HomeMy WebLinkAboutThames River Dredging Project 1994
",~, '~---:;-'~,-,:;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-;--i-"'-~-~"~;';': :.~,_', ','i
"
\
-- ..:\
.,
REPORT
ON
THE THAMES RIVER
DREDGING PROJECT
FOR THE
FISHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY
NOVEMBER 8, 1994
DTC PROJECT NO.
93-212-200
PREPARED BY:
~iB
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC,.S - SURVEYORS
NORTH HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
":,.' T~':;--~'~~-;?-----,
'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NUMBERS
PREFACE... .............. .... ...... ................. ............... ................ ............... ............ ........... ..... ..... ....1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................iii
1. BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1
a. General....... ................. ............... ................ ................ ............. ...... .......... ......1
b. Site Location ..................................................................................................1
c. Prior Dredging Projects ..................................................................................5
d. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and EPA Critique...............................5
2. PURPOSE....... .......... ..................... .................. .................. ................. ............ ... .... ...7
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIALS TO BE DREDGED .....................................8
a. Discharges to the Thames River ....................................................................8
b. Core Sampling ...............................................................................................16
c. Bioassay and Bioaccumulation Results ..........................................................17
4. FATES AND MOVEMENTS OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS...............................20
a. Loss of Material during Disposal Operations...................................................20
b. Erosion and Resuspension of Deposited Materials .........................................20
c. Potential Fate of Dredged MaterialS ...............................................................22
5. ALTERNATIVES FOR DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIALS ...............................25
a. Disposal within a diked area to form an Island at Black Ledge........................25
b. Containment Near Shore. .......................... ..................................... ............ ....26
c. Floatation of Submarines ...............................................................................26
d. Ocean Disposal............ ......................... ................................. ............. ...........27
e. . Upland Disposal of Dewatered Material- hydraulic dredge .............................27
f. Rhode Island Altemative ................................................................................28
6. CONCLUSIONS. .................. ........................ .......................................... ............ ....... .29
7. SOURCES....... ................... ................ ................................... ............................ ....... .31
FIGURES
1-1
1-2
3-1
4-1
4-2
Thames River Dredging Project area map......................................................3
Thames River Dredging Project Site ..............................................................4
Core Sample Locations ................ ........................................ ....................... ...18
Showing Currents, Eldridge Tide and Pilot Book.............................................23
Physiographic Regions in Central and Eastem Long Island Sound .................24
TABLES
3-1
3-2
3-3
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Information System U.S. Superfund Sites...................................l0
Chemical and Oil Spills..................................................................................ll
Results of Bulk Sediment Analysis .................................................................19
APPENDICES
A.
B.
Selected Current Measurements/Ocean Surveys, Inc.
Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement, EPA, July 15, 1991.
MAHlcaz/94348
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PREFACE
Long Island Sound has historically been a significant waterbody which has been utilized for
recreation including boating swimming, hunting, and fishing; water transport; shell fish
production; aesthetics and waste disposal.
During the past 20 years, substantial efforts have been expended to preserve and improve the
water quality of the sound. Substantial water quality modeling, biological testing and waste water
clean up activities are underway. These activities are endorsed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Protection, and the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Other organizations such as the Army
Corps of Engineers, local conservation agencies and environmental groups have joined in this
effort.
The Fishers Island Conservancy has joined in this endeavor by initiating a host of activities
including commissioning attorneys, an oceanographic survey group for current studies and DTC
for preparation of this report.
The recently published "Long Island Sound Study, Summary ofthe Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan", July 1994 by the Environmental Protection Agency, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, and the New York State Department of Environmental
Protection provides an overview of the causes of water quality problems and solutions ofthem.
MAHlcazI943771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The report clearly states that the Clean Water Amendments of 1987 established a National
Environmental Study program. At the request of the States of Connecticut and New York, Long
Island Sound was officiaIly designated an Estuary of National Significance under this new
program.
The authors of the report identified the need for preservation of the sound. They stated in the
report that, "Without aggressive and sustained action, the water quality of the Sound will
deteriorate, overshadowing recent improvements. If action is not taken to further reduce and
control the discharge of pollutants and to restore and maintain habitats, continued growth and
development around the Sound will resuit in even lower oxygen levels, beach and shellfish area
closings will increase and populations of fish and wildlife will decline."
11
MAHlcazl943771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Navy has proposed to dredge the Thames River to accommodate homeporting and/or
testing of the SEAWOLF Submarine.
This report was commissioned by the Fishers Island Conservancy to characterize the materials to
be dredged, assess the fates and movements of contaminated materials during dredging and
disposal, and develop alternatives for disposal of dredged materials.
