cortland
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-14
EXHIBIT 9
-------
Page 6-14(
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
927 North Main Street (Bldg. Dl)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
IJEPLY REFER TO:
Tel: 609-646-9310
FAX: 609-646-0352
July 28, 1995
Mr. RobertV. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
290 Broadway
New York. New York 10007-186G
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
This letter responds to your June 30, 1995, request to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for concurrence with your determination that the
proposed expansion of the Mud Dump site, an area designated in 1984 by the.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the disposal of dredged
materials generated in the Ports of New York and New Jersey and nearby
harbors, is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species.
This response is provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87
Stat. 884,, as amended; 16 U.S..C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of
endangered and threatened species and does not address all Service concerns
for fish and wildlife resources. These comments do not preclude separate
review and comments by the Service as afforded by the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401-, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), if any permits are —
required,from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act
of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.), nor do they preclude comments on any
forthcoming environmental documents pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act, of 1969 as amended (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
The Service's previous correspondence on this project, dated May 3, 1995,
recommended that an assessment be conducted of potential impacts to two
federally-listed threatened species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
and northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis), from
materials disposed of at the proposed expansion of the Mud Dump site. The
Service's recommendation reflected a concern regarding potential movement of
disposal materials onto oceanfront beaches, shorelines, or intertidal areas.
In response to the Service's recommendation, the following documents detailing
the results of hydrodynamic studies conducted at the Mud Dump site were
provided for the Service/s review:-
v
o Analyses of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York
Mud Dump-Site: November 1992 to March 1993, Draft Report, Report
Now 11 of Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program, Science Applications
international Corporation Report No. 302, Newport, Rhode Island,
November 1993;
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Page 6-14(
o Analyses of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York
Mud Dump Site: June through September 1993, Draft Report, Report
No. 12 of Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program, Science Applications
International Corporation Report No. 303, Newport, Rhode Island,
December 1993;
o Draft Final Report for Plume Tracking of Dredged Material
Containing Dioxin, Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury,
Massachusetts, February 1994; and
o Analyses of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York
Mud Dump Site: The Year 1 Program, March 1992 to March 1993,
Report No. 15 of Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program, Science
Applications International Corporation Report No. 336, Newport,
Rhode Island, January 1995.
Hydrodynamic studies indicate that fines (silt and clay) from dredged material
plumes remain in the water column in measurable amounts for up to two and one-
half hours after release (Dragos and Peven, 1994) and have been documented to
move outside of the Mud Dump site (Dragos and Peven, 1994; Science
Applications International Corporation, 1993). However, the mean speeds of
currents transporting water parcels and suspended partlculate matter out of
the Mud Dump site are weak, ranging up to 12 centimeters per second (0.8
kilometers in two hours) (Science Applications International Corporation,
1993). Based upon a review of the hydrodynamic information provided and the
distance of the Mud Dump expansion study area from areas supporting the piping
plover and'northeastern beach tiger beetle (three nautical miles), the Service
concurs with'the EPA's determination that the proposed expansion of the Mud
Dump Site is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species. If
additional information on listed or proposed species or contradictory
hydrodynamic information becomes available, this determination may be
reconsidered.
Please contact Annette Scherer of my staff if you have any questions or
require further assistance regarding threatened or endangered species.
Sincerely,
Clifford G. Day
Supervisor
References
Dragos, P. and C. Peven. 1994. Draft final report for plume tracking of
dredged material containing dioxin. Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury,
Massachusetts. 49 pp. + appendices.
-------
Page 6-14(iii)
Science Applications International Corporation. 1993. Analyses of moored
current and wave measurements from the New York Mud Dump site: November
1992 to March 1993. Draft Report, Report No. 11 of Dioxin Capping
Monitoring Program, Science Applications International Corporation
Report No. 302. Science Applications International Corporation,
Newport, Rhode Island. 59 pp.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-15
EXHIBIT 10
-------
xfP S/Jl>w
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION II Page 6"15(
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1 0007-1 866
Mr. Christopher Mantzaris, Chief
Habitat & Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
1 Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
Dear Mr. Mantzaris:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing a
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the
possible expansion of the Mud Dump Site (MDS). The SEIS will
clearly identify the habitat within the study area, and include
an estimate of the potential capacity for disposal of dredged
material. Further, the SEIS will provide a thorough explanation
of the type of material to be disposed of, assessments of
potential cumulative impacts of dredged material disposal, and
measures to minimize potential impacts.
Additionally, the SEIS will fully evaluate the effects of
expansion of the MDS on federally listed endangered and
threatened species. Towards this end, this letter initiates
informal consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), on this action's potential impacts to any
endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Six listed species under the NMFS's jurisdiction have been
identified in the vicinity of the MDS: the right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis), fin whale (Balaenoptera phvsalusl,
humpback whale ofMeaaptera novaeanaliael, Kemp's-ridley sea turtle
4- fLepidochelys kempiil, leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs
coriacea) f and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Additionally,
the threatened loggerhead sea turtle fCaretta carettal has been
identified within the MDS. Further", we understand that the
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoenaV, which has been proposed for
listing as a threatened species, has also been sighted in the
vicinity of the MDS.
In preliminary discussions between our staffs, a number of
references were identified that indicate that disposal of dredged
material at an Expanded MDS will not affect several of the
aforementioned species. These documents, which were provided to
your office, contain information indicating that dredged material
Printed on Recycled F
-------
2 Page 6-15(i
disperses within three hours; therefore, it would be biologically
unavailable to plankton, or to cetaceans and sea turtles that
feed on plankton/planktivorous fish. Furthermore, the
documentation illustrates that preferred food sources of several
of the endangered species are not found within the MDS or the
expanded study area. Based on this information, EPA believes
that dredged material disposal at the MDS and environs will not
affect the green sea turtle, the leatherback turtle, the right
whale, and the harbor porpoise, for the following reasons:
• The green sea turtle feeds on food sources that are located
in the Long Island Sound such as seagrass, Fucus. Codium.
Ulva and Enteromoroha; these plants are not located in the
Expanded MDS study area. Given this food preference, this
species is generally not located in waters of the MDS or its
environs.
• The leatherback sea turtle demonstrates a feeding preference
for jellyfish. The insignificant lipid fractions in
jellyfish, as well as their short life expectancy reduces
the likelihood of significant accumulation of pollutants
such as PCS or dioxin that would, in turn, pose potential
adverse impacts to this pelagic feeder. Moreover, juvenile
leatherback turtles forage in waters less than 40 feet deep:
we expect to restrict dredged material disposal at the '
Expanded MDS to waters deeper than 50 feet.
• Regarding right whales, there are no known records of right
whales feeding in the New York Bight Apex. Rather, high use
areas include coastal Florida and Georgia as calving areas,
and the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
the Bay of Fundy, the Browns and Baccaro Banks off Nova
Scotia for feeding.
\"
• With respect to the harbor porpoise, the information we have
reviewed indicates that this species is not known to inter-
act with dredge and disposal operations. Rather, the major
impact on harbor porpoise populations is gillnet fishing.
With the above in mind, we are not planning to prepare
Biological.Assessments (BAs) for these species.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act precludes
the dumping of materials in the ocean that would cause adverse
environmental effects, ensuring that federally-listed endangered
and threatened species will be protected. Moreover, the
provision of NMFS-trained observers aboard ships involved in
dredged material disposal operations provides additional
protection for endangered and threatened species.
In any event, Ms. iaurie Silva of your staff, has provided
information to us regarding the foraging behavior of the Kemp's
ridley and loggerhead sea turtles, and the distribution of
juvenile^ humpback and fin whales within the MDS and environs that
indicates "that these species may be affected by disposal
operations. Accordingly, based on a review of this information,
EPA has decided to prepare BAs pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12, for the
four species.
-------
3 Page 6-15(iii)
In preparing the BAs, we will utilize the information that has
been provided by NMFS, in conjunction with a variety of EPA
reports, and other reference material. The BAs will also
consider surveys and studies of the New York Bight Apex and
Expanded MDS study area conducted over the past two years by EPA
and the Army Corps of Engineers. Furthermore, these BAs will
gauge the likelihood of increased vessel traffic at the MDS as a
result of its expansion, weigh the potential impact to the
species, and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
I would appreciate your written concurrence with this approach
within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact me at
(212) 637-3495.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove,VChief
Environmental Impacts Branch
cc: S. Gorski, NMFS Sandy Hook
M. Ludwig, NMFS Milford
M. Greges, USACE
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS May 1997
Chapter 6, Coordination Page 6-16
EXHffirrn
-------
Page 6-16(
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHEAST REGION
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester. MA01930
MAY 8 1996
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
This is in response to your letter concerning the ongoing consultation for the Mud Dump Site
(MDS). We concur with your determination that dredged material disposal at the mud dump site
is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, leatherback turtles, the right whale or harbor
porpoise that .may occasionally transit the MDS area. We also concur that these activities do have
the potential to impact loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles and humpback and fin whales and
that a biological assessment should be prepared to assess this potential. However, we also
support your conclusion that properly screened clean material is not expected to have water
quality impacts on these species and that implementation of observer coverage for disposal
operations will help reduce the potential for impacts on these species.
The primary concerns relative to these disposal operations and impacts on these species are vessel
collisions, water quality, and degradation of foraging habitat. Our understanding from previous
phone calls and correspondence is that this consultation should cover the use of the mud dump
site in general, not just the expansion. Consequently, estimates of annual volume and vessel
traffic should be on overall use of the MDS including the expansion. A consultation was
previously conducted oh use of the MDS specifically for the Port Newark/Port Elizabeth Project,
but this does nipt constitute a consultation on the potential impacts of the site for all the other
projects using this as a disposal area. However, much of the material compiled for that project/is
applicable to this consultation and should be incorporated. The benefits of a consultation on the
use of the site is that the cumulative impacts can be adequately addressed_and disposal of material
from future projects that meet the requirements set forth in the project scope will not require
individual consultations. This will insure that appropriate protection is afforded to protected
species, and reduce the workload associated with individual project review.
If you have any further questions regarding this information, please contact Laurie Silva of my
staff at (508) 281-9291.
D/. Andrew
egional Dire
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Chapter 7, List ofPreparers
May 1997
Page 7-1
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared by Battelle and it subcontractors
under EPA Contract Nos. 68-C2-0134 and 68-C7-0004, with technical direction and guidance from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff.
The following EPA staff participated in the preparation of the SEIS:
EPA Staff
George Pavlou
Robert W. Hargrove
Mario Del Vicario
Joseph Bergstein
Douglas Pabst
Suzanne Schwartz
John Lishman
David Redfbrd
Title
Deputy Director, Division of
Environmental Planning and Protection
Chief, Strategic Planning and
Multi-Media Programs Branch
Location
EPA Region 2, New York City, NY
EPA Region 2, New York City, NY
Chief, Placed-Based Protection Branch EPA Region 2, New York City, NY
Environmental Scientist, Project
Manager
Oceanographer, Chief Scientist for
MDS/HARS Ocean Surveys
Acting Director, Ocean and Coastal
Protection Branch (OCPD)
EPA Region 2, New York City, NY
EPA Region 2, New York City, NY
EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC
Chief, Marine Pollution Control Branch, EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC
OCPD
Team Leader, Ocean Dumping
MplemenfatioriTeam,OCPD
EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC
Battelle staff members and Battelle subcontractors who prepared this document, with their titles and primary
areas of responsibility, are as follows:
Battelle Staff
Kurt Buchholz
CarltonHunt
Karen Foster
Jerry Neff
Title
Principal Research Scientist
Senior Research Scientist
Principal Research Scientist
Senior Research Leader
Primary Area of Responsibility
Work Assignment Leader;
Lead author: Chapters 1,2,4
Lead author: Chapter 3; senior
reviewer
Fish and shellfish data evaluation and
synthesis; Section 7 Endangered
Species Act evaluation; senior
reviewer
Section 7 Endangered Species Act
evaluation; senior reviewer
-------
MDS/HAPSSEIS
Chapter 7, List ofPreparers
May 1997
Page 7-2
Battelle Staff
Roy Kropp
Heather TrulU
Rosanna Buhl
Mark Kirk
John Hennessy
Charles (Ned) Morse
Debbie Tanis
Amanda Orrick
LynnMcLeod
Joanne Lahey
Heather Amoling
Barbara Greene
Laura Emilson
Ellen Rosen
Title
Principal Research Scientist
Research Scientist
Program/Work Assignment Quality
Assurance (QA) Officer
Senior Data Analyst
Senior Research Scientist
Research Scientist
Research Scientist
Researcher
Researcher
Research Technician
Desktop Publishing Specialist
Senior Word processing Operator
Administrative Coordinator
Library Clerk
Offshore & Coastal Technologies
Paul Dragos Oceanographer
Panamerican Maritime, L.L.C.
Stephen R. James Marine Archeologist
Michael C. Krivor Marine Archeologist
Norine Carroll Marine Historian
Primary Area of Responsibility
Benthic ecology data evaluation and
synthesis; senior reviewer
Technical writing and bibliography
maintenance
QA review
Mapping and graphics development
Mapping and graphics development
Mapping and graphics development
Technical writing
Technical writing and editing
Technical writing
Bibliography maintenance
Word processing and layout
Word processing
Word processing
Literature searches
Physical environment data evaluation
and synthesis
Cultural resources assessment
Cultural resources assessment
Cultural resources assessment
In addition, draft chapters of the SEIS were reviewed and commented on by the MDS/HARS Workgroup of
the Dredged Material Management Forum. Members of the Workgroup are listed in Exhibit 4 of Chapter 6.
-------
APPENDIX A
Fisheries Data from NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Resource Surveys and New Jersey DEP Trawl Surveys
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PaeeA-1
Silver Hake
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
02 Q3
quarter
[ f~1 weight jf value
300000
-4-250000
- 200000 ffl
(-• 150000-1
-100000 >
- 50000
0
Red Hake
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
r60000
Q2 Q3
quarter
O weight • value
Scup
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
Q2 Q3
quarter
i value
35000
30000
25000
10
£ 6
•§ 4
E2
0
Cod
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
25000
I'
20000
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
|~~! weight^ value
Winter Flounder
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
70
60
130
E20
10
0
Q1
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
I weight • value
140000
120000
100000
80000
-60000
40000
420000
0
J
fv
250
«200
I 150
0
% 100
50
0
Summer Floundc
JMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bic
;|i
]
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
quarter
Q3 weight • value
?r
Jht)
800000
600000
§
400000 •§
200000
0
Figure A-l. 1993 Commercial Catch Data, Reported by NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-2
2 6-r
o
Yellowtail
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
40000
Q1
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
F71 weight • value
•30000
CD
•20000 •§
-10000
Ocean Pout
0.5
20.3
o
150-2-
EO.L
0
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bigf
.
I
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
quarter
Qweightflvalue j
It)
•1200
1000
600 {
400 >
200
'0
I
100 i
(A 8°
2 60
1 40
E20
0
Atlantic Herring
MMFS Subarea 612 (NY Big
Q1 Q2 Q3
quarter
F~l weight • value
Q4
ht)
-10000
-8000
-6000 §
-4000 >
-2000
-0
Butterfish
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
Q1
Q2 Q3
quarter
I | weight H value
Bluefish
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
250
Q2 Q3
quarter
100000
3 weight • value
Weakfish
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
T40000
Q2 Q3
quarter
[T] weight
Figure A-l. 1993 Commercial Catch Data, Reported by NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
Sea Raven
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
1 |
metric tons
o o o <
3 tO 4* b> <
~^l~
Q1 Q2 Q3
quarter
| |~"l weight Wj value
;
2.5
2 o,
•1.5 |
1
0.5
.n
Q4
May 1997
PaeeA-3
Sea Robin
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
U.oo | •
0.3 { - f r
I0"25 I 1
5 ' T •
i=0.15 I ••
r n 1 H
•
0.05 j - |
° Q1 Q2
ir.
Q3 Q4
-200
150
•100 -5
I >
50
quarter
Id] weight •
value
Gunner
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
0.1 T r—=: r—i r100
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
Q] weight H value
Tautog
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
25
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
I | weight • value
Weakfish
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
Q2 Q3
quarter
40000
g] weight • value
American Shad
20-
« 15
0
to
E 5-
0
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Big
1.
Q1 Q2 Q3
quarter
m weight • value
Q4
ht)
r 25000
20000
15000 §
10000 >
5000
0
Figure A-l. 1993 Commercial Catch Data, Reported by NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
Page A-4
Rock Crab (Cancer boreal is)
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
Q2 Q3
quarter
40000
f~~1weight Rvalue [
Horseshoe Crab
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
0.3 n
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
I 1 weight J value |
American Lobster
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
nr\f\ -t e+f\f\nnn
«150
£
"100
o
E 50
A
1"
^
''"'HI
I
Q1 02 Q3
quarter
E1FI weight • value
11400000
\
1200000
1000000 o>
800000 •§
600000 *
400000
200000
04 "
Long-finned Squid (Loligo)
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
120
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
Q weight • value
160000
140000
120000
100000 o
80000 |
60000 >
40000
20000
0
Sea Scallop
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
XI r^
LI
Q1
Q2 Q3
quarter
Q4
1 weight • value
600000
-500000
400000 ffl
300000-1
200000 *
4100000
0
Surf Clam
NMFS Subarea 612 (NY Bight)
7000
Q2 Q3
quarter
§E] weight H value
1200000
_- 1000000
800000 |
600000 >
"400000
200000
Figure A-l. 1993 Commercial Catch Data, Reported by NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-5
Silver Hake
NJDEP Strata 13
Catch weight (kg)
oto*»ooooroAc
Q.
I
Jan
:. n:
April June August October
Month
|C]1993 H1994 H11995
Silver Hake
NJDEP Strata 14
140{ -
§30-
i 20 -
o
Q
'
n
m
i
I
RTl I I i — H
_
Jan April June August October
Month
[H]1993 H1994 ^1995
Red Hake
10-
1 81
1 6
£ 4
1 2
O
o J
NJDEP Strata 13
"i~
-I- „
i
1
m .
-
-
-
Jan April June August October
Month
0 1993|
|1994 HJ1995
^25~
£20
l>15
(D
S 10
S5
o J
Red Hake
NJDEP Strata 14
"ri
1
1
g
1
1
Jan
. n R, , n „ , n_ ,
April June August October
Month
F]1993 H1994 B1995
Winter Flounder
NJDEP Strata 13
Jan
June
Month
August October
01993 • 1994 HJ1995
140i
"5 120
rioo
•i) 80
§ 60
•6 40
Q 20
0 J
Winter Flounder
NJDEP Strata 14
j
Jan
- -
il
- -
3
I
?&
'&.
t.l
1_:
April June August October
Month
[131993 H|1994 111995
Figure A-2. 1993 -1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
Wir
120-
rolOO-
2 80-
•5 60-
1 40-
| 20-
o-l
idowpane Flounder
NJDEP Strata 13
-
-
Jan April June August October
Month
JQ1993 H1 994 iJ]1 995 [
May 1997
PageA-6
Wi
_3.5-
"3 3
^2.5
€, 2
§1.5
* 1
Q0.5
0 J
ndowpane Flounder
NJDEP Strata 14
•
,
1
Jan
.
1
April
vila,
ll
-
June August October
Month
Q1993 •1994 i
11995
Gu
0.05 i
^0.04
^0.03
CD
S 0.02 -
1 0.01 -
O
0 -
If Stream Flounder
NJDEP Strata 13
Jan April June August October
Month
d] 1993 • 1994 [S1995
Gi
0.4 -
'55
=£0.3
£
•5 0.2
o 0.1
a
O
o -I
ilf Stream Flounder
NJDEP Strata 14
-
1
-
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1994 111995
i
12 i
o>10
£ 8
— K
-
r~"^B
Jan April June August October
Month
CD 19931
1 1994 H 1995
Catch weight (kg)
3-*rOW-tvOlO>«-l
Summer Flounder
NJDEP Strata 14
; rl
i — i , — , E^g | •
-
Jan April June August October
Month
H1 1993 • 1994 S 1995
Figure A-2. 1993 -1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-7
Black Sea Bass
NJDEP Strata 13
rv r\A
Catch weight (kg)
o o o <
o 2 fe 8 5
?-
1
I-
X
fT
Jan April June August October
Month
JQ1993 H1 994 P31995
Black Sea Bass
NJDEP Strata 14
n R
I °-5T
£0.4}
•5 0.3-
I 0.2 -•
0] ,
1
„ fc
Jan April
_n _
-
-
1
June August October
Month
[H]1993 1^1994 E] 1995
Catch weight (kg)
o o o o o
Tautog
NJDEP Strata 13
-,
-
~
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1994 S1995
Tautog
NJDEP Strata 14
1 r>
"55 1
&
£ 0.8
•5° 0.6
ItuJ
I0-2
0
.
\\\ :
Jan April
— i
.— i
-
.
1
-
.
June August October
Month
Q1993 ^1994 ^11995
Ocean Pout
Il2'
Catch weight
3 to 4* en oo o
NJDEP Strata 13
•
r— i 69
Jan April June August October
Month
n 1993 •1994^1995
Catch weight (kg)
-i to w A en en
o o o o o o o
Ocean Pout
NJDEP Strata 14
•
Jan April June August October
Month
O1993 B1994 [H1995
Figure A-2. 1993 - 1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-8
120 n
» 100
£ 80
"5 60
* 40
| 20
Little Skate
NJDEP Strata 13
r •.TL.'liS.
1
n
Jan April June August October
Month
CH1993 • 1994 3 1995
Little Skate
OCA
| 200 J -
1, 150 i -
CD
3 100
.c
O
0 •
NJDEP Strata 14
m
1"
i
I
!•:
.
-
" TL . nM .
1-
I .
-
n_
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 • 19941
11995
Northern Searobin
NJDEP Strata 13
Catch weight (kg)
D-^roto-f^oio)*-
: , ,ri ,:
-
Jan April June August
Month
C]1993 H1 994 §g}1995
October
Northern Searobin
4 -
"3
=£3
f*
"1-
3
0 -
NJDEP Strata 14
-
-
-
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 ^1994 111995
Gunner
5 -
|4
|3
.c
O
o J
NJDEP Strata 13
.
• • n
I-
.
- -
-
-
Jan April June August
Month
CH 1 993 • 1 994 H 1995
-
n •
October
Gunner
12
010
£ 8
D> _
•5 6
Z A
€ 4
§ 2
0 J
NJDEP Strata 14
'I!" J
Jan April
-
-
-
-
t
n
June August October
Month
Q 1993 • 1994 H 1995
Figure A-2. 1993 -1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-9
Scup
4-1
3
£
0)
m 2
n
0
0 J
NJDEP Strata 13
•
, , n
1
i
i
"
Jan April June August
Month
ID 1993 H 1 994 H 1995
—
-
October
330 {
o>20 I
115
o 10 j
O 5 I
0
Jan
Scup
NJDEP Strata 14
-
.
n~
i .
i
April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1994 111995
Catch weight (kg)
3g§g§§gi
Spiny Dogfish
NJDEP Strata 13
~
- -
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1994 H1995
Spiny Dogfish
140 -I
•3 120
r 100
o, 80 •
| 60
•g 40 J
3 20
o J
NJDEP Strata 14
"i ,
-
-
-
-
-
•
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 ^1994 BJ1995
1 ->
f 0.8
1,0.6
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-10
Longhorn Sculpin
NJDEP Strata 13
ro 0.25 •
2 0.2;
"5 0.15 •
1 °'1'
« 0.05 •
0'
IT
Jan April June August October
Month
IED1993 B1994 H1995
I
2 -
ra
j,5
°> 1
1 1
§0.5
8
0 •<
.onghorn Sculpin
NJDEP Strata 14
i
'%.
Jan
-
April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1 994 H1995
Catch weight (kg)
to ^ en oo
o o o o o
Striped Bass
NJDEP Strata 13
JL
". .n
Jan April June August October
Month
ni993 H1994 S1995
Striped Bass
NJDEP Strata 14
f-n
Catch weight (kg)
3 3 S 8 & 8 S
Jan
•
-
April June August October
Month
d]1993 H1994 H11995
American Shad
NJDEP Strata 13
r\ o
Catch weight (kg)
o o o o o e
o '-* io co i* en c
; |
m H . _
Jan April June August October
Month
O1993 H1994 B1995
Catch weight (kg)
o -* to co
oin-'lnrooicocn
American Shad
NJDEP Strata 14
rtS .
Jan April June August October
Month
[H 1993 • 1994 H 1995
Figure A-2. 1993 - 1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARS SEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PaeeA-11
Bluefish
"3
1*
£1
CO
O
0
NJDEP Strata 13
1
%
n J
Jan April June August October
Month
JQ1993 B§1994 g|1995 |
Bluefish
NJDEP Strata 14
5
f 4
1,3 J
o>
S 2 J
•5 ,
V
0
' -I'
m
- *-.l -
- -|
1
Jan April June August
Month
Q1993 •1994 g|j1995
n -
1
October
Atlantic Herring
NJDEP Strata 13
-»n
Catch weight (kg)
oo88SS§c
II
Jan
i . Jffl , - , • ,
April June August October
Month
[U1993 B1994 111995
Catch weight (kg)
ro A o> co o ro
o o o o o o o
Atlantic Herring
NJDEP Strata 14
~\-
. r^
')'
^
I
Z$
-
Jan April June August October
Month
iH|1993 B1994 H1995
Butterfish
200 -I
O)
£-150
JC
"5 100
f 50
3
o J
NJDEP
Strata 13
EH . • ^
Jan April
Q1993
June August October
Month
• 1994 EH 1995
Butterfish
NJDEP Strata 14
J>250
£200
•5 150 -
I 100
0
3 50-
-
-
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1994 H1995
Figure A-2. 1993 - 1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlif e Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSE1S
Appendix A
Weakfish
NJDEP Strata 13
Catch weight (kg)
0 -* N
> 01 -* en 10 bi o
;fli-
Jan April June August October
Month
JQ1993 H1 994 JJ1995
Catch weight (kg)
O -"•
3 bi -» bi ro
May 1997
PageA-12
Weakfish
NJDEP Strata 14
.
Jan
~
April June August October
Month
Q1993 H1994 B1995
1
50 -,
140
^30
(D
S 20
lio
0
o -I
.ong-finned Squid
NJDEP Strata 13
1
, i "^ , r*" ,
n
Jan April June August October
Month
D1993 •1994 H]1995
i
20 -I
=§15-
£
•5 10 -
1 5
CO
O
0 -
.ong-finned Squid
NJDEP Strata 14
_.,
r
,
V'
Jan April June August October
Month
Q1993 H|1994 S1995
Shor
0.3 n
»0^5
£ 0^
^" 0.15
J 0.1 -
0
o 0.05 -
0 -
t-finned Squid (Illex)
NJDEP Strata 13
•
Jan April June August October
Month
EH 1993 • 1994 ffi 1995
Shor
0.3 I
raO.25
£ 0.2
fo.15
J 0.1 -
0
o 0.05 -
0 -
t-finned Squid (Illex)
NJDEP Strata 14
.
i
1
Jan April June August October
Month
O1993 H1994 H1995
Figure A-2. 1993 -1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-13
Jonah Crab (C. borealis)
NJDEP Strata 13
Catch weight (kg)
o o c
fa p - p I
O O! -* Ol Kj <
LJ_
Jan April June August October
Month
||=]1993 •I994g|1995
Jonah Crab (C. borealis)
NJDEP Strata 14
rt
Catch weight (kg)
O -L IO
3 01 -•• en ro 01 c
1
Jan
, m ,
: .(i
April June August October
Month
Q1993 •! 994 111995
Rock Crab
~14i
fio
f 8
5 6 •
| 4
3 2
0
NJDEP Strata 13
-
•
'It,-
Jan April June August
Month
Q1993H1994B1995
October
100 i
§. 80
1) 60-
o>
S 40
1 20
O
o J
Rock Crab
NJDEP Strata 14
, n , P.
X
I
r
«c
. n .
Jan April June August October
Month
O1993 H|1994 E1995
Alewife
1.4 T
o»1^
r 1-
0)0.8
|0.6
o 0.4
0
NJDEP Strata 13
TJ;
LH- -~i
\ M " ~ 1
J I
Jan April
-
"
June August October
Month
Q1993 BJ1994 ^1995
Alewife
NJDEP Strata 14
0)14
•§>10
2 8
s
§ 4
CO H
O 2
-•
1
r\m ,'[m
Jan April
June August
Month
0 1 993 • 1 994 H 1 995
-
-
October
Figure A-2. 1993 -1995 Strata 13 and 14 Research Trawl Data, Reported by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Port Republic,
NJ.
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-14
American Lobster
NJDEP Strata 13
5
Jan
April June August October
Month
1993!
11994 H1995
Catch weight (kg)
-» -1 ro ro
o vi o vi o vi
Horseshoe Crab
NJDEP Strata 13
I
-
Jan April June August October
Month
Q 1993 • 1994 H 1995
Sea Scallop
J>5
£>~
0 3
€2
gl.
0 J
NJDEP Strata 14
, n
-
Jan April June August
Month
O1993 H1 994 ^1995
October
0.1 i
g 0.08
1,0.06
-------
MDS/HARSSEIS
Appendix A
May 1997
PageA-15
1.2 -
1 1 •
1,0-8
-------
APPENDIX B
Latitude and Longitude Coordinates of HARS Borders,
including Priority Remediation Area (PRA),
No Discharge Zone (NDZ), and Buffer Zone (BZ)
-------
Mud Dump Site SEIS
Appendix B
May 1997
Page B-l
Cross Reference to Positions in Appendix B Figure
Point Decimal Lat
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
-73.8986
-73.8928
-73.8634
-73.8689
-73.8634
-73.8691
-73.8577
-73.8577
-73.8454
-73.8516
-73.8516
-73.8456
-73.8160
-73.8219
-73.8219
-73.8158
-73.8689
-73.8749
-73.8986
-73.8689
-73.8929
DMS Lat
-73 53' 55"
-73 53' 34"
-73 51 '48"
-73 52' 8"
-73 51 '48"
-73 52' 9"
-73 51 '28"
-7351-28"
-73 50' 43"
-73 51 '6"
-73 51 '6"
-73 50' 44"
-73 48' 58"
-73 49' 19"
-73 49' 19"
-73 48' 57"
-73 52' 8"
-73 52' 30"
-73 53' 55"
-73 52' 8"
-73 53' 34"
Decimal Long
40.4275
40.4230
40.4275
40.4229
40.3962
40.3869
40.3869
40.3780
40.3780
40.3962
40.4275
40.4229
40.4275
40.4229
40.3598
40.3554
40.3600
40.3554
40.3645
40.3689
40.3689
DMS Long
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
25' 39"
25' 23"
25' 39"
25' 22"
23' 46"
23' 13"
23' 13"
22' 41"
22' 41"
23' 46"
25' 39"
25' 22"
25' 39"
25' 22"
21' 35"
21' 19"
21 '36"
21 '19"
21 '52"
40 22' 8"
40 22' 8"
-------
Mud Dump Site SEIS
Appendix B
May 1997
PageB-2
-------
APPENDIX C
HARS Site Management and Monitoring Plan
-------
US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
NEW YORK DISTRICT
DRAFT
Page C-l
REGION 2
Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the Historic Area Remediation Site
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278-0090
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
-------
Page C-2
Table of Contents
Page
1. Background 3
2. HARS Remediation 4
3. HARS Description 4
4. Objectives 5
5. HARS Management Roles and Responsibilities 6
6. Coordination 6
7. Funding 7
8. Baseline Assessment 7
9. Monitoring Program 24
10. HARS Remediation Permit Conditions and 35
Management Practices
11. Material for Remediation Testing Requirements 45
12. Anticipated HARS Use and Quantity of Material 45
for Remediation to be Placed at the HARS
13. HARS SMMP Review and Revision 46
14. References 46
15. Attachments
-------
Page C-3
1. Background
As stated in a July 24, 1996 letter to several New Jersey Congressmen, signed by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, Secretary of Transportation
Federico F. Pena, and Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Jr. (3-Party Letter):
"Environmental, tourism, fishing, and other community groups have long contended
that the MDS should be closed immediately. These views reflect the important
environmental values that New Jersey's communities identify with their coastal
environment. Community concerns have been heightened by the unhappy history of
other environmental threats that these communities have had to endure — ranging from
oil spills to the littering of shorelines with medical waste. This history warrants
sensitivity to concerns about the MDS, including concerns about continued use of the
site for so-called "category 2" material. When these concerns are coupled with the
limited category 2 disposal capacity we expect the site to provide, we must conclude
that long-term use of this site for disposal activity is not realistic.
Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency will immediately begin the
administrative process for closure of the MDS by September 1, 1997. The proposed
closure shall be finalized no later than that date. Post-closure use of the site would be
limited, consistent with the management standards in 40 C.F.R. Section 228.11(c).
Simultaneous with closure of the MDS, the site and surrounding areas that have been
used historically as disposal sites for contaminated material will be re-designated under
40 C.F.R. Section 228 as the Historic Area Remediation Site. This designation will
include a proposal that the site be managed to reduce impacts at the site to acceptable
levels (in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 228.1 l(c)). The Historical Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with uncontaminated dredged material (i.e.
dredged material that meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant
undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)."
Consistent with the above provision of the July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter, on September 11,
1996, EPA announced the following actions: (1) modification of the scope of the existing
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) by eliminating the proposal to expand
the Mud Dump Site (MDS) for Category JJ dredged material disposal and (2) implementation
of the July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter by closing the MDS by September 1, 1997 and
simultaneously designating the HARS for the purpose of remediation.
EPA has prepared and issued for public comment a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) and Proposed Rule to implement the 3-Party Letter. Closure/de-designation
of the MDS and designation of the HARS will require the preparation of a final HARS SMMP
and Final Rule.
-------
Page C-4
Section 506 of the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, which amended
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), requires the EPA and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to prepare a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP) for the HARS. WRDA provides that after January 1, 1995, no site shall receive a
final designation unless an SMMP has been developed. This document constitutes the joint
EPA Region 2 and COE New York District (NYD) required WRDA SMMP and identifies a
number of actions, provisions, and practices to manage the operational aspects of dredging,
HARS remediation activities, and HARS monitoring tasks. The HARS SMMP was written to
address the SMMP elements specified in WRDA 1992 and is consistent with the joint EPA and
COE National Guidance Document entitled, "Guidance Document for Development of Site
Management and Monitoring Plans for Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites" (EPA/COE,
1996). EPA has determined that portions of the HARS are Impact Category I [40 CFR
228.1 l(c)], and the HARS SMMP has been developed to provide that the site be managed to
reduce impacts to acceptable levels, in accordance with 40 CFR 228.11(c).
2. HARS Remediation:
The HARS designation provides that the site be managed to reduce impacts at the site to
acceptable levels (hi accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 228. ll(c)). The goal is that,
consistent with the 3-Party Letter, "The Historic Area Remediation Site will be remediated
with uncontaminated dredged material (i.e., dredged material that meets current Category I
standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects, including through
bioaccumulation)."(hereinafter referred to as "the Material for Remediation" or
"Remediation Material").
3. HARS Description (See Section 8)
The HARS (which includes the 2.2 square nautical mile MDS) is approximately 15.7 square
nautical miles in size and includes the following 3 areas:
Priority Remediation Area (PRA): 9.0 square nautical mile area to be remediated with at least
one meter of the Remediation Material.
Buffer Zone: an approximately 5.7 square nautical mile area (0.27 nautical mile wide band
around the PRA) hi which no placement of Remediation Material will be allowed, but may
receive Remediation Material that incidentally spreads out of the PRA.
No Discharge Zone: an approximately 1.0 square nautical mile area in which no placement or
incidental spread of the Material for Remediation is allowed.
-------
PageC-5
4. Objectives
The objectives of the SMMP are as follows:
A. Provide for the remediation of required areas within the HARS by placing a one-meter cap
(minimum required cap thickness) of the Material for Remediation on sediments within the
PRA (inside the HARS). Sediments within the PRA have been found to exhibit Category n
and Category in dredged material characteristics and will be remediated.
B. Provide that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur from the placement of the
Material for Remediation at the HARS. The phrase "significant adverse environmental
impacts" is inclusive of all significant or potentially substantial negative impacts on resources
within the HARS and vicinity. Factors to be evaluated include:
1. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront
beaches, or shorelines;
2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shell fishery areas;
3. Absence from the HARS of pollution-sensitive biota characteristic of the general area;
4. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment composition at the
HARS, when these changes are attributable to the Material for Remediation placed at the
HARS;
5. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or
benthic biota at or near the HARS, when these changes can be attributed to the effects of
the Material for Remediation placed at the HARS;
6. Accumulation of material constituents hi marine biota near the HARS.
C. Recognize and correct any potential unacceptable conditions before they cause any
significant adverse impacts to the marine environment or present a navigational hazard to
commercial and recreational water-borne vessel traffic. The term "potential unacceptable
conditions" is inclusive of the range of negative situations that could arise as a result of the
Material for Remediation placement at the HARS such that its occurrence could have an
undesirable affect. Examples could include things such as: Remediation Material placement
mounds exceeding the required management depth or the Remediation Material barges releasing
materials hi the wrong locations.
D. Detennine/enforce compliance with MPRSA Permit conditions.
E. Provide a baseline assessment of conditions at the HARS.
-------
Page C-6
F. Provide a program for monitoring the HARS.
G. Describe special management conditions/practices to be implemented at the HARS.
H. Specify the quantity of Remediation Material to be placed at the HARS, and the
presence, nature, and bioavailability of the contaminants in the Material for Remediation.
I. Specify the anticipated use of the HARS, including the closure date.
J. Provide a schedule for review and revision of the HARS SMMP.
5. HARS Management Roles and Responsibilities
5.1. Regulatory/Statutory Responsibilities
Under MPRSA, the COE and the EPA have been assigned various duties pertaining to HARS
management. EPA and COE share responsibility for MPRSA permitting and HARS
designation and management, as briefly summarized below.
5.1.1. Section 102 of the MPRSA
EPA is assigned permitting authority for non-dredged material. EPA also designates
recommended times and sites for ocean disposal (for both non-dredged and dredged material),
and develops the environmental criteria used in reviewing permit applications. NYD
determinations to issue MPRSA permits are subject to EPA review and concurrence.
5.1.2. Section 103 of the MPRSA
COE is assigned permitting responsibility for dredged material, subject to EPA review and
concurrence that the material meets applicable ocean disposal criteria. The COE is required to
use EPA-designated ocean disposal sites to the maximum extent feasible.
6. Coordination
EPA Region 2 and the NYD jointly manage the New York/New Jersey Harbor Dredged
Material Disposal Program and the HARS. EPA Region 2 and the NYD will continue to
coordinate the exchange of information, HARS management and monitoring resources, and
documentation of site management decisions. NYD and EPA Region 2 will continue to
provide each other with all pertinent data and information as it becomes available.
Specifically, upon discovery/notification, any information concerning disposal/dredging
violations will be shared between EPA Region 2 and the NYD.
-------
Page C-7
A regional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was prepared for disposal activities at the
MDS. Adjustments are being made to the MOU to reflect remediation activities to be
conducted at the HARS.
7. Funding
The costs involved hi site management and monitoring will be shared between EPA and the
NYD to the extent allowed by funding levels hi any given Fiscal Year (subject to
appropriations). EPA Region 2 and the NYD have historically budgeted approximately one
million dollars for MDS SMMP activities and anticipate the same funding level through FY
1998. Sufficient funds will be available to implement HARS SMMP activities. This SMMP
will be hi place until modified and/or the remediation of the HARS is completed and the HARS
is closed.
8. BASELINE ASSESSMENT
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(A) requires that the SMMP include a baseline assessment of conditions at
the site.
8.1. HARS Characterization:
The HARS (which includes the 2.2 square nautical mile MDS) is a 15.7 square nautical mile
area located approximately 3.5 nautical miles east of Highlands, New Jersey and 7.7 nautical
miles south of Rockaway, Long Island, bounded by the following coordinates (Figure 1):
Point
A
M
P
R
S
V
Latitude
DMS
40° 25' 39" N
40° 25' 39" N
40° 21' 19" N
40° 21' 19" N
40° 21' 52" N
40° 21' 52" N
Longitude
DMS
73° 53' 55 "W
73° 48' 58" W
73° 48' 57" W
73° 52' 30" W
73° 53' 55" W
73° 52' 30" W
Latitude
DDM
40° 25.65' N
40° 25.65' N
40° 21. 32' N
40° 21. 32' N
40° 21. 87' N
40° 21.87' N
Longitude
DDM
73° 53. 92 'W
73° 48.97' W
73° 48.95' W
73° 52.50' W
73° 53. 92' W
73° 52.50' W
DMS = Degrees, Minutes, Seconds
DDM = Degrees, Decimal Minutes
-------
Page C-8
Figure 1: EARS
-------
Page C-9
The proposed HARS includes the following 3 areas:
Priority Remediation Area (PRA): 9.0 square nautical mile area to be remediated with at least
one meter of Remediation Material, bounded by the following coordinates:
Point
B
D
F
G
H
I
L
N
0
Q
T
U
Latitude
DMS
40° 25' 23" N
40° 25' 22" N
40° 23' 13 "N
40° 23' 13 "N
40° 22' 41 "N
40° 22' 41 "N
40° 25' 22" N
40° 25' 22" N
40° 21' 35" N
40° 21' 36" N
40° 22' 08" N
40° 22' 08" N
Longitude
DMS
73° 53' 34" W
73° 52' 08" W
73° 52' 09" W
73° 51' 28" W
73° 51' 28" W
73° 50' 43" W
73° 50' 44" W
73° 49' 19" W
73° 49' 19" W
73° 52' 08" W
73° 52' 08" W
73° 53' 34" W
Latitude
DDM
40° 25.38' N
40° 25. 37 'N
40° 23. 22' N
40° 23. 22' N
40° 22.68' N
40° 22.68' N
40° 25.37' N
40° 25. 37 'N
40° 21. 58' N
40° 21. 60' N
40° 22. 13 'N
40° 22. 13 'N
Longitude
DDM
73° 53.57' W
73° 52. 13 ' W
73° 52. 15 ' W
73° 51.47' W
73° 51.47' W
73° 50.72' W
73° 50.73 ' W
73° 49.32' W
73° 49.32' W
73° 52. 13 ' W
73° 52. 13 ' W
73° 53.57' W
DMS = Degrees, Minutes, Seconds
DDM = Degrees, Decimal Minutes
Buffer Zone: an approximately 5.7 square nautical mile area (0.27 nautical mile wide band
around the PRA) hi which no placement of Remediation Material will be allowed, but may
receive Remediation Material that incidentally spreads out of the PRA, bounded by the
following coordinates:
Point
A
B
C
D
E
Latitude
DMS
40° 25' 39" N
40° 25' 23" N
40° 25' 39" N
40° 25' 22" N
40° 23' 48" N
Longitude
DMS
73° 53' 55" W
73° 53' 34" W
73° 51' 48" W
73° 52' 08" W
73° 51' 48" W
Latitude
DDM
40° 25. 65 'N
40° 25.38' N
40° 25. 65 'N
40° 25. 37' N
40° 23.80' N
Longitude
DDM
73° 53.92' W
73° 53.57' W
73° 51. 80' W
73° 52. 13 ' W
73° 51. 80' W
-------
Page C-10
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
40° 23' 13 "N
40° 23' 13 "N
40° 22' 41 "N
40° 22' 41 "N
40° 23' 48 "N
40° 25' 39" N
40° 25' 22" N
40° 25' 39" N
40° 25' 22" N
40° 21' 35" N
40° 21' 19" N
40° 21' 36" N
40° 21' 19" N
40° 21' 52" N
40° 22' 08" N
40° 22' 08" N
40° 21' 52" N
73° 52' 09" W
73° 51' 28" W
73° 51' 28" W
73° 50' 43 "W
73° 51' 06" W
73° 51' 06" W
73° 50' 44" W
73° 48' 58" W
73° 49' 19" W
73° 49' 19" W
73° 48' 57" W
73° 52' 08" W
73° 52' 30" W
73° 53 ' 55 "W
73° 52' 08" W
73° 53' 34" W
73° 52' 30" W
40° 23.22' N
40° 23. 22' N
40° 22.68 'N
40° 22.68' N
40° 23. 80' N
40° 25.65 'N
40° 25.37' N
40° 25.65' N
40° 25.37' N
40° 21. 58' N
40° 21. 32' N
40° 21. 60' N
40° 21. 32' N
40° 21. 87' N
40° 22. 13 'N
40° 22. 13 'N
40° 21. 87' N
73° 52. 15' W
73° 51. 47' W
73° 51. 47' W
73° 50.72' W
73° 51. 10' W
73° 51. 10' W
73° 50.73 'W
73° 48.97' W
73° 49.32' W
73° 49.32' W
73° 48.95' W
73° 52. 13 ' W
73° 52.50' W
73° 53. 92' W
73° 52. 13 ' W
73° 53. 57' W
73° 52.50' W
DMS = Degrees, Minutes, Seconds
DDM = Degrees, Decimal Minutes
No Discharge Zone: an approximately 1.0 square nautical mile area in which no placement or
incidentaTspTead of the Material for Remediation is allowed, bounded by the following
coordinates: — - --- - —
Point
C
E
J
K
Latitude
DMS
40° 25' 39" N
40° 23' 48" N
40° 23' 48 "N
40° 25' 39" N
Longitude
DMS
73° 51' 48" W
73° 51' 48" W
73° 51' 06" W
73° 51' 06" W
Latitude
DDM
40° 25.65' N
40° 23. 80' N
40° 23. 80' N
40° 25.65' N
Longitude
DDM
73° 51.80' W
73° 51.80' W
73° 51. 10' W
73° 51. 10' W
DMS = Degrees, Minutes, Seconds
DDM = Degrees, Decimal Minutes
10
-------
Page C-11
From 1994 to 1996, EPA Region 2 and the NYD conducted a variety of oceanographic surveys
with their respective contractors Battelle and S AIC within an approximately 30 square nautical
mile study area (including the 15.7 square nautical mile HARS). In 1994, sediment samples were
collected from within the MDS and the HARS and analyzed for toxicity, sediment chemistry,
benthic community structure, and worm tissue analyses (Battelle, 1996 and 1997). In 1995,
sidescan sonar, REMOTS®, seafloor photography, and precision bathymetry were conducted
within the HARS (SAIC 1995a, b, and c). Together the data from these surveys represent
the baseline conditions against which all future monitoring data will be compared (Baseline
Data). These surveys serve as the HARS Baseline Assessment because they are the most
comprehensive surveys conducted to date, utilizing state-of-the-art sampling and analytical
techniques/procedures. In addition, these surveys represent the most recent conditions and
assessments of the HARS to which any later data can be compared.