The Conservancy has no problem with either the building of submarines, the basing of those
submarines in the New London-Groton area, or the need and necessity for the dredging process
itself The Conservancy does not oppose key weapons maintenance or weapons building
programs designed to increase or maintain the combat readiness of the United States Navy. The
Conservancy and its allied groups, however, are extremely concerned with the use of the New
London Disposal Site as a receptacle for toxic materials scooped up during dredging. Based upon
data which we have evaluated, we are of the opinion that the Navy's chosen disposal site is most
likely not a containment site, and that indeed it is an erosion site where strong tidal currents and
storm waves may spread dredge spoils which contain toxic constituents far outside the site
boundaries. These spoils, in turn, can threaten the ecological balance of a region which is now
part of a National Estuary and which straddles the Connecticut and New York State boundary.
The key focus of this report is on the toxicity of the material to be dredged, whether on large
projects or small, whether on government or private sector endeavors, the movement and fates of
ill
MAHlcW943771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the dredged material and the potential hazards and disadvantages of the disposal of the material at
the New London Disposal Site.
During 1990 and 1991, this proposed dredging project and some alternatives for disposal of the
dredged material were studied. The results of that study were presented in a Navy Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which was issued during April 1991. The selected
disposal site for massive Thames River dredging was the New London Disposal Site which is
about 2.5 miles south of the mouth of the Thames River and 1.7 miles from Silver Eel Cove on
Fishers Island. The EP A office of Environmental Review found the DEIS to be deficient in
several areas. One such area was a lack of rigorous evaluations of alternatives for disposal of
dredge materials.
It was concluded based upon review of the Navy's DEIS and other authoritative reports, that
much of the Thames River dredged material contains toxic constituents, which could easily be
released into the surrounding waters during disposal. It is likely that after this material is
deposited at the New London Disposal Site, some of it will be resuspended because of tidal and
storm induced currents. Finally, based on the Navy's own sponsored study, toxic constituents
from the Thames River sediment were found to bioaccumulate in worms and clams. Therefore,
we conclude along with the EP A that other disposal site alternatives and dredging methods should
be evaluated, and in the absence of further investigations requested by the EP A, the disposal of
dredged material at the New London Disposal Site should not be carried out.
This is particularly important since a recent survey has found that more than one-quarter of the
New London Disposal Site area is located in New York State, and is therefore subject to New
IV
MAlIIcazI943771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
York State laws and environmental regulations. Though many past disposal mounds may be
located within Connecticut, it is very likely that much of the post-dredge material has or will drift
into New York waters. Until now, to our knowledge, no entity on the Connecticut side of this
National Estuary site subject to dredge spoil pollution had contacted New York authorities about
the establishment of the site, nor had they contacted them about the issuance of any joint pennit.
v
MAlllcazI943771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. BACKGROUND
1 a. General
The Thames River acts as the marine highway for ocean going vessels constructed and
ported at various facilities along its banks. These facilities include the United States
Naval Submarine Base and General Dynamics Corporation Electric Boat Division.
The SEA WOLF submarine, which is being constructed at the Electric Boat shipyard in
Groton, may be home ported at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton,
Connecticut. Moreover, Groton or New London may be the location of the testing of
the submarine prior to commissioning. In the event that the submarine is home ported
at Norfolk, Virginia or Kings Bay, Georgia, testing will be performed at the Naval
Underwater Warfare Laboratory, Pier 7, New London per the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command '.
The United States Navy has proposed a plan to dredge the Thames River to
accommodate either or both of the above plans for the SEA WOLF submarine.
lb. Site Location
Dredging Area
Plans to dredge the Thames River have included a 41 foot deep 500 foot wide channel
from the mouth of the Thames River to the U.S. Navy Submarine Base and a large area
for maneuvering adjacent to the base. The plans would have resulted in up to 2.7
million cubic yards of dredge spoils. Additionally, based upon the proposed 41 foot
depth, 1.3 million cubic yards would be required to be dredged, if testing is performed
at the Naval Underwater Warfare Center in New London.
'Federal Re2ister; Vol. 59, No. 110; Thursday, June 9, 1994. Notices; Page 2978.
Page 1
MAHlcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revised depth requirements presented in the seoping meeting held in New London on
August 16, 1994 and discussed at a September 13, 1994 meeting at the Maguire Group
in New Britain, Connecticut, revealed that a 39 foot depth would be sufficient; limiting
the dredging to a 39 foot deep channel and maneuvering area north of the Gold Star
Bridge. The dredging for a 39 foot depth channel would result in 1.5 to 2 million cubic
yards of dredge materials to be disposed2.
Dumping Area for Dredged Spoils
The New London disposal site (NLDS) is an area in Long Island Sound approximately
2.5 miles south of the mouth of the Thames river and 1.7 miles from Silver Eel Cove on
Fishers Island. This area is approximately I nautical mile square. The depth of water
at this site varies from 40 feet to 80 feet at different locations based upon information
presented in the 1991 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Thames River
Dredging project3.
Figure I-I illustrates the project area including the proposed dredging site, the
proposed disposal site and Fishers Island. The approximate area to be dredged is
shown in Figure 1-2.
2 R.K. Ostennueller, Telephone Conversation, Environmental Planning Division, Norther Division,
NAVFACENGCOM, 9/8/94.
3 "Draft Environmental Imnact Sl8tement" Thames River Dredging Project: (DEIS), Department of the Navy,
Naval Facilities Engineeers Command, April 1991, Page 2-32 and Figure 2-4.
Page 2
MAHlcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
\
WATERFORD ...1
~I
Q:\
'::1
g\
~\
\
\
MASSAPEAG
QUAKER
HILL
US
COAST
GUARD
ACADEMY
NEW LONDON
NAVAL
SUBMARINE
BASE
GOLD STAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE
9!l
,
,
, ,---...... /
..-' '""'-..J
-' ,
-- \
~' - SOUt<O cO \\
:<- /' \S\..!l.t<O
~\c,o/ "\S'rl€.\'S
"C,....,~l r
,~~O~"
c,~'{
,."~<r::.
N W LONDON *
DISPOSAL SITE
--
,.
---
"
,~
~-
-
* LOCATION BASED UPON MAPPING BY
CHANDLER. PALMER AND KING INC..
NORWICH, CT.
..
-
Tl-IAMES RIVER DREDGING PROJECT
AREA MAP
-
-
2
4
6
--
SCALE OF MILES
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOlDGIES CORPORATION
<ill3 - . ....-.
LaDUca.. Arc~ . .,...,..
. =- .-. ~.a:=;
...--
--
-
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONNECTICUT
COlLEGE
N
UNCASVILLE
"
~
~
<J
...
Q
a::
12
a::
w
I-
~
NEW LONDON NAVAL
SUBMARINE BASE
NEW LONDON
CHANNEL TO BE DREDGED
(Approximately 8 miles per the DEIS)
(Approximately 2.5 miles per recent discussions)
!Ill
IlLECTRlC IlOAT
.
.f
jf
c;:f
1/2 0
SCALE OF MILES
M"
Tl-IAMES RIVER DREDGING PROJECT
SITE
-
-
--
-..
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOIJJGIES CORPORATION
<ill3 - . .........
~pI ircJI1tect. . 9aneyo"
. =- ... C!.--=
-(-~-
-..
-
1-2
d'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 c. Prior Dredging Projects
The total volume of dredged material removed from the Thames River from 1943
through 1989 was 13,954,650 cubic yards and the total volume disposed at the New
London Disposal Site from 1955 through 1989 was 12,896,772 cubic yards. Disposal
of material at this site has continued. The largest quantities were associated with the
SSN688 class submarine in 1975 and 1977 and the Trident class submarine in 19804.
ld Draft Environmental Impact Statement and EPA Critique
In April 1991, the Navy released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on
the Thames River Dredging Project which described several alternate disposal sites and
concluded that disposal at the New London site was the preferred alternative.
On July 15, 1991, the EPA issued a letter (see Appendix B) requesting that the DEIS
be supplemented to:
. Re-perform chemistry analyses
. Conduct bioassay and bioaccumulation testing
. Discuss sources of contamination
. Compare chemical composition of the proposed dredged material and the
material disposed ofin the past at the New London Disposal Site.
. Identify criterion by which the Navy will judge whether the sediment is
clean.
. Include data that indicates whether sediments outside of the New London
Disposal Site reflect any migration of material from the within site.
. Demonstrate the availability of an addition of 9 million cubic yards of
capping material.
4 ibid.: DEIS, Page 4-24 to 4-29
Page 5
MAll/caz/94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
. Discuss a past submarine grounding incident.
. Provide discrete layered core samples rather than composite samples so
individual sediment strata can be characterized.
. Assess cumulative impacts of disposal at the NLDS per NEP A requirements.
. Investigate the alternatives in depth.
The review letter questioned the DEIS's misapplication of Disposal Area Monitoring
System (DAMOS) Data used to draw conclusions on the cleanliness of the sediments.
The letter cited other sources that indicate that the sediments are contaminated. Most
of the items cited in the EP A lener have not been addressed to date based upon the
Navy's published information and reports.