These Baseline studies conducted revealed levels of toxicity within the MDS and surrounding
area that would fail ocean disposal criteria and qualify as Category ffl dredged material (See
Table 1). Analyses conducted on all worm tissue collected from the HARS revealed levels of
dioxin in excess of 1 pptr but less than 10 pptr, indicative of Category E dredged material (See
TableS).
Bathymetry (Figure 1) collected in September 1995 (SAIC, 1995a) and side scan sonar data
collected hi March 1995 (SAIC, 1995b) are included in the baseline data set. As of September
1995 and May 1996, water depths hi the HARS range from 40 feet (12 meters) to 138 feet (42
meters) BMLW.
8.2 Monitoring Findings
8.2.1 Physical Characteristics
The physical characteristics affecting the placement of Material for Remediation in the HARS,
as determined from moored measurements of waves and near-bottom currents, and
measurements of suspended solids concentration within plumes of dredged material disposed of
at the MDS, can be summarized as follows:
1. Near-bottom, oscillatory tidal currents at the MDS and HARS are relatively weak with
maximum speeds on the order of 10 cm/s (0.2 knot; SAIC 1994a). Mean currents are also
weak (less than 0.2 knot) with directions that are dependent upon location, water depth, and
bottom topography (SAIC 1994b).
2. Surface waves are generally less than 2 m hi height except during major storms, which
occur most frequently hi the fall and winter seasons (SAIC 1995c). Wave-induced near-bottom
currents are greater than 20 cm/s (0.4 knot) only when surface wave heights exceed 3 m, wave
periods are in excess of 10 sec, and storm centers are to the east or southeast (this analysis
included the significant December 11, 1992 Northeaster). These wave conditions are
11
-------
Page C-12
encountered less than 3 % of the time in the fall and winter, and less than 1 % of the time hi the
spring and summer (SAIC 1994a).
3. Plume tracking studies of dredged material disposed of at the MDS have demonstrated:
-plume behavior is variable depending upon the type of grain size (coarse to fine-
grained material).
-rapid settling of material and turbulent mixing that result hi initial dilutions of the
plume on the order of 3,000:1 to 600,000:1 within 15 minutes of placement based on
total suspended solids (TSS) and dioxin/furans (Battelle, 1994).
-plume dilution after 2 hours ranged from approximately 64,000:1 to 557,000:1
(Battelle,1994).
-total suspended solids (TSS) near the center of the dredged material placement plume
body reach near background levels hi 35 to 45 minutes (Battelle, 1994).
-the release of dredged material into the water column resulted hi rapid dispersal
(turbulent mixing) of the plumes within the first few minutes after release; and (2)
plume dilution after two hours, based on total suspended solids, ranged from
approximately 64,000:1 to 557,000:1 (Battelle, 1994).
-a small amount of fine-grained sediment (silt and clay) remained measurable hi the
water column for up to 3 hours. A review of dredged material placement and the mass
balance questions can be found hi SAIC (1994).
8.2.2 Sediment Contaminant Concentrations/Toxicity Test Results:
The spatial pattern of the sediment grain-size distribution from the HARS was complex and
included areas jlqminatedby_muddy_ (fine-grained) sediments and others dominated by coarse
sediments (primarily sand). Total organic carbon (TOC) ranged from less than 0.005% to
3.56% (Battelle, 1996). The ranges of organic and trace metal contaminant concentrations
varied widely within the HARS and are listed hi Table 1.
Sediments from the HARS were used hi 10-day benthic acute toxicity tests using Ampelisca
abdita. Test results indicate that sediments hi the HARS exhibit between 0% and 99%
amphipod survival in these laboratory tests (reference sediments exhibited 94% amphipod
survival) (Table 1). Test results less than 74% (20% less than reference site and statistically
significant) would be considered biologically significant to Ampelisca abdita and unacceptable
for ocean disposal (category HI) (EPA/COE, 1991), (EPA Region 2/NYD, 1992). The PRA
within the HARS was delineated for remediation purposes based principally upon the
Ampelisca abdita toxicity test results.
Specific sampling locations for each station are shown hi Figure 2 and Table 2 (for further
information see Battelle, 1996)
12
-------
Figure 2: Sampling Stations in the BARS
Page C-13
• HARS Stations
fationArea
Buffer Zone
No Discharge
1996 Bathymetry
/\/< 20 meters
A/20 meters
/V>20 meters
3 Kilometers
2 Mies
40 20' N-
73 48' W
13
-------
Page C-14
8.2.3 Water Column Characteristics/Circulation:
1. The HARS is located on the shallow continental shelf within the New York Bight. The
mean flow of water column, based on long-term current meter moorings on the Atlantic Shelf,
is towards the southwest, along depth contours through the New York Bight (EPA, 1997).
2. Physical characteristics of the aquatic systems in the New York Bight are complex.
Circulation in the Bight is dominated by a relatively slow flow to the southwest (3.7 cm/sec),
occasionally with a clockwise eddy hi the New York Bight Apex (EPA, 1982).
3. Nearshore surface currents are strongly influenced by winds and surface runoff. Average
surface currents inshore of the 100-meter isobath (which includes the entire Apex) flow
southward from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, at mean speeds of approximately 3.7 cm/sec. The
southerly flow of the Hudson River plume along the New Jersey coast forces an opposing
northward flow of more saline waters to the east (EPA, 1982).
4. Average shoreward bottom current speeds of 5 cm/sec (0.1 knot) have been reported in the
Hudson Shelf Valley (EPA, 1982). The axis of the Hudson Shelf Valley separates two general
bottom current directions. East of the valley, flow is generally in a northwest-northeast
direction, towards Long Island; while west of the axis, the flow is generally in a southwest-
northwest direction, towards New Jersey (EPA, 1982).
5. Maximum salinities (33 to 34 ppt) occur inshore during the whiter (February and March)
when sub-freezing conditions reduce river runoff. The spring thaw reduces the surface
salinity, particularly nearshore, and strong vertical and horizontal gradients may develop. In
summer surface salinities are at the annual rninimum (27 to 31 ppt) and bottom salinities are
(27 to 29 ppt) (EPA, 1982).
14
-------
Page C-15
Table 1. Concentration Ranges of Sediment Contaminants in the HARS (Battelle, 1996)1
Parameter
Toxicity
Total PAH
Total PCS2
Total DDT
2,3,7,8-TCDD
SUver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Concentration
(% Ampelisca Survival)
Oto99
(ng/g dry weight or ppb)
10.7 to 33,067
0.73 to 678.4
< 0.07 to 151
(ng/Kg dry weight or pptr)
< 0.2 to 41.7
Oig/g dry weight or ppm)
< 0.04 to 7.33
2.3 to 29.7
< 0.03 to 3.22
15.4 to 187.2
4.8 to 178.2
< 0.03 to 2.47
< 3 to 99.4
10.2 to 402.0
20.5 to 329.0
1 = Values reported for chemicals listed in the Regional Testing Manual (EPA Region
2/NYD, 1992). For additional information see Battelle, 1996 and EPA, 1997.
2 = PCB values should be multiplied by 2 in order to compare approximately with values from
Regional Testing Manual (EPA Region 2/NYD, 1992).
15
-------
Page C-16
Table 2. Sampling Stations in the HARS.
Sta. Station Description' Comments
Latitude Longitude Depth
(ft)
4 40°25.39' 73°52.91' 73 Fine brown sand.
5 40°25.32' 73°51.70' 50 Medium brown sand; shell hash, crabs.
6 40°25.53' 73°50.79' 75 Medium brown sand.
7 40°25.H' 73°53.02' 80 Fine to medium muddy sand, shell hash.
8 40°24.95' 73°51.74' 56 Fine dark material.
9 40°25.03' 73°50.40' 85 Brown sand and shell hash to sandy brown mud.
10 40°25.06' 73°49.62' 98 Soft brown mud.
11 40°24.71' 73°52.81' 80 Dark brown, muddy, clay-like material.
12 40°24.76' 73°51.85' 58 Fine to medium brown sand.
13 40°24.46' 73°51.76' 59 Fine to medium light brown sand.
14 40°24.02' 73°50.36' 88 Brown/black mud.
15 40°24.00' 73°49.71' 100 Light grey mud with underlying black layer.
16 40°23.76' 73°51.50' 56 Fine brown sand to brown sand over black mud and clay.
17 40°23.70' 73°50.71' 65 Black mud over sand.
18 40°23.79' 73°49.99' 88 Fine mud, dark grey over dark black layer.
19 40°23.53' 73°52.82' 86 Brown sand over mud to black sandy mud.
20 40°23.46' 73°51.90' 66 Fine brown sand.
21 40°23.36' 73°51.50' 62 Light sand.
22 40°23.45' 73°50.66' 66 Fine brown sand over mud.
23 40°23.41' 73°49.99' 86 Black mud with petroleum smell.
24 40°23.00' 73°51.46' 68 Coarse brown sand and black mud to fine brown sand.
25 40°23.05' 73°50.89' 50 Fine to medium to coarse brown sand.
26 40°23.05' 73°50.21' 66 Thick black mud, silty on top.
27 40°23.13' 73°49.73' 99 Brown muddy clay.
28 40°22.67' 73°53.26' 83 Firm brown mud.
29 40°22.51' 73°52.31' 83 Firm, brown mud with sand.
30 40°22.59' 73°50.17' 84 Medium to fine brown sand with some mud; many tubes.
31 40°22.01' 73°50.15' 92 Dark brown sandy mud to medium dark, hard-packed sand. Some
coarse sand.
32 40°22.06' 73°49.80' 94 Sandy brown to black mud, large Nereis. Rocky.
33 40°22.01' 73°49.48' 100 Brown mud-gravel-sand mix, to coarse brown sand..
34 40°21.77' 73°52.53' 78 Light brown sand.
35 40°21.58' 73°52.73' 72 Light brown sand.
49 40°25.23' 73°50.53' 80 Fine grain, worm tubes.
57 40°25.50' 73°53.71' 76 Surficial sediments fine silt/sand; dark underlying sediments
62 40°23.50' 73°53.38' 78 Coarse sand mixed with fines.
For data from specific stations see Battelle, 1996.
16
-------
Page C-17
6. A summary of wave climate data in the area of the HARS (National Weather Service
offshore meteorological platform at Ambrose Light, 40.5 °N/73.8°W) for the period November
1984 through December 1993 shows that the highest waves were recorded in the winter
months and in the early spring, with waves exceeding 2 meters about 4% of the time and
exceeding 3 meters about 1% of the time (EPA, 1997).
8.2.4 Biological Characteristics (Battelle, 1996)
A. Benthic Community
1. Mean total benthic infaunal abundance within the HARS was 26,482 (+7- 28,555)
individuals/m2.
2. The average total number of species per benthic sample within the HARS was 23.9 (+7-
6.5). The proportion of species was: annelids 61%, crustaceans 17%, and molluscs 11%.
3. Benthic species diversity (H') within the HARS was 2.3 (+/-0.8).
4. Benthic distribution of organisms:
a. Annelida: annelids accounted for about 68% of the infaunal abundance in the HARS.
The spinoid worm Prionospio steenstrupi (a surface deposit feeder) was found in
densities of 3,432 (+7-5,314) individuals/m2. Polygordius (an archiannelidan worm)
was found hi densities of 7,734 (+7-26,091) individuals/m2. Pherusa (a surface
deposit feeder) was found in densities of 784 (+7-1,628) individuals/m2.
b. Crustacea: crustaceans abundance in the HARS averaged 1,000 (+/-2,335)
individuals/m2 and accounted for about 4% of the total infaunal abundance in the
HARS. Amphipods were present at densities of 799 (+/-2,173) individuals/m2.
c. Mollusca: molluscs accounted for about 21 % of the total infaunal abundance in the
HARS. The nut clam (Nucula proximo), a selective deposit feeder, was found in
densities of 5,269 (+/-8,844) individuals/m2.
d. Miscellaneous Phlya: The sand dollar Echinarachnius parma (Echinodermata)was
found at densities of 867 (+/-1,958) individuals/m2 in the HARS. Various species of
sea anemones (Anthozoa) were found within the HARS at densities of 377 (+/-417)
individuals/m2. Phoronis, a tube dwelling suspension feeder, was also found within the
HARS at densities of 507 (+/-906) individuals/m2.
B. Commercial/Recreational Fish Resources:
1. Finfish: The New York Bight Apex is a transitional region for many species of fish and
17
-------
Page C-18
shellfish. The area is occupied by many fish species. The following species of finfish are
known to inhabit the New York Bight Apex:
a. Demersal Species: Silver Hake, Red Hake, Yellowtail Flounder, Scup, Summer
Flounder, Winter Flounder, Tautog (Blackfish), Cod, Black Sea Bass, Little Skate,
Windowpane Flounder, Fourspot Flounder, Ocean Pout, Gunner, Spiny Dogfish,
Spotted Hake, Northern Searobin, Striped Searobin, Gulf Stream Flounder, Sea Raven,
Longhora Sculpin
b. Pelagic Species: Butterfish, Atlantic Herring, Bluefish, Weakfish
c. Pelagic/ Anadromous: American Shad, Alewife, Striped Bass
2. Shellfish: Surf Clam, Sea Scallop, American Lobster, Long-finned Squid, Rock Crab,
Horseshoe Crab, Short-finned Squid, Jonah Crab
C. Endangered/Threatened Species:
The Material for Remediation placement in the HARS is not likely to affect
Endangered/Threatened Species (Battelle, 1997a). Disposal Inspectors (with marine
mammal/sea turtle observation certification) are required to accompany each placement trip to
the HARS. One of the Disposal Inspectors' duties is to observe the presence of
Endangered/Threatened Species. Placement of the Material for Remediation is prohibited at
the HARS if Endangered/Threatened Species are observed. EPA Region 2 has prepared a
Biological Assessment (BA) (Battelle, 1997a) as part of the HARS SEIS Process for Finback
Whale, Humpback Whale, Kemps Ridley Sea Turtle, and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle. The BA,
which concludes that the designation of the HARS is not likely to affect the Finback Whale,
Humpback Whale, Kemps Ridley Sea Turtle, and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle is available upon
request.
8.2.5 Worm Body Burden Concentrations
Metals levels in worm (Polychaetes) tissue from the study area were similar to those in
samples collected from outside the HARS Study Area (30 square nautical miles) but still within
the Bight Apex (EPA, 1997 and Battelle, 1997). Worm tissue concentrations of metals were
relatively consistent across the HARS (Table 3). Thus, metals levels hi the worm tissue can
be considered to be relatively invariant over broad regions of the inner Bight.
Organic compounds hi worm tissue throughout the HARS were more variable than the metals
(Table 3). Generally, total PAH concentrations hi the Study Area were significantly higher
than those from the Apex (Battelle, 1997). PCB levels in worm tissue from the Study Area
were higher relative to outside Apex areas to the east and south (Battelle, 1997). Pesticide
levels in worms from the study area were generally low (Table 3); total DDT concentrations in
18
-------
Page C-19
worm tissue from areas to the east and southeast of the HARS Study Area were consistently
lower than measured in samples from the HARS Study Area. Dioxin and furan levels in worm
tissue were relatively similar within and outside the HARS Study Area (Battelle, 1997).