The bioassay and bioaccumulation testing were conducted and presented in a 1992
supplemental report. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals and Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons did occur within the tissue of clams during testing of sediment from
samples near Pier 32 and Pier 33J. The bioassay testing of only four (4) sample
locations, recorded that the sediment was not toxic. However, the samples are limited
in number and from a small area that may not represent the entire sediment area, which
is nearly 2'h miles in length.
5 Technical Renort Sanmlin, and Testinll of Material Pronosed for Dredlrine: and (b."" Disposal. Thames River
Dredging, Connecticut. Department of the Navy, NA VF ACENGCOM, Northern Division. By the Maguire Group
Inc.; 1 Court Street, New Britain, Connecticut. Table 3.10, Page 17.
Page 6
MAHlcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. PURPOSE
Due to the volume and contaminated nature of the dredged materials from the Thames River
which are proposed to be disposed at the New London Disposal Site, this report was
initiated by the Fishers Island Conservancy. The purpose of this report is to study the nature
and impacts of disposing the dredged spoils at the New London Disposal Site and to suggest
additional alternatives for disposal of dredged material.
Page 7
MAlllcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIALS TO BE DREDGED
This section characterizes the materials to be dredged from the bottom of the Thames River
based upon the discharges to the river, the core sampling program, and the
bioassay/bioaccumulation testing of selected samples.
30. Discharges to the Thames River
Discharges to the Thames River include waste water eftluent, accidental spills, bilge
water from boats and storm water run-off. Review of the Department of
Environmental Protection files revealed that thirty-four (34) industrial and municipal
facilities are located adjacent to the Thames River. Seven (7) municipal treatment
plants discharge an estimated 30.S million gallons of effluent into the river.6 Treatment
of this effluent is limited to solids, bacteria, and oxygen demand. Heavy metals,
solvents, PCB's and other constituents are not now treated, nor have they ever been
treated in the past. Toxic constituents enter the Thames River and settle to the bottom
where they combine with other materials to become the benthos or sediment.
Accidental spills of hazardous and toxic wastes have occurred at many industrial and
municipal sites. These spills can enter the Thames River via surface run-off,
groundwater or storm sewers.
In December 1992, an oil barge containing nearly 1 million gallons of #2 fuel oil ran
aground on Black Ledge, and discharged about 30,000 gallons of its cargo into Eastern
Long Island Sound near New London. Many newspapers reported that this spill which
spread extensively for miles around, with surface sheens of oil reaching both Fishers
Island and Niantic. This spill occurred within a mile or two of the current New London
Disposal Site.7
6 "Row Sewalle Imoacts Thames Still Uncertain", The New London Day, Lynn Bonner. 5/31194, page AI, AIO.
7 RUDtured Barile Causes Reatinll Oil SDill at Mouth of Thames, Fishers Island Gazette, February 1993, Pages
3,24.
Page 8
MAIlICOlI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In addition, normal rainfall run-off suspends heavy metals and other constituents and
transports them overland and through storm sewers to the Thames River where they
settle to the bottom.
In order to determine the types and locations of potential discharges to the Thames
River, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection files were reviewed
and information which was obtained is presented in the following tables:
Table 3-1: Lists four (4) of the sites which are adjacent to the Thames River
and are listed under the United States Superfund Program and Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS).
Table 3-1 is a review of 1993 CT DEP Oil and Chemical Spill files. Significant
spills include materials such as oil and oily bilge water, starch water solution,
hydraulic fluid, tri-sodium nitrate, sewage, sorbitol solution, aluminum nitrate,
contaminated water and liquid asphalt. Unknown quantities of sulfuric acid, dyes
and unknown substances were also reported. It is worth noting that sewage spills
and/or discharges into the Thames River are both frequent and extensive.
Newspaper reports state that sewage overflows or discharges closed most of the
beaches near the New London Harbor mouth for most of the Summer of 1994 on
both sides of the river.
Page 9
MAHlcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE - 3-1
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
u.S. EP A Superfund Program Sites
l. Naval Submarine Base 3. Fort Trumbull
Groton (7 Sites) U.S. Coast Guard Site, New London
2. General Dynamics Corporation 4. Naval Underwater Systems
Eastern Point Road, Groton CenterlLAC
900 Bank Street, Fort Trumbull,
New London
NOTES:
1. This list was derived from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Program; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Base, dated: 10 January
1994.
Page 10
MAH/caz!94377
-------------------
TABLE - 3-2
OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS
Groton 1993
DoJe Quantity or
S. iIled Site 0 S. ill
tI$&ji
1/6/93
tn219:r .