Table 3. Worm (Polychaetes) Tissue Concentrations in the HARS (Battelle, 1997)1
Parameter
Concentration
Total PAH
Total PCB2
Total DDT
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
(ug/kg wet weight or ppb)
244.28 to 928.18
54.61 to 225.43
13.32 to 44.78
(ng/Kg wet weight or pptr)
2.96 to 5.84
wet weight or ppm)
< 0.05 to 0.15
1.85 to 5.53
< 0.04 to 0.12
0.73 to 3.44
1.21 to 4.84
< 0.02 to 0.06
0.57 to 1.84
1.37 to 6.22
15.60 to 30.40
1 = Values reported for chemicals listed in the Regional Testing Manual (EPA Region
2/NYD, 1992). For additional information see Battelle, 1997 and EPA, 1997.
2 = PCB values should be multiplied by 2 hi order to compare approximately with values from
Regional Testing Manual (EPA Region 2/NYD, 1992).
8.3 HARS History
The NY Bight Apex which includes the HARS and surrounding area has been historically
utilized for ocean disposal of dredged material and a variety of waste products (building
materials, sewage sludge, industrial waste, garbage, mud, steam ashes, one man stone, derrick
19
-------
Page C-20
stone, and street sweeping) since the 1800s. The New York Bight Apex is defined as the area
of approximately 2,000 km2 extending along the New Jersey coastline from Sandy Hook south
to 40° 10' latitude and east along the Long Island coastline from Rockaway Point to 73 ° 30'
longitude. Ocean disposal of garbage was eliminated hi 1934, and other waste product disposal
practices ended as a result of the passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (sewage sludge
disposal ended in 1992)(Figure 3 depicts former EPA designated Ocean Disposal Sites in the
New York Bight Apex). Dredged material placement hi the New York Bight Apex began
"officially'' hi 1888 at a point 2.5 miles south of Coney Island. At that tune, the New York
Harbor U.S. Congressional Act of 1888, established that the Supervisor of New York Harbor
had the authority to grant permits for ocean disposal (Williams, 1979). In 1900 the location
was moved to a point one-half mile south and eastward of Sandy Hook Lightship, due to
shoaling. In 1903 it was moved 1.5 miles east of Scotland Lightship (Figure 4).
In 1972, the MPRSA was enacted, providing EPA with the authority to designate Ocean
Disposal Sites. The MDS was designated as an Interim Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
hi 1973 and incorporated by regulation hi 1977. In 1984 the MDS was designated as a "final"
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site, with a maximum capacity of 100 million cubic yards of
dredged material. Since 1984, approximately 68 million cubic yards of dredged material have
been disposed of at the MDS. Although available documentation of disposal volumes prior to
1976 is sparse, between 1976 and 1983 approximately 47 million cubic yards of dredged
material was disposed within the MDS. Very little information is available on the quantity of
material historically disposed hi the HARS. However, a description of the types of materials
and historical disposal locations hi the HARS is provided hi Williams, 1979.
8.4 Transportation and Placement Methods Utilized at the HARS
The Material for Remediation will be placed at the HARS utilizing split-hull barges. Self-
contained COE hydraulic dredges, will be utilized for placement of the Material for
Remediation for approximately 30 to 60 days per year. Permits issued will require (by
contract specification and/or work order for Federal Navigation Projects) placement at a pre-
determined location within the HARS. The placement location will be marked either by a
single taut-moored buoy, with a specified placement radius, or a series of buoys designating
the placement area boundaries. Buoys will be placed and maintained by the NYD and/or their
representative. Specific instructions/requirements will be contained hi the Department of the
Army (DA) Permits issued by the NYD.
The PRA within the HARS is comprised of 9 areas; each area is approximately 1 square
nautical mile hi size. Placement of Remediation Material will be managed hi priority order,
beginning with Area 1 (highest priority for remediation) and ending with Area 9 (lowest
priority for remediation) (Figure 5). Each area's use will be discontinued upon completion of
remedial activities and demonstration through bathymetry that at least a 1 meter cap (minimum
required cap thickness) of the Material for Remediation has been placed over the entire area.
20
-------
Page C-21
Figure 3: Former EPA Designated Ocean Disposal Sites
DREDGED -,,
MATERIAL!
SITE
» % . • • »*•
.*.; :•"•••;:*
: NEW JERSEY
HOOK - tOCKAWAY POINT TRANSECT
CHRISTIAENSEN
-
y( |->- SEW ACE SLUDGE
SITE
.
—25m —
30*
— ACID WASTE SITE
—*•-*'. '
\ \ L
/ pl^BiCHT APEX LIMITS-
( n^v
20'
*
(
\>
WOOD INCINERATION SITE—*-
50'
0 NAUTICA^MILES 20
™ ,
73*30"
21
-------
Page C-2,
LOWER BAY
SANDY HOOK
SCOTLAND
LIGHT
AMBROSE
HORN ^
1903
1877
1003-1936
1936-1973
SOURCE; .U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977. Unpublished naterial.
Figure 4
HISTORICAL DREDGING DISPOSAL SITES
22
-------
Page C-23
Figure 5: Remediation Areas 1-9
1
Priority
Remediation Area
•1 Buffer Zone
|MDZ| No Discharge
Zone
1996 Bathymetry
/\/< 20 meters
A/20 meters
> 20 meters
3 Kilometers
2 Miles
23
-------
Page C-24
8.5 Enforcement Activities
EPA and the NYD have used past enforcement experiences to modify the guidelines for the
ocean placement of the Material for Remediation at the HARS, in order to ensure that the
placement of Material for Remediation hi the HARS takes place hi accordance/compliance with
applicable permit conditions (EPA Region 2/NYD, 1997).
9. Monitoring Program
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(B) requires that the SMMP include a program for monitoring the site.
EPA Region 2 and the NYD have developed a tiered monitoring approach, similar hi breadth
and scope to the New England Division's Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS).
DAMOS is a regional program initiated by the New England Division of the COE to
investigate the physical, biological, and chemical impacts of ocean placement of dredged
material at sites hi the northeast (Germane, 1993 and SAIC, 1993). Incorporating many of
the guidelines, principles, and methods first instituted under DAMOS, the EPA Region
2/NYD's HARS Monitoring Program (HARSMP) will serve to address both the regulatory and
technical issues associated with the open-water (i.e., ocean) placement of the Material for
Remediation, and the HARS hi general. Two different monitoring approaches and levels of
intensity will be utilized: (1) for the entire HARS, and (2) for the specific remediation areas (1-
9), within the PRA. The tiered approach is comprised of levels of increasing investigative
intensity, and is an environmentally sound and cost-effective method for generating the
technical information necessary to properly manage the HARS/PRA.
9.1 HARS Monitoring Program (HARSMP)
The HARSMP will focus on the overall impacts of the placement of the Material for
Remediation on the entire HARS and each of the 9 individual remediation areas in the PRA.
In addition to addressing the Null Hypotheses (H0) (see Section 9.2) overall goals of the
HARSMP are as follows:
A. The HARS will be remediated with uncontaminated dredged material (i.e., dredged material
that meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects
including through bioaccumulation).
B. To continue to verify that the Material for Remediation placed at the HARS for the purpose
of remediation does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts, and does cause
desirable impacts, such as non-toxicity to amphipods. The phrase "significant adverse
environmental impacts" is inclusive of all significant or potentially substantial negative impacts
on resources within the HARS and vicinity. Factors to be evaluated include:
24
-------
Page C-25
1. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront
beaches, or shorelines;
2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shell fishery areas;
3. Absence from the HARS of pollution-sensitive biota characteristic of the general area;
4. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment composition at the
HARS, when these changes are attributable to the Material for Remediation placed at the
HARS;
5. Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or
benthic biota at or near the HARS, when these changes can be attributed to
the effects of the Material for Remediation placed at the HARS;
6. Accumulation of the Material for Remediation constituents hi marine biota near the
HARS.
C. To continue to assess and monitor sediment quality improvement as a result of remediation
activities at the HARS as compared to the HARS Baseline Data (40 CFR Section 228.9 and
Section 228.10) and the Impact Category I conditions in the PRA within the HARS (40 CFR
Section 228.11).
9.2 Questions/Hypotheses (H,,) to be addressed by Monitoring/Surveillance Activities hi the
HARSMP:
The most frequent application of statistics in research is to test a scientific hypothesis (Sokal
and Rohlf, 1981). The hypothesis being tested is called the null hypothesis (H,,). EPA
recommends use of null hypotheses in developing monitoring programs (EPA, 1991 and
EPA/COE, 1996). Acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis is typically based upon
statistical tests (e.g., Analysis of Variance, T-tests, Regressions, Averages, Medians, Standard
Deviations) at various standard significance levels. If we reject the null hypothesis, then we
are accepting the alternative hypothesis, which is typically stated as the converse of the null
hypothesis.
The types of data and frequency of data collection that are necessary to test each hypothesis are
described in Section 9 of the HARS SMMP, specifically in Table 4. The data collected during
each tier will be utilized to accept or reject the specific null hypothesis being tested/evaluated
using standard statistical tests for significance.
25
-------
Page C-26
Null Hypotheses (HJ:
Monitoring information will be utilized to test the following null hypotheses:
H,,!: Placement of the Material for Remediation has modified the sediment characteristics such
that all areas hi the PRA within the HARS have been remediated .
Actions:
-Conduct Tier 1 Bathymetry
-Conduct Tier 2 Sediment Toxicity Tests annually hi the specific area(s) (1 through 9
depending upon placement schedule) where the Material for Remediation has been placed.
-Upon satisfaction that at least one meter of the Material for Remediation has been placed in
any given remediation area (through use of precision bathymetry), Tier 1 and 2 post-
remediation monitoring activities will be required.
H.,2: The PRA has been capped with at least 1 meter of the Remediation Material.
Actions:
-Conduct Tier 1 bathymetry quarterly hi the specific remediation area(s) (1 through 9
depending upon disposal schedule) where the Material for Remediation has been placed and
annually for the entire HARS.
-Continue remediating with Remediation Material until precision bathymetry indicates each of
the PRA areas (1 through 9) has been remediated with at least 1 meter of Remediation
Material.
H.,3: Remediation Material placement operations are consistent with the requirements of the
issued permits.
Actions:
-Utilize the COE Certified Disposal Inspector Reports and information submitted by permittees
to determine compliance.
-Conduct independent surveillance of remediation operations
-See Section 10 for corrective actions/enforcement
: Major storms (hurricanes, northeasters, etc.) are not causing erosion/loss of cap material
such that less than 60 cm (24 in) of cap material exists over the remediated areas within the
HARS (including capped mounds inside the boundaries of the former MDS).
Actions:
-Conduct Tier 1 post-storm bathymetry surveys
-Implement contingency capping with Material for Remediation, as necessary to 1 meter.
26
-------
Page C-27
H,,5: Remediation Material placement operations are not causing significant unacceptable
impacts (physical, chemical, biological) at the HARS and surrounding area.
Actions:
-Conduct Tier 1 bathymetry to detect any loss of Remediation Material and pre-HARS dredged
material from the HARS.
-Conduct Tier 2 sediment chemistry biennially on the entire HARS or sooner for a specific
PRA area (1 through 9) upon determination of successful remediation (Post-remediation
monitoring).
-Conduct Tier 3 benthic community structure analyses biennially within the HARS and
surrounding area (sooner if Tier 1 and 2 results trigger additional monitoring).
: Remediation Material placement at the HARS has no significant direct impact on
endangered/threatened species.
Actions:
-Review Certified Disposal Inspector Reports to ensure that the Material for Remediation is not
being placed in the HARS in the presence of any marine mammals/endangered turtles.
- Monitor marine mammals/sea turtle landings/strandings.
HJ: Remediation Material placement does not significantly (see definition of significant
adverse impact) alter the benthic community structure of the HARS or surrounding area in the
long-term (i.e., allowing sufficient time for re-colonization by the same or similar organisms).
Actions:
- Utilize annual Tier I REMOTS'/SPI (See Section 9.8 for description of technology) to assess
sediments distribution and other sediment properties/characterization.
-Conduct Tier 3 Benthic Community Structure Monitoring biennially or sooner if Tier 1 and
Tier 2 results trigger additional monitoring.
9.3 The HARSMP
The tiered HARSMP consists of the following three tiers:
The tiers are structured based upon the type of monitoring (physical, chemical, biological)
required and do not need to be conducted sequentially. However, the results of the lower tiers
will be evaluated and utilized where applicable to initiate higher tiered monitoring (Table 4).
27
-------
Page C-28
Tier 1: Physical Monitoring
Determine the physical distribution of the Material for Remediation after its placement at the
HARS (i.e., assess whether material conformed to the placement design). Types of
measurements will include: plume tracking, bathymetry, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiling,
REMOTS'/SPI, sediment coring, and wave/current measurements.
Tier 2: Chemical Monitoring
Determine the chemical distribution of contaminants of concern on sediment quality and
evaluate bioaccumulation of contaminants of concern in benthic organisms (body burden
levels). Types of measurements will include sediment toxicity, sediment chemistry, and
analysis of the body burden levels of contaminants within target marine species and/or
determination of other sub-acute community effects (i.e., have levels of contaminants in
indigenous marine species significantly changed in comparison to those in the surrounding
environment?) This tier will be further subdivided so that sediment chemistry will be the
trigger to proceed to the next step within the tier. Analytical methods, detection limits, and
quality assurance information is contained in the EPA Region 2/NYD Regional Testing Manual
(EPA. Region 2/NYD, 1992). Analyses are typically conducted by EPA Region 2, NYD,
and/or contract laboratories.
Worm tissue (body burden levels) will be collected and archived synoptically with Tier 2
Surficial Sediment Chemistry collections. Worm tissue may be analyzed based upon Tier 2
Surficial Sediment Chemistry results. If EPA Region 2 and the NYD are unable to collect
sufficient worm biomass from the remediation area/capped mound due to insufficient time
being allowed for re-colonization, an additional sampling effort will be conducted at a later
date (seasonally dependent) to collect the necessary worm tissue samples.
The main sampler utilized for collecting Tier 2 Surficial (up to 20 cm) sediments within the
HARS is a Young-Modified Van Veen Grab Sampler. Various coring devices are utilized for
collecting sediment cores. A vibro-core is typically utilized for collecting sediment at depths
and for Tier 2 coring (Table 4).
Tier 3: Biological Monitoring
Determine the long-term changes, if any, that would occur to benthic marine resources in and
around the HARS (i.e., have physical or other effects resulted in potentially adverse impacts
on the surrounding marine resources?). Types of measurements will include benthic
community structure (utilizing accepted REMOTS*/SPI technology and standard benthic
community structure measurements of species diversity, abundance, biomass) and fish/shellfish
distribution surveys. The benthic community will be considered to be significantly altered if
there is a statistically significant change from the baseline data (Baseline Data) based on the
above measurements.
28
-------
Page C-29
9.5 Frequency of Monitoring: (Table 4)
Implementation of HARSMP activities will take place at a required frequency and as necessary
depending upon tiered monitoring results (Table 4). If results indicate exceedances of trigger
level(s) men decisions will be made as to whether field surveys, additional investigations, or
management actions are necessary (Trigger Section 9.6).
EPA Region 2 and the NYD will convene a Scientific Review Panel (SRP), consisting
predominantly of professionals from the fields of engineering, oceanography, and
representatives of governmental resource agencies, to review the HARS SMMP and relevant
monitoring data. Membership will include representatives from academia, federal agencies,
state agencies, public interest groups, and consultants. Attendance at meetings will be by
invitation only. All data reports and meeting minutes will be distributed to any interested
person/party upon request. SRP meetings will be scheduled annually.