3/26/93
Location and Rec tor
.tiimi.$1lbliiit~ijioUie~.RWet......
from Sub base into the Thames River
.fi(Mi$1lb_iiikiilie~~f
from E. Point Road, Pfizer through wastewater plant into the
Thames River
Corrective
Action
ll%~
0% recovered
Q%..~
0"10 recovered
4tU93
4/4/93
416193 .
4/6193
411)f93 .
4/16/93
41l6l93 .
4121/93
41Z9193
5/12193
into the Thames River
..rtOlii~..l$.Uie.N~$i.miodii\TI\j_.lUVet
from General . cs into Thames River
tttiiiiSil6Klliiiiiiifthil~Miit...
from U.S. Na Piers 12 &. 13 into the Thames River
.tiimi.$1lbij.iiij$ii.iliii..~lUVet.....
Possibl into the Thames River from Pfizer
r.llillNMiBili(\~llitij~R.Mit..
at 1-95 bridge in the Thames River
Unknowtl
Removed with
~with
500- Ions recovered
.. unknown
Removed with Pads
Boomed $ld
Neutralizin wash down
Unknowt1
0% recovered
00/. reoovered
from E. Point Road, East Dock, General Dynamics into the Thames 0% recovered
River
611S193
6/29/93
7/16193
7121/93
11W?3 .
8-11-93
Sewa e
Thl!l$l!Il.:I$lQjl jJ ,
Diesel fuel
from Sub base into the Thames River
fiMiPiell'N . .irllIii1liiliiiilUie!f!'iAi;+~}
from Pier 17 Sub base into the Thames River
Boomed and vacuumed
Removed with ds
2- Ions _cd
Unknown
O"A. recovered
Unknown
Page 11
MAHicazl94377
-------------------
TABLE - 3-2 (continued)
OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS
Date
S. illed
811W!l3
8/25/93
9116193.
9/16/93
9/18193 .
9/24/93
lOI1S193
10/20/93
I1IU193
11/16/93
12/1193
12nt93
12119/93 .
12/22/93
Corrective
Action
0% Il:Iiovered .
o % recovered
Reeoveted with
Contained and recovered
0% _red
0010 recovered
0% recovered
0010 recovered
O%_ellld
1.5 uarts recovered
Unknown
Unknown
0% recovered
0% recovered
MAHlcazl94371
Substance
S. illed
Bil e waler 2% oil
Bil water
Bil e waler
Oil sheen
Alumill\llll uillille SO% water
Diesel fuel
Location and Rece tOT
..II;AA~.~..bOCk..~m6.~..RlVei.....
from East Pier General namics into Thames River
. .lmm.Plii.~....SiiIl6ili:iillOtbe1'$m1Uver
from Pier 15 Sub base into the Thames River
from East Point Roa General . cs into the Thames River
.flbiil.Piiir...U.Siililiiillitotbi11iiiilUtuVe" .
from General . cs into the Thames River
IIlli4~~m6~~lU.iili. .
from Sub base into the Thames River
ftOtl:iCcliiili8t~.bOCklliili.tbe.~1Uva...
from Piers 15 &. 17, Sub base into the Thames River
.lmmll.lliithitotbi1.1iiliiell.1UWif .
from North of General Dynamics, possibly from a fishing fleet or
General . cs into the Thames River
Page 12
-------------------
New London
Date
S. illed
tl~:f
118/93
6/jt!l:r.
6/20/93
1.1flt!lj.
10/14/93
12119193
1993
Quantity or
Size 0 S. ill
TABLE - 3-2 (continued)
OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS
Led ard 1993
Date Quantity or
S. illed Size 0 S. ill
413019~
8/5/93
10/25/93
MAHicazl94377
Corrective
Action
Debri$I$OVal.
Di Ised
0% reeoveRd.
0% recovered
O"...~
0";" recovered
o%mliMired
Location and Rece tor
TABLE - 3-2 (continued)
OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS
Location and Rec tor
.fu1$lilri ... ..... . ...r 'iQiilii~~..
from 44 Bluff Road into the Thames River
Co"ective
Action
50- Ions recovered
0% recovered
0"10 recovered
Ora foam material
Unknown subslan<:e (black and
White
Reddish brown mixture
from 44 Bluff Road into the Thames River
0% recovered
Page 13
-------------------
TABLE - 3-2 (continued)
OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS
Location and Rece tor
/i,O)ill StmIi! ~~intodic.ThiIiIIcs aiVi:r
Dee Hollow Brook
.Al!$ ..... ..Jne.l)DtI1Ii~R.iVW
_Al!$ ....Ilic:.onme~RiVer ..
Corrective
Action
Unkll\JWl1
Conlained and ded
.0% r_red
0"4 nlllQWred
TABLE - 3-2 (continued)
OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS
. nebau River Route 12 Taftville
to.~~/Qui.". '671 NOI'Ih M8in.SlM, UiIknown
Solirlle
Corrective
Action
7S lIS recovered
Unknown
Unknown
NOTES:
1. This table was derived from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Chemical Spills File. in Hartford. Connecticut.
2. No spiIlsreported in 1994 as of 10 March 1994.
Page 14
MAH/cazl94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Due to known releases and discharges to the Thames River at least the following materials
may have contaminated the Thames River and possibly it's sediments:
Gasoline
Metals
Diesel
Salt
Oil
Bilge Water
Fuels; #2 and #6
Contaminated Water from Stone Containers
Oil Sheen
Tri-sodium Nitrate
Hydraulic Oils
Aluminum Nitrate
Transmission Fluid
Sorbitol
Oil Based Paint
Silicon Latex Paint
Lead Paint
Gray Foamy Materials
Foam Dye
Sewage - sludge
Tirmsol Coolant
Pesticides
Page 15
MAll/cazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3b. Core Sampling
The Thames River sediments were sampled and tested by the Navy to determine
physical and chemical characteristics. The core sampling program included
obtaining and testing sediment samples at 24 locations as shown in Figure 3-1.
The results of the sampling program are shown in Table 3-3. It should be noted
that there were only four (4) sediment samples collected south of the Gold Star
Bridge. It is unlikely that the sediments can be characterized by these few
samples.
Physical Characteristics
The physical data revealed that the sediments are 30 to 590/0 fine sand, silt and
clay. Most of the material consists of 40 to 55% fine material. This high
percentage of fine material is significant because it tends to bind to toxic
constituents, travels further in the water column during disposal (forms a
plume) and resuspends easily when subjected to currents.
Chemical Characteristics
The chemical characteristics are shown in table 3-3. Significant constituents
recorded include total petroleum hydrocarbons adjacent to Piers 32, 33, and
others at the Submarine base. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were
elevated especially from sample point No. 20 (north of the Gold Star Bridge),
and at the mouth of the Thames River. Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, copper, nickel, and zinc were found to be significant.8 9
Although they are below standards for sediment based upon the New England
River Basin Commission (NERBC) classification, they can accumulate in the
8 Technical Rqlort SamDlinl! and Testinll of Material Prooosed for Dredlrinll and Ocean Disoosal.
Thames River Dredging, Connecticut. Department of the Navy, NAVFACENGCOM, Northern
Division. By the Maguire Group Inc.; 1 Court Street, New Britain, Connecticut. Table 3.10, Page 17.
9 Numeric Criteria for Toxic Pollutants from the Connf'rljcut Water Oualitv Standards.
Page 16
.1".x.I.1--on~'t...,..,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tissue of the clams and worms and may violate water quality standards when
suspended or resuspended.
Fecal Coliforms
Fecal coliforms have been determined to range from 1,000 to 10,000 per 100
mI in the water column in the vicinity of the Submarine base. 10 These
concentrations of fecal coliforms exceed state water quality standards for
bathing beaches. In the event that elevated levels of coliforms are transported
to the New London Disposal site, they could be carried by tidal currents. The
fates of these coliforms can only be determined by determination of diurnal
currents and the time required for bacteria die-off.
3c. Bioassay and Bioaccumulation Results.
Bioaccumulation testing of sediments near Piers 1, 4, 32 and 33 of the
Submarine base revealed that bioaccumulation of contaminants was observed in
clams and worms. This result was based upon 28 day testing of Nere;s v;rens,
sand worms, and Macoma nasuta clams. This shows that there is a risk that
constituents could enter the food chain, and possibly effect human health.
Bioassay tests were conducted in a limited number of samples. Although the
results were that few clams and worms died, the samples were limited to just a
few areas. Therefore, the results do not represent the entire area to be dredged.
10 DEIS, Table 5-3, Page 5-11.
.
",.
Page 17
MAlllcazI94377__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNCASVILLE
N
GALES FERRY
c
cr:
o
lL..
cr:
W
~
:;:
NEW LONDON NAVAL
SUBMARINE BASE
. CORE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
CONNECTICUT
Cou.EGE
THIS MAP IS BASED UPON THE
DRAFT EIS BY MAGUIRE GROUP
NEW LONDON
CHANNEL TO BE DREDGED
GROTON
ILECTRlC BOAT
1/2 0
SCALE OF MILES
...
-
CORE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-
-
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOIDGIES CORPORATION
errs _.-..
~pe~....,...,..,.