Table 4. HARSMP Types and Required Frequency of Monitoring
Type of Monitoring
Bathymetry
Tier I
REMOTS'/SPI
Tier I
Sidescan Sonar +
Sub Bottom
Tier I
Coring/Surficial
Physical Analyses
Tier I
Plume Tracking
Tier I
Surficial Sediment
Chemistry
Tier 2
General/Full
HARSMP
Monitoring
Annually
Post-Stonn-as
needed1
Annually
Post-Storm-as
needed1
Annual
As needed4
Not Required3
biennially or sooner
if needed5
All required
chemicals
Remediation Area
(1-9) Monitoring
Quarterly per
remediation area2
Quarterly per
remediation area2
Not Required3
As needed4
As needed4
Not Required3
Notes/Misc.
'Depends on Intensity of
Storm
2 Depends on remediation
activity
3Not required unless data
indicate need for further Tier
I, n and/or HI work
"Will be decided on a case by
case basis
5Sooner if Tier I results trigger
Tier n investigations or if
specific remediation area is
sufficiently
capped/remediated .
29
-------
Page C-30
Surficial Sediment
Toxicity
Tier 2
Body Burden Levels
Tier 2
Type of Monitoring
Coring
Chemical Analyses
Tier 2
Benthic Community
Structure
TierS
Fish/Shellfish
Surveys in
Bight/Apex10
Tier 3
biennially or sooner
if needed5
Collect with
sediment and
archive. Analyze as
needed6
General/Full HARS
Monitoring
Collect as described
under coring (Tier
1) above and
archive. Analyze as
needed6-7
Biennial or sooner if
needed8
As needed9
Annually per
remediation area or
sooner of needed2
Not Required3
Remediation Area
Monitoring (1-9)
Not Required3
As needed4
Not Applicable
6Sooner if Tier I results trigger
Tier n investigations or if
specific remediation area is
sufficiently remediated.
6As needed if results from Tier
1 and Tier 2 trigger additional
Tier 2 work
Notes/Misc.
7Toxicity/chemistry may be
required in order to
differentiate between the
Material for Remediation and
ambient PRA sediments.
8If Tier n results trigger Tier
in investigations
''Work with NOAA and States
on improving/increasing
Bight/ Apex Monitoring
Additional Information on Notes:
Note#l: Post-storm monitoring is based upon reaching the storm intensity threshold defined
in trigger #2.
Note #2: If there is no remediation activity in a given remediation area, then there will be no
bathymetry or surficial sediment toxicity conducted.
Note #6: Post-remediation monitoring will be required upon satisfaction that at least one meter of
the Material for Remediation has been placed hi any given area (through use of precision
bathymetry), Tier 1 and 2 monitoring activities will be required.
Note #4: Benthic Community Structure can be affected by gram size, and as such, Tier 3 work
could be initiated based on tier results.
Notes #7, #8: Additional sampling will be based upon results from Tier 1 (physical) monitoring.
9.6 Trigger Levels:
The trigger levels are levels that will initiate making decisions as to whether field surveys,
additional investigations, or management actions are necessary. Specific trigger levels/actions
will be decided between EPA Region 2 and the NYD on a case-by-case basis. Based on the
type of event/action that has occurred, EPA Region 2 and the NYD will work to implement the
30
-------
Page C-31
appropriate tiered action (or subset of actions) within the tiered HARSMP. Further,
appropriate actions will be taken to mitigate the problem or other unacceptable situation. The
following general trigger levels will apply:
1. Loss of Remediation Material, such that less than 60 cm (24 in) of remediation/cap material
exists over the remediated areas within the HARS (including capped mounds inside the
boundaries of the former MDS) will result in appropriate action, which may include the
implementation of some type of contingency capping operations and/or trigger Tier 2
investigations in the appropriate location(s) (sediment chemistry, toxicity).
Trigger No. 1 and H02 are designed to ensure that there is never less than 60 cm (24 in) of
Material for Remediation at any time on the remediated areas within the HARS (including
capped mounds inside the boundaries of the former MDS). EPA Region 2 and the NYD will
not average values around the existing caps in the MDS and the Material for Remediation to be
placed in the PRA to achieve an average Remediation Material thickness. Instead, all areas of
the HARS will be evaluated individually to determine absolute Material for Remediation
thickness.
Precision bathymetry (Tier 1) is the most accurate method for determining cap thickness across
the entire capped mound/remediation area. Precision bathymetry has an approximate
error/sensitivity range of +/-1 foot (30 cm). Thus, in order to say with statistical confidence that
the Tier 1 precision bathymetry is showing a "loss" of the Remediation Material, we need to
experience at least a 30 cm loss of cap/Remediation Material.
EPA Region 2 and the NYD are allowing a 40 cm loss prior to initiating any contingency capping
operations and/or additional monitoring. Various experts have concluded that a practical capping
thickness for biological isolation/remediation ranges between 30 and 50 cm (SAIC, 1997). EPA
Region 2 and the NYD believe that a 60 cm cap should sufficiently protect against bioturbation;
thus, at least a 1 meter cap (minimum required cap thickness) is utilized to be conservative and
provide for an extra degree of protection for the Material for Remediation against storm-induced
erosion. EPA Region 2 and the NYD will evaluate the precision bathymetry results on a case-by-
case basis (and area-by-area) to decide if any contingency placement and/or additional
monitoring is necessary.
2. Sustained storms (hurricane, northeaster, etc...) generating wave heights in excess of 4
meters and/or wave periods of 10 seconds or greater (at the HARS) will "trigger" timely and
appropriate post-storm investigations, as to whether field surveys are warranted (See Baseline
Section for discussion/analysis of wave patterns).
3. Statistically significant increase in sediment/tissue chemical concentrations above baseline
(See Section 6) will trigger timely investigations as to whether Tier 3 biological investigations
are warranted. Upon identification of statistically significant sediment concentration increases,
EPA Region 2 and the NYD will examine monitoring data to determine the cause, if possible,
31
-------
Page C-32
and decide upon corrective management actions (additional remediation, move remediation
location, etc...).
4. Tier 2 surficial sediment toxicity tests indicating biologically significant amphipod toxicity
in areas determined to have been remediated will trigger timely investigation as to whether
additional Tier 2 analyses are required and if additional placement of the Remediation Material
is needed.
9.7 Quality Assurance:
Monitoring activities will be accomplished through a combination of EPA Region 2 and NYD
resources (employees, vessels, laboratories) and contractors. Documentation of QA/QC is
required by both agencies for all monitoring activities (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological
sampling and testing). QA/QC is documented in the form of Quality Assurance Project Plans
(QAPP) and/or Monitoring Work Plan. QAPPs are required for all EPA Region 2 and NYD
monitoring activities. Analytical methods, detection limits, and QA procedures are contained in
the EPA Region 2 and NYD Regional Testing Manual (EPA Region 2/NYD, 1992).
9.8 Description of Monitoring Technologies and Techniques:
The following is a description of the various types of monitoring activities/procedures
discussed above.
A. Physical Momtqring (Long-term/Short-term)
1. REMOTS* or Sediment Profiling Imagery (SPI)
_REMOTS"(Remote Ecological .Monitoring of the Seafloor) technology would bejmplemented
at each historic and on-going remediation area to map the distribution and condition of the
placed Material for Remediation. The REMOTS* sediment profile imaging camera can rapidly
collect and process information on sea floor conditions while documenting organism-sediment
relationships. By utilizing a grid sampling strategy at the HARS based on a previous
REMOTS*baseline survey in 1995 (SAIC 1995a+b), REMOTS'will determine grain size,
evaluate benthic habitat conditions, document the process of recolonization in the remediation
areas, map out areas of erosion and deposition, determine the redox potential discontinuity
depth for degree of bioturbation and recolonization, and determine extreme levels of organic
loading by analyzing for sedimentary methane. REMOTS" imagery will be able to derive
physical dynamics at the site from the sedimentary structures observed. Automatic disk
storage of all parameters measured allows data to be compiled, sorted, statistically compared,
and graphically displayed.
EPA Region 2 and the NYD routinely utilize the patented capability of SAIC REMOTS* and
SeaFloor Photography technology to photographically record benthic community structure.
32
-------
Page C-33
Good examples of these technologies can be found in SAIC (1996 a + b). REMOTS* is a
formal and standardized technique for sediment-profile imaging and analysis (Rhoads and
Germane, 1982). REMOTS *can be utilized to rapidly and inexpensively measure mud clasts,
measurement of the Material for Remediation and cap layers, apparent Redox Potential
Discontinuity (RPD) Depth, sedimentary methane, infaunal successional stages, and the
Organism-Sediment Index (OSI). Seafloor photography supplements the REMOTS" to provide
planform images indicating sediment types, bedforms, and kinetic energy/sediment dynamics.
2. Precision Bathymetry
This type of survey is usually scheduled based on the volume of the Material for Remediation
placed, and future Material for Remediation projects. Bathymetric survey lane spacing and the
extent of area! coverage will be emphasized hi remediation areas such as the historic disposal
mounds and all on-going remediation areas. Two and 3-D Topographic Maps and sediment
accumulation difference maps will be generated for each survey and compared with the
previous surveys to determine remediation cap thickness.
a. The NYD will schedule hydrographic field surveys of specific areas within the HARS (See
Table 4). These bathymetric surveys will encompass: a) the active remediation locations
within the confines of the HARS and will be performed by the NYD, b) surveys of the PRA
and HARS will be conducted primarily by firms under contract to the NYD, c) regions of the
site where the placement of the Material for Remediation is proposed (prior to the relocation of
placement buoys), and d) additional areas of interest which may be added on an "as needed"
basis.
b. Copies of all HARS data and survey results are transmitted to the EPA Region 2.
3. Sidescan Sonar/Sub-bottom Profiling Imagery
Sidescan sonar surveys have been a very effective tool for mapping the configuration and
sediment surface features of the seabed within the HARS. Use of this technique permits
complete coverage of broadscale surface areas of the HARS and the environs directly adjacent
to the HARS. Information pertaining to topographic seafloor morphology is also obtained.
Sub-bottom profiling is valuable hi determining the maximum depth of burial of various
sediment type interfaces (as in a remediation capping operation) where two or more distinctly
different layers of material would be encountered. In conjunction with other types of analyses,
sub-bottom profiling is useful hi determining discrete thicknesses of a cap.
Sidescan sonar and sub bottom profiling provide useful information in determining sediment
characteristics, sediment dynamics, remediation cap integrity and thickness. However, this
data does not stand alone and is combined with other Tier 1 monitoring tools (bathymetry,
coring) to determine remediation cap thickness and integrity. Sidescan sonar is particularly
33
-------
Page C-34
useful in conducting a large-scale sediment quality (fine grained vs. coarse) "snapshot" of the
HARS. If a severe storm impacts the HARS causing erosion and transport of in-place
material, EPA Region 2 and the NYD could conduct a sidescan sonar survey to compare with
previous Annual sidescan sonar survey to determine any change to HARS sediment features.
This in turn can be utilized to determine the need for and the location of sediment chemistry
samples.
4. Sediment Coring
Gravity and vibro-core surveys of distinct areas within the HARS have been accomplished on
an infrequent basis since November 1991. Core heights have ranged between 4-8 ft.
penetrating several heterogeneous sediment horizons of the Material for Remediation through
to the bed or basement material. In the past, subsamples from discrete core depths from
specific sample sites have been taken for chemical analyses to determine the effectiveness of
cap thicknesses in isolating contaminants
5. Wave/Current Measurements
Placement of bottom-mounted, in-situ wave/current meters have been used to measure the
wave and current regimes, to determine bottom stress at the HARS. Attached to the meters are
underwater cameras to record sediment resuspension, and transmissometers to measure the
frequency and duration of the resuspension events.
B. Chemical Monitoring (Long-term/Short-term)
Sediment chemistry of field-collected samples utilizing two techniques (i.e., coring and
surficial grabs) are analyzed for numerous contaminants that may be derived from the Material
for Remediation placement.
C. Biological Monitoring (Long-term/Short-term)
Recently conducted studies have included: bluefish, blackfish, fluke, sea bass, and lobster
(NOAA, 1995, NOAA, 1996, and NOAA 1996a). Target species will be collected utilizing a
variety of sampling gear, including but not limited to trawl nets, traps, and hook and line.
Targeted contaminants to be analyzed, analytical methods, and detection limits will be the same
as in previous studies (NOAA, 1995, NOAA, 1996, and NOAA 1996a).
1. Biological monitoring of resident and migratory fishery resources to determine contaminant
effects from pre-HARS dredged material disposal has been performed at locations hi and
around the HARS.
2. Chemical analyses of tissue collected from invertebrates (polychaete worms), shellfish
(crabs and lobsters) and vertebrates (recreational fish) have also been accomplished.
34
-------
Page C-35
10. HARS Remediation Permit Conditions and Management Practices
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(C) requires that the SMMP include special management conditions or
practices to be implemented at the site that are necessary for the protection of the environment.
10.1. Regulatory Framework
Department of the Army (DA) permits will be issued for HARS remediation activities, and
typically are valid for a period of three years. Copies of the issued permits or the letters
modifying these permits can be obtained from the NYD, which issues the documents.
Placement of the Material for Remediation cannot occur at the HARS without a permit (or
MPRSA Section 103 (e) equivalent, e.g. Federal projects authorized by Congress).
10.1.1. Pre-Dredging Coordination
a) Response Letter
Fourteen (14) days prior to the commencement of dredging operations, the permittee and/or
the dredging contractor will be required, as per special condition of the DA permit issued by
the NYD (Contract Specification and/or Work Order for Federal Projects), to send a Response
Letter (Attachment No. 1) by certified mail. The primary purposes of the Response Letter
are to:
i. allow the NYD to verify before the dredging activity is undertaken that certain conditions
and/or requirements listed in the DA permit are being complied with, and
ii. provide the NYD ample time to respond to the permittee/contractor notification with the
exact location where placement of the proposed Material for Remediation will take place.
An appropriate location for remediation is determined through consideration of the best
management practices (examples include required volume of the Material for Remediation ,
proximity to site boundaries, weather conditions, in-situ current and tidal regimes, consideration
of water depth criteria, seafloor topography, and remediation priority). The final selection is
jointly decided upon by EPA Region 2 and NYD. Pertinent sections of the Response Letter
are to be completed by the permittee; the remaining sections pertaining to the location of
placement buoys will be completed by the NYD before being forwarded to the
permittee/dredging contractor.
A management depth will be applied to each project placed at the HARS. The "management
depth" will be included as a Permit Condition (Contract Specification and/or Work Orders for
Federal Projects) for that particular project. The management depth for dredged material
placed at the MDS was 45 feet BMLW. This depth was established in order to address
shipping and navigation concerns. This same depth will be established for the HARS in order
35
-------
Page C-36
to address shipping and navigation concerns. However, since most of the areas in the PRA are
below 65 feet BMLW, and coverage with at least 1 meter of the Material for Remediation is
required, the remediated areas should remain well below 45 feet BMLW. Further, placement
buoys will be moved when remediation has been successfully completed around a given
placement buoy, thus providing for efficient placement of the Material for Remediation by
preventing significant mounding, thereby allowing for faster remediation of the HARS. The
placement locations will be chosen to provide for the placement of at least 1 meter of
Remediation Material over the PRA. Remediation will begin in Area 1 of the PRA until at
least a 1 meter cap (minimum required cap thickness) has been placed over all of Area 1. Area
2 will be next, etc...