. :.. .... CI. a;;:;
...--
--
--
-
3-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 3-3
Results of the Bulk Sediment Analysis
FISHERS ISLAND
Pier area 32,33 p;., alea aIon base I
COMPOUNDS NERIC SAMPlE STATION (2)
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 . . I. II 12 13 14 15 16 17 II ,. 2. 21 22 23 24
"4Water 40 30.57 35.85 31>.56 34.03 35.89 37.72 34.n 34.45 34.58 29.16 39.93 29.39 33.22 29.34 28.72 32.24 26.{)2 25.59 30.40 24.71 26.68 25.85 42.94 23.37
% Posslng 200 $leve 60 43.49 45.04 41.51 42.18 58.46 59.76 48.88 41.78 46.33 48.39 49.38 30.49 34.92 41.72 49.70 47.34 52.84 49.34 31>65 39.07 49.77 52.84 54.12 53.25
% Total Vob1lle Solids 5 7.3 8.0 11.3 7.4 5.7 8.7 7.3 63 6.0 5.7 8.1 3.3 3.7 6.1 4.1 5.5 4.4 4.3 2.9 4.1 3.2 2.3 2.3
Total Organic Carbon 28645 31>902 62876 27133 27981 29415 31183 21390 25939 22532 42654 18711 22358 21911 19161 16944 16220 26595 16118 13409 14200 11458 15433 9455
Total Petroleum HydrocarbonS 103 157 142 589 242 589 100
011 & Grease 0.20 .0117 .0118 0.020 0.005 0.005 0.053 O.oJI 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.008 0.006 O.e07 0.006 0.006 a.em 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.008 0002 0003
Metab
MenJc 10 7.68 7.30 4.26 8.34 4.78 4.58 6.38 8.01 7.43 4.31 5.82 7.89 5.77 8.70 4.32 6.79 5.43 7.91 5.65 5.SO 5.37 404 604 402
Cadmium 3 1.10 1.35 1.38 1.18 1.16 2.23 1.48 1.48 1.29 1.25 1.24 1.00 1.30 1.38 0.95 0.77 0.74 0.91 1.01 0.84 1,24 1.05 1.26 1.09
Chromlum 100 27.80 39.10 37.50 34.70 31.SO 34.40 35.40 34.90 2940 24.90 SO.OO 31.60 30.40 29.00 27.00 26.80 20.70 25.20 25.90 22.00 27.90 24.80 26.C:Q 22.00
MerclJ"y 0.5 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.06 NO 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.30 0.16 0.10 0.04 NO 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.06
lead 100 28.30 58.80 48.00 40.00 33.SO 35.90 34.60 41.80 30.10 24.40 58.10 41.10 31.40 31.00 26.00 21.10 20.40 24.70 26.60 20.70 35.70 25,60 25.00 1920
Coppe< 200 22.SO 40.90 36,70 34.70 25.SO 24.10 24.50 26,40 2240 10.00 31>.90 32.10 21.20 21.30 18.80 18.30 10.40 15.20 14.80 10.70 17,90 13.30 14.70 10.40
~nc 200 47.30 83.60 81,30 73.90 49.70 61.30 54.70 n.tIJ 59.20 43.20 64.10 62.70 55.00 56.30 67.90 46.30 38.70 55.00 44.90 46.30 58.20 38.10 5630 37.50
Nickel SO 13.40 24,70 15.70 14,10 13.20 16.80 15.90 18.10 15.50 15.50 13.60 11.00 16.30 15.30 13.80 16.00 10.20 13.00 15.20 13.00 16.9(} J4.60 20.00 15.20
Polynuclea Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pyrene .192 .103 .106 .347 .088 NO .133 NO NO NO .187 .185 NO .037 NO NO NO NO NO 1.024 NO NO NO NO
Benzo (Anthracene) .500 NO NO .223 NO .483 .467 NO .077 NO 548 .160 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO .649 .422 .31>6 474 10000
Chrysene .155 NO NO .106 .067 .070 .109 NO .067 NO .310 NO .044 NO NO .086 NO NO .074 .567 .079 "" 049 NO
BenzoPyrene .610 NO NO .168 NO .078 NO NO NO NO .300 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 258 ,310 .257 .334 0314
Phenanthrene NO NO NO .117 NO NO NO NO NO NO .157 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO .067 NO NO NO NO
Fluoranthene .378 NO NO 221 NO .085 .211 NO NO NO .463 .202 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1.100 .040 NO NO NO
I. This table was derived from the Reid Report. .Benthlc and Sediment Sampling on the Thames River. New london, CT". prepared by Moqulre Group, Inc" April 1990.