10.1.2. Permit Conditions
a) General - Consist generally of standard maritime industry and U.S. Coast Guard
regulation requirements.
These are standard conditions set forth so that a waterborne/sea-going activity can be carried
out within the minimum or basic guidelines set, primarily for safety reasons, by the regulating
authority. In most if not all cases the U.S. Coast Guard is that authority.
b) Special/Specific — Are listed in the text of the Permit and will include:
1) Remediation area (1 through 9).
2) Seasonal restrictions or limitations regarding dredging or special conditions with
respect to placement of the Remediation Material.
3) Requirements for the submission of monthly transportation and Remediation
Material placement logs and volume summary sheets.
4) Reporting requirements for missing, sinking, and/or off-station placement buoys,
etc.
5) Guidance pertaining to aspects of the remediation activity; including placement buoy
coordinates, release/discharge procedures, and requirements to discharge at specified
buoy location. Further, if upon arrival at the HARS, the placement buoy(s) are not
visible and/or missing, remediation shall occur within the area specified by buoy
coordinates. In order to ensure such action, the use of recommended navigational aids
must be documented. The disposal inspector is required to record this on the
Transportation and Remediation Placement Log (Attachment No. 2) and notify the
NYD.
6) Records of Project Area history of each Material for Remediation dredging project
36
-------
Page C-37
7) Timing and location of ocean placement events (single and/or multiple) shall be
conducted in order to comply with the required Limiting Permissible Concentration (40
CFR Section 227.27) at any and all locations in and outside the HARS (after allowance
for initial mixing (40 CFR Section 227.29)).
8) Remediation instructions: (See Section 10.2.2).
9) Prohibition on remediation in 4 locations that contain ship wrecks (See Section
10.2.2).
10.1.3. Federal Authorization
In cases where permits are not issued, as is the case with Federal Navigation Projects, the
above permit conditions will be incorporated into the Material for Remediation dredging
contract specifications (see MPRSA Section 103 (e)). When COE vessels conduct the
dredging, "permit"-like instructions are contained within the Contract Specifications and/or
Work Orders for the project. These conditions are equivalent to permit conditions and will be
enforceable under applicable law.
10.1.4. Violation/Enforcement Cases and Corrective Actions
1. If any action takes place which does not conform to authorized activities described in any
permit (Contract Specification and/or Work Order for Federal Projects), reauthorization,
response letter, remediation requirements, seasonal restriction, and/or remediation operation,
the NYD should be notified immediately by the COE Certified Disposal Inspector. In cases
where activities beyond the scope of those authorized occur, appropriate action will be
determined by consultation between EPA Region 2 and the NYD.
2. Dredging or remediation activity occurs only with prior NYD and EPA Region 2 approval.
Those projects not in compliance with regulatory requirements will be subject to enforcement
action.
3. A COE Certified Disposal Inspector must accompany all trips for placement of
Remediation Material at the HARS and be present during all Remediation Material placement
events in order to certify compliance with the NYD permit conditions. The Certified Disposal
Inspector is required to complete, sign, and submit a Transportation and Remediation
Placement Log (Attachment No. 2) for each event.
a. The New England Division (NED) of COE periodically conducts certification
courses, open to all persons interested in becoming a COE Certified Disposal Inspector.
A list of all COE Certified Disposal Inspectors endorsed by both NED and the NYD is
available from either Corps installation/office. A copy of the list of Corps inspectors
who are presently serving on HARS remediation events can be obtained from the NYD.
37
-------
Page C-38
These individuals are also qualified to serve as Marine Mammal and/or Sea Turtle
observers.
b. The NYD has adopted all aspects and principles of the NED inspector program and
has incorporated them into the remediation management practices at the HARS. A
copy of the NED guidance manual, entitled: Guidance for Inspectors on Open Water
Disposal of Dredged Material, can be obtained from the NYD.
4. NYD and EPA Region 2 (and/or then- designated representatives), reserve all rights under
applicable law to free and unlimited access to and/or inspection of (through permit conditions):
I. the Remediation Material dredging project site including the dredge plant, the towing
vessel and scow at any time during the course of the project.
ii. any and all records, including logs, reports, memoranda, notes, etc., pertaining to a
specific dredging and Remediation Material placement project (Federal or non-
Federal).
iii. towing, survey monitoring and navigation equipment.
5. Navigation logs will be maintained for each vessel (tugboat/barge) utilized for remediation
activities. These logs should include the method of positioning (RADAR, LORAN-C, GPS,
D-GPS, Dead Reckoning, or other), accuracy, calibration methods, any problems and actions
taken. EPA Region 2 and the NYD recommend that each tugboat/barge utilized for the
placement of Remediation Material at the HARS utilize D-GPS for navigation purposes.
6. If the Material for Remediation regulated by a specific DA permit issued by the NYD or
Federal authorization is released, due to an emergency situation to safeguard life or property at
sea in locations or in a manner not in accordance with the terms or conditions of the permit or
authorization, the master/operator of the towing vessel and/or the COE Disposal Inspector
shall immediately notify, by marine VHF or cellular telephone, the NYD of the incident, as
required by permit. The NYD shall copy EPA Region 2 on such notification the next business
day. In addition, both the towing contractor and the COE-certified disposal inspector shall
make a full report of the incident to the NYD and EPA Region 2 within ten (10) days. The
report should contain factual statements detailing the events of the emergency and an
explanation of the actions that were ultimately taken.
7. Results from HARSMP (Section 9) will be continuously reviewed with respect to HARS
remediation management practices and permit conditions to determine if any corrective actions
or modifications are required.
38
-------
Page C-39
10.1.5. Inter-Agency Cooperation
If any of the placement buoys are missing, off-station, sinking, or damaged in any way, the
NYD will immediately contact the United States Coast Guard (USCG), First District Offices,
Operations Division, Aids to Navigation Section, Boston, Massachusetts (Telephone Number
is 617-223-8338), so that a Notice-to-Mariners broadcast and announcement can be issued.
The assistance of the USCG in informing vessel traffic of errant placement buoys is
accomplished under general niter-agency cooperation. The NYD is presently responsible for
maintenance, repair and/or replacement of all surface markers and placement buoys placed at
theHARS.
10.1.6. Data Management: Processing, Evaluation and Interpretation
A. Data collected from HARS surveys are processed and analyzed by the NYD, EPA Region 2
and/or then- respective contractors. These data are used to make management decisions
regarding the Material for Remediation placement operations and permit decisions. In
addition, the NYD, WES, and their contractor Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC), have developed a desktop personal computer-driven Geographical Information System
(CIS) to better manage the placement of the Material for Remediation at the HARS. The
Disposal Analysis Network for New York (DAN-NY) System will allow the NYD and EPA
Region 2 to utilize existing and future field data (bathymetry, sidescan sonar, chemistry,
biology, etc...) from the HARS to calculate the Remediation Material needs at the HARS and
better manage the remediation of the HARS, and monitor the HARS. NYD, WES, and EPA
Region 2 will both have PC workstations capable of running the DAN-NY System.
The system was designed as a data base for most of the information the NYD is required to
collect and is not limited to survey data.
B. A spreadsheet file containing contractor-reported scow volume information-is maintained
by the NYD. All remediation records and submitted monthly Remediation Material placement
volumes for each project are proofread, verified and any discrepancies are corrected. The data
file contains the following information:
1. Permit/Federal Project number
2. Permittee or Federal Project name
3. Waterway
4. Reach/Channel
5. Was the Remediation Material dredging project maintenance, widening or deepening?
6. Remediation area/buoy at which the Material for Remediation was placed
7. Remediation activity commencement date
8. Remediation activity completion date
9. Volume of Material for Remediation placed at the HARS.
39
-------
Page C-40
10. Volume of Material for Remediation placed year-to-date at the HARS
11. The break-down of volumes generated by private (non-federal) and federal navigation
projects noted separately
12. The year-to-date volumes of private (non-federal) and federal navigation projects noted
separately
13. The year-to-date volume of private (non-federal) and federal navigation projects noted
collectively (i.e., total volume for the year)
C. An annual HARS Material for Remediation volume summary sheet is compiled and
provides information similar to the above but on a yearly basis. This summary also determines
the percentage of private (non-Federal) and Federal Material for Remediation volumes placed
at the HARS and the percent remediation needs remaining at the HARS.
D. The information is provided to EPA Region 2 during the first quarter of each calendar year
and/or upon request. Furthermore, on a yearly basis, all Material for Remediation data will be
compiled, analyzed and evaluated hi a final end-of-the-year report that will be submitted to
EPA Region 2.
E. On a yearly basis, all dredging, HARS remediation and testing data are compiled and
submitted to COE Headquarters (HQUSACE).
10.2 HARS Remediation Management Practices
10.2.1. Reporting Requirements
A. Telephone Record
I) A record of each voyage involving an actual remediation event at the HARS is received
from dredging/towing contractors on a daily basis. Utilizing a telephone answering machine
(212-264-0165), a phone-in-placement notification system has been instituted and is
implemented on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis. All vessels transporting the Material for
Remediation for the purpose of placement at the HARS must telephone the NYD no less than 2
hours prior to departure from the Port. Contractor representatives will furnish information
which will include, but not be limited to, estimated transit times and scow volume as required
in then DA permit/authorizations. Prompt notification will allow NYD personnel to review
and confirm the permit conditions and status in a reasonable time frame. Upon the vessel's
return to the Port, the dredging/towing contractors will also telephone the NYD to provide the
exact information pertaining to the remediation activity which took place. This type of
notification system ensures that the NYD is completely informed of daily dredging and
remediation activities undertaken within the Port of New York/New Jersey. The following
information is reported for each remediation event which may occur several tunes during the
day, on the telephone answering machine:
40
-------
Page C-41
1. Permittee's name, if applicable
2. Permit/contract number
3. Estimated scow volume
4. General description of the Remediation Material placed
5. Name and Owner of towing vessel and scow
6. The place of departure/waterway
7. The name of the HARS Remediation Area
8. Name of remediation area placement/buoy where placement will occur
9. The estimated time of arrival at the HARS Remediation Area.
10. The estimated time of return to port
11. The name of the COE certified ocean Disposal Inspector
12. Observations and general description of placement buoys including determining whether
or not they may be off station, missing or sinking
NOTE: All projects, both Federal and non-federal and including those utilizing COE dredges,
are required to follow this condition. In the case of Federal dredges, a standard form
containing the required information is kept on file at the NYD.
ii) The dredging/towing contractor also notifies the Captain of the Port (COTP) of New
York/USCG for a reference number before each vessel departs the dredging site en route to the
HARS. Every trip made under the permit authorization is required to be recorded and
endorsed by the master of the tow or the person acting in such a capacity.
B. Record Keeping/Documentation
In addition to taped records which provide a verbal record of the remediation activity,
daily/weekly/monthly status reports are also required. If the information is incomplete or
missing, immediate confirmation of the errors or discrepancies is made with the
dredging/towing contractor.
I. The dredging/towing contractors are required to complete and submit a Monthly
Transportation and Remediation Placement Log (Attachment No. 3) and a Monthly
Summary Sheet (Attachment No. 4) of all dredging and remediation activities occurring
under a specific permit/authorization. The summary sheet includes monthly and cumulative
volumes for each dredging activity. It is required that every trip/voyage to the HARS be
endorsed by the master of the tow, or the person acting in such capacity. This information
must be submitted to the NYD no later than the eighth day of the month following the
dredging/remediation activity. Periodically, dredging/remediation activity information
acquired during the previous month in the form of telephone logs, monthly transportation and
remediation placement logs, and monthly activity summaries are checked against each other to
ensure accuracy of the reported information. Any inconsistencies are brought to the attention
of the permittee or dredging/towing contractors for clarification.
41
-------
Page C-42
ii. If upon arrival at the BARS placement buoy(s), the tugboat/barge navigation equipment
indicates a position outside the HARS, the Certified Disposal Inspector/Shiprider must report
this to the tugboat Captain/Master of the vessel and immediately notify the NYD. Placement
of the Material for Remediation is not permitted outside the boundaries of the PRA within the
HARS.
C. Site Inspection/Surveillance
Site Inspection
a) HARS
During periods of active remediation, every two weeks a NYD survey vessel will inspect and
assess the condition and location of all moored placement buoys within the HARS. This
information is recorded on the HARS Placement Buoy Surveillance Form (Attachment No.
5). Copies are kept on file in the NYD and forwarded to EPA Region 2. The items
investigated consist of latitude, longitude, and LORAN C coordinates, as determined by
GPS/DGPS, observed water depth, wind direction and speed, and sea state. Photographs of
the placement buoys will be taken periodically on field inspections in order to document buoy's
elevation above the surface, and any damage that it may have sustained during remediation
operations. This will insure that buoys have not shifted a considerable distance from the
original deployment position and that they are visible to the towing vessel and
operators/Certified Disposal Inspectors during the disposal event. The relative accuracy of the
navigation equipment responsible for positioning, watch circles, wind and sea conditions at the
time of deployment are also taken into consideration. When it has been determined that at least
one meter of Remediation Material has been placed hi the location of the placement buoy and
remediation activities at the placement buoy have been successfully completed, EPA Region 2
and the NYD will then coordinate a new Remediation Material placement buoy location.
Initiating new placement buoy locations when remediation has been successfully completed
around a given placement buoy provides for efficient placement of the Material for
Remediation by preventing mounding, thereby allowing for faster remediation ofthe HARS.
1) Surveillance and monitoring of conditions at the HARS are also performed by USCG (ships
and helicopter), NYD Vessels, and EPA Region 2 vessels and helicopter. This information is
evaluated and acted upon accordingly (i.e., enforcement, re-position buoys, performance of a
supplementary hydrographic survey, additional surface marker/placement buoys being placed
at the site, and/or remedial action to counteract any violation which may occur).
2) Placement buoys are relocated and/or re-positioned at other locations within the site based
upon appropriate mound height and water depth considerations. EPA Region 2 and the NYD
both concur on the placement buoy location for each project in the Response Letter
(Attachment No. 1).
42
-------
Page C-43
b) Dredging Site
To ensure compliance with NYD permit conditions and Federal authorization, routine
observations of dredging activities are performed by the NYD.
D. Placement Buoy Maintenance
1. Presently only one permanently moored USCG regulation buoy is located at the HARS.
Designated as the "NY", its position is clearly marked and it appears on NOAA navigation
charts of the New York Bight as the center of the former MDS. The "NY" buoy location is
monitored at the same frequency as the placement buoys.
2. The NYD is currently responsible for the placement, recovery, maintenance and damage
repair of all other placement buoys located at the site. Utilizing taut-moored buoy systems has
given much greater effectiveness as a location marker for accurate placement of the Material
for Remediation. This has been demonstrated by the presence of discrete pre-HARS dredged
material disposal mounds evident hi bathymetric surveys of the site.
3. If a buoy is reported damaged, off station, drifting, or lost, the NYD will immediately
inform (by telephone, and/or FAX) the dredging/towing contractors who are actively engaged
in remediation operations at the HARS. The USCG is also informed so that either a Notice-to-
Mariners (NTM) emergency broadcast or local NTM report can be issued.
10.2.2 Remediation Instructions
Specific imtructions/requirements for the placement of Material for Remediation are contained
in the Department of the Army (DA) Permit issued by the NYD. The PRA within the HARS
is comprised of 9 areas; each area is 1 square nautical mile in size. Placement will be managed
so as to remediate in order of remediation priority, beginning with Area 1 (highest priority for
remediation) and ending with Area 9 (lowest priority for remediation) (Figure 4). Each
remediation area will be closed to further placement of Remediation Material (unless additional
material is required (See Trigger Levels hi Section 9.6) upon completion of remedial activities
and demonstration through bathymetry that a 1-meter cap (minimum required cap thickness) of
the Remediation Material has been placed over the entire area). The Remediation Material
placement buoy locations will be moved as necessary, to evenly spread the Remediation
Material throughout each remediation area to minimize mounding.
To the maximum extent practicable, each remediation area will be remediated with
Remediation Material of similar grain size/composition as sediments located within that
particular remediation area. In the event that the Material for Remediation is a different grain
size/composition (e.g., clay instead of silt) than the grain size/composition of the sediments
located in the remediation area, after placement operations with the dissimilar Material for
Remediation is completed, a final layer of Remediation Material with the same/similar grain
43
-------
Page C-44
size/composition as the original sediment found in the remediation area will be placed on top.
The combined layers will total at least one meter of Remediation Material. This ensures that
the biological communities will be able to re-colonize on the same or similar type sediments
that existed prior to the remediation activity.
Placement of the Material for Remediation in the No Discharge Zone and/or hi a 0.27 nautical
mile radius around the following coordinates due to the presence of ship wrecks is prohibited:
1. 40° 25.30'W 73° 52.80'N
2. 40° 25.27'W 73° 52.13'N
3. 40° 25.07'W 73° 50.05'N
4. 40° 22.46' W 73° 53.27' N
Remediation Area No. 8 (located hi the SW quadrant of the MDS) contains an area that was
capped with one meter of sand in 1994 as part of a category n disposal and capping project.
Monitoring results to date indicate that this area remains sufficiently capped. While this area
does not require remediation, the surrounding area requires remediation and will be remediated
with at least one meter of Remediation Material. During the remediation process some of the
Material for Remediation may incidentally spread into this area and may even be placed on the
edges of the capped category n mound. As such, remediation area No. 8 may need to be
remediated with at least one meter of Remediation Material, potentially including portions of
the capped category n mound.
11. Material for Remediation Testing Requirements
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(D) requires that the SMMP include consideration of the quantity of
material to be placed at the site, and also consider the presence, nature, and bioavailability of
the contaminants hi the material to be placed of at the HARS.
As part of the permitting process, applicants are required to test/characterize the material to be
dredged hi order to determine that it is suitable for use asRemediation Material hi the HARS.
Dredged material testing procedures/requirements (including quality assurance requirements)
are contained in the following documents:
i. EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations 40 CFR Part 227, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit
Applications for Ocean Dumping of Materials"
ii. EPA/COE 1991, "Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal, Testing
Manual" as amended (otherwise known as the Green Book) (EPA/COE, 1991).
iii. EPA/NYD1992, "Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material proposed for Ocean
Disposal" (otherwise known as the Regional Testing Manual) (EPA Region 2/NYD, 1992).
44
-------
Page C-45
12. Anticipated HARS Use and Quantity of the Material for Remediation to be Placed at
theHARS
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(D) and (E) requires that the SMMP include consideration of the quantity of
material to be placed at the HARS, and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the
contaminants in the material, as well as the anticipated use of the site over the long-term.
12.1 Anticipated HARS Use
The PRA within the HARS will be remediated by the placement of at least 1 meter of
Remediation Material over all areas within the PRA.
12.2 Estimated Quantity of Material Required to Remediate (1 meter cap [minimum required
cap thickness]) the PRA within the HARS:
Estimated Total to Remediate the PRA: 40,548,000 yards
The above estimate is based upon the placement of a 1-meter cap (minimum required cap
thickness) of Remediation Material on sediments within the PRA inside the HARS where
sediments exhibit Category HI and Category n dredged material characteristics. The total
volume to remediate the PRA is an estimate. Based upon past capping experience we expect that
the actual remediation volume will be higher.
13. HARS SMMP Review and Revision
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(F) requires that the SMMP include a schedule for review and revision of
the SMMP which shall not be reviewed and revised less frequently than 10 years after adoption
of the plan, and every 10 years thereafter.
14. References
Battelle. 1994. Plume Tracking of Dredged Material Containing Dioxin. Report prepared
under contract to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York. Contract No.
68-C2-0134, Work Assignment 7. February 14, 1994.
Battelle. 1996. Sediment Survey at the Mud Dump Site and Environs. Report prepared under
contract to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York. Contract No. 68-
C2-0134, Work Assignment 3-133. May 15, 1996.
Battelle. 1997. Draft. Contaminants in Polychaetes from the Mud Dump Site and Environs.
Report prepared under contract to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New
York. Contract No. 68-C2-0134, Work Assignment 4-133. March 4, 1997.
45
-------
Page C-46
Battelle. 1997a. Biological Assessment for the Designation of a Historic Area Remediation
Site in the New York Bight Apex. Report prepared under contract to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, New York. Contract No. 68-C2-0134, Work Assignment 4-
233. April 16, 1997.
EPA. 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New York Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. August 1982.
EPA. 1991. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program. EPA, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. August 1991.
EPA/COE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Testing
Manual). EPA 503/8-91/001.
EPA Region 2/NYD. 1992. Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal (Regional Testing Manual). EPA Region 2/NYD.
EPA Region 2/NYD. 1997. Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the New Yorok Bight
Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site).
EPA/COE. 1996. Guidance Document for Development of Site Management and Monitoring
Plans for Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. EPA/COE, Washington, DC. March 1996.
EPA. 1997. Supplemental to the Environmental Impact Statement on the New York Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS) in the New York Bight Apex. U.S. Environmental Protection, Region 2, New York,
May 1997.
Germane, J.D. and D.C. Rhoads, 1993, An integrated, tiered approach to monitoring and
management of dredged material disposal sites hi the New England Region. S AIC report No.
SAIC-90/7575&234 submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division.
NOAA. 1995. Chemical contaminant levels in flesh of four species of recreational fish from
the New York Bight Apex. NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, James J. Howard Marine Sciences
Laboratory, Highlands, NJ. 94 pp.
NOAA. 1996. Contaminant levels in muscle and hepatic tissue of lobsters from the Mew York
Bight Apex. NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory,
Highlands, NJ. 137 pp.
46
-------
Page C-47
NOAA. 1996a. Levels of seventeen 2,3,7,8-Chlorinated Dioxin and Furan congeners in
muscle of four species of recreational fish from the New York Bight Apex. NOAA, NMFS,
NEFSC, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ. 38 pp.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germane. 1982. Interpreting Long- term Changes in Benthic
Community Structure: A New Protocol. Hydrobiologia. 142 :291-308 .
SAIC. 1993. Sediment Capping of Subaqueous Dredged Material Disposal Mounds: An
Overview of the New England Experience 1979-1993. Report prepared under Contract to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Work Order No. 2 of Contract No.
DACW33-90-D-00001. March 1993.
SAIC. 1994. Monitoring of Dredged Material Disposal: The Mass Balance Issue. Report
prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Delivery
Order No. 9 of Contract No. DACW33-93-D-0002. June 1994.
SAIC. 1994a. Analyses of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York Mud
Dump Site: The Year 1 Program - March 1992 to March 1993. Report prepared under
contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Delivery Order No. 11 of
Contract No. DACW51-92-D-0045. June 1994.
SAIC. 1994b. Analyses of Sub-bottom Profile Results for the New York Mud Dump Site:
December 1993 - January 1994. Report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New York District. Delivery Order No. 13 of Contract No. DACW51-92-D-
0045. December 1994.
SAIC. 1995a. Results from the September 1995 Bathymetric Survey of the New York Mud
Dump Site. Report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District. Delivery No. 2 of Indefinite Quantity Contract No. 38. October 1995.
SAIC. 1995b. Sidescan and Bathymetry Results from the Expanded Mud Dump Area hi the
New York Bight. Report prepared under contract to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, New York. Contract No. 68-W2-0026, Work Assignment No. 56-JJ. November
1995.
SAIC. 1995c. Analysis of Waves and Near-Bottom Currents During Major Storms at the
New York Mud Dump Site. Report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Delivery No. 1.1.1 of Contract No. DACW39-
94-C-0117. October 1995.
47
-------
Page C-48
SAIC. 1996a. Results from the October 1995 Seafloor Photography and Sediment Sampling
Survey of the Expanded Mud Dump Area. Report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, New York District. Delivery Order No. 5 of Indefinite Quantity Contract
No. 38. September 1996.
SAIC. 1996b. Results from the October 1995 REMOTS* Survey of the Expanded Mud Dump
Area. Report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District. Delivery Order No. 3 of Indefinite Quantity Contract No. 38. October 1996.
SAIC. 1997. Capping Dredged Materials in the New York Bight: Evaluation of the Effects of
Bioturbation. Report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station. Task 2.1.1 of Contract No. DACW39-94-C-0117. January
1997.
Sokal, S.R. and R.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Company.
Williams, SJ. 1979. Geologic Effects of Ocean Dumping on the New York Bight Inner Shelf.
Pp. 51-72 hi Palmer and Gross (eds.), Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution.
48
-------
APPENDIX D
Memo from C. Mantzaris, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
to Co-chairs, Mud Dump Site Closure Working Group,
June 16,1995
-------
Page D-l
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Naliohal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHEAST REGION
One Blackburn pnvw
Cloucoslor. MA0133U
June 16, 1995
I-ch& irs^,.MudXD.ump Site Closure Working Group
.
s Mantza]
esponses to Questions
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
At the March 15 meeting of the Mud Dump Site closure Group, Co-
Chairman James Tripp asked the National Marine Fisheries Service
to respond to the following questions before the next meeting.
1 - What effect does disposal of category 2 material at the Mud
Dump Site and at the expanded Mud Dump Site have on fisheries?
2 - What effect do existing conditions at the Mud Dump Site and
at the expanded Mud Dump Site have on fisheries?
3 - Does a noted decline in fisheries relate to activities at the
Mud Dump Site?
4 - What does continued dumping at the Mud Dump Site mean to
fisheries?
The Co-chairs also asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to
offer recommendations to rephrase these questions. Our responses
follow.
Answer to question l - The existing Mud Dump site covers a two-
square mile area, and the proposed expanded Mud Dump Site will
cover approximately 20 additional square miles. Together, they
represent a very small portion of the aquatic habitat within the
New York Bight. Assuming that fish are randomly distributed
throughout the Bight, a full answer to this question would
require an incredibly intense and long-term investigation because
the other causes of biomass mortality, such as natural
environmental causes and stock exploitation, mask any effect
caused by contaminants at the Mud Dump Site.
However, this question can be addressed in two ways: First, does
the disposal directly kill fish and invertebrates? Clearly, the
recently completed fish tissue analysis undertaken by NMFS for
the Environmental Protection Agency and the corps of Engineers
shows that recruited species live and thrive in the New York
Bight, even near the Mud Dump Site. In addition, our studies
show that Newark Bay, a source of contaminated sediments for the
Mud Dump Site, apparently supports a wide variety of fish.
-------
Page D-2
Evidence linking contaminants with fish mortality in the New York
Bight is insufficient. This leaves mortality induced by the
physical act of dumping dredged material, which are dependent on
the species1 ability to flee from an impact area. Obviously,
some organisms will not be successful.
Second, does disposal at sea induce chronic effects to fisheries?
This question is unquestionably more difficult to answer, but
clearly some species show evidence of contaminants in their
tissues, especially those species with relatively high levels of
lipids or an affinity for accumulating pollutants. The problem,
however, is to differentiate the source of the contaminants.
Within the New York Bight itself, contaminants similar to those
at the Mud Dump Site pervade the harbor estuary and flow out to
the Bight with river currents. In addition, atmospheric
deposition accounts for a considerable amount of Bight
contamination.
Species of fish that inhabit the Bight exhibit varying degrees of
motility- Some, like the bluefish, are highly migratory and can
pick up contaminants throughout the entire coast. Others, like
the tautog, migrate little. In between are species like the
winter flounder that exhibit a medium degree of motility, living
at various times in the harbor and offshore. To date and in
general, the highly migratory species exhibit the highest levels
of tissue contamination. The reason for the higher levels of
contamination is that these fish require muscle tissue capable of
sudden bursts of speed as well as endurance for long trips. Such
tissue, generally known as "red muscle," contain significantly
higher levels of fat (lipid) than "white muscle" and have a
greater affinity for organic molecules, including contaminants.
Unfortunately, little conclusion about the impact of the Mud Dump
Site can be drawn from any contaminants present in highly
migratory fish. However, our finfish study of selected species
in the Bight revealed no identifiable health threat.
A helpful tool would be a specific chemical marker found nowhere
else in the Bight that exhibits similar characteristics as some
of the contaminants, such as being lipophilic, which could be
placed in the Mud Dump Site. After a given period of time, fish
and invertebrate tissues could be examined for presence of the
chemical marker.
Unfortunately, although the Corps of Engineers has investigated
the concept of a marker, they have never found one. Even in the
unlikely event that a marker could be found or designed, the
proposed experiment would present a legal and regulatory
quandary, and the expense of the experiment would likely be
exorbitant. By definition, a marker would have to be a
bioaccumulative substance, the overboard disposal of which would
probably be in violation of federal regulations and, possibly,
the criteria established by the London Dumping Convention. The
expense of the experiment would probably rise significantly
because the marker would have to be homogenized with a barge load
-------
Page D-3
of dredged material, and this process has never been fully
investigated.
Answer to question 2 - This answer would be best arrived at
through a survey of fishing vessels, both commercial and
recreational, that fish the Bight. In other words, are there
more or less fish in specific areas, including areas impacted by
dredged material disposal? This might be identified'by charting
where vessels go: more boats in the vicinity of the Mud Dump Site
than would be expected through random placement might indicate
resource concentrations. Conversely, fewer vessels might
indicate resource depressions.
Also, the issue of public perception must be taken into
consideration. The fish-eating public may presume that New York
Bight fish are not fit to eat because of dumping. The resistance
to buying fish or seafood dinners affects the market side of the
industry, which can trickle down as a decrease in demand and
price for the product landed by the remaining fisheries.
Answer to question 3 - We have detected no unique declines in the
fishery resources of the Bight that can be directly attributed to
dredged material handling. Most texts and papers dealing with
fisheries management assign natural mortality and excessive stock
exploitation as, by far, the major sources of biomass depletion
in the ocean. Such conclusions are arrived at through years of
monitoring and statistical models. Should the Mud Dump Site be
responsible for some mortality, it would be difficult if not
impossible to detect because of the amount of biomass loss
through these other avenues.
Answer to question 4 - An answer to this question depends on the
answer to question 1. However, in light of the effectiveness of
the Clean Water Act, it would be safe to say that continued
dumping would have no greater effect than previous dumping, and
as noted above, NMFS has not identified any specific Bight-wide
impacts from dredged material disposal. The required testing of
sediments for ocean disposal is now more demanding and rigorously
evaluated by government agencies than it has been throughout
history. Sediments that were routinely disposed of in the ocean
as little as ten years ago would not likely be disposable today.
Conceivably, such rigorous testing of sediments could change
through legislative mandates. Under these circumstances,
contaminated materials not acceptable for ocean disposal today,
could be acceptable tomorrow.
Rephrased Questions
1 - As mentioned previously, and in spite of the obvious
problems, can a chemical marker be developed that can be placed
in the Mud Dump Site that would indicate uptake of contaminants
from that specific area?
-------
Page D-4
2 - Are fish that pass through or near the Mud Dump Site safe to
eat? This would require a study similar to the New York Bight
fish tissue study, but would sample fish before they arrived at
the Bight Apex and after they lived in the area for a time long
enough to acquire contaminants. Their tissues could be compared
for signs of uptake. Control samples would have to be found away
from the influence of the "shadow" of the Mud Dump Site.
------- |