2 Concentrations ore In parts-per-nilllon except tor water content and total volatile solids which are percentages.
3. NO.. No Detectlon
4. The compounds listed In this table Ofe the ones detected during this anoly$ls. other compounds sought were not detected.
5. The maximum concentration ot codmumalowable Is 0.6 mg/kg Ret. EPA PortZ27
6 New England River Basin Corrmlsslon (Table 3A Draft EIS) class 1 and low concentration figures presented.
94IOJXlS
P919
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. FATES AND MOVEMENTS OF CONTAMINATED
MATERIALS
4a. Loss of Materials during Disposal Operations
The New London Disposal Site is subjected to variable and strong currents
from tidal action. In the past, disposal of dredged materials through open water
disposal has been found to result in a 1% to 14% loss of material II A study
applying mass balance data accumulated on a similar dredging project found
3.7% loss of material. Another study concluded that up to 14% of the material
was lost to the water column and bottom surge or flux.
Based on the foregoing, almost 55,500 cubic yards of material could be lost in
the disposal activity, (3.7% of 1.5 million cubic yards). Furthermore, the worst
case would result in 210,000 cubic yards (14% of 1.5 million cubic yards) of
material lost. To date, there is no information in the record to show where such
fine suspended material will eventually be deposited.
4b. Erosion and Resuspension of Deposited Material
The current patterns in Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Rhode Island,
and the major Cape Cod areas are shown in figure 4-1. The Massachusetts
Maritime Academy concluded that near bottom velocities of 1. 75 feet per
second will induce erosion and transport previously dredged Thames River
material. 12
II Environmental Effects of Dredeinl!. Technical Notes. Fate of Dredl!ed Material Durinl! ODen Water
Disoosal; U.S. Army Engineering Water Ways Experiment Station; Environmental Laboratory;
Vicksburg, Mississippi; EEDP' 01 - 2; September, 1986; Page 9.
12 DEIS; Page 2.34
Page 20
MA!lIcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In order to confirm current data of the DEIS, The Fishers Island Conservancy
commissioned a study of the current velocities at the New London disposal site
by Ocean Surveys, Inc., of Saybrook, CT (Appendix A). Current metering,
performed in calm seas during a normal tide, resulted in a maximum current
velocity of 1. 94 feet per second at a depth of 48 feet which is 2 feet above the
present bottom at the disposal site during August and 2.01 feet per second
during October. This velocity corresponds with the current cited in the Navy's
DEIS. (see page 3-27) Furthermore, an authoritative study notes that peak
storm generated wave velocities are predicted to reach 7.2 to 9.0 feet per
second at a depth of 40 feet, in Long Island Sound which is approximately the
depth of the top of the highest part of the existing dredge disposal pile. 13
Because the velocity at which particles resuspend is estimated to be 1. 75 feet
per second, (see page 2-34 of the Navy's DEIS), the measured maximum
velocity during a normal tide is 1.94 feet per second and the modeled peak
storm velocity at 40 feet deep is estimated to be 7.2 to 9.0 feet per second, it
can be concluded that a substantial portion of the material dumped at NLDS
will be subjected to resuspension. This conclusion corresponds with a key
academic study that identifies eastern, Long Island Sound as an "Erosion Zone"
(see Figure 4_2).14 Based upon this information, it is most unlikely that the
NLDS can be termed a "containment site," suitable for use for a dredged
material disposal area.
13 DEIS, Page 3-27
14 Stabilitv of Giant Sand Waves in Eastern Lone Isl~nd Sound, Michael S. Fenster, et. aI., 1990 Marine
Geology, \'o1.91,p. 207-225
Page 21
MAI1IcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4c. Potential Fate Dredge Materials
Ebb currents over the NLDS flow in directions ranging from bearing 900 to
1250. During ebb tides, the currents are strongest and resuspension of materials
most likely. Dredge materials may be carried as suspended material in the water
column and may reach Fishers Island in the area of Silver Eel Cove, as well as
other areas along the Connecticut shoreline.
Page 22
MAIlIcazI94377
-------------------
N
Ebb current
Flood current
~
is fair toward Newport
Is fair leaving Newport
...
Cape Cod
bay
...,.~
......^...'.........
.', """:..
,.
, ^
"'" .)l
'~~'.."".'
'; N N. '
,--.
, ";~'. . ,.., .'.. ; ,',
Potential Dis osal Area
~.
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL AREA ...... ..
AND ..... ..-
CURRENTS ~~
Source: Eldridge Tide and Pilot Book 1994
-~
DIVERSIFIED 'rECHNOLOGlES CORPORATION
cill3 InI;In..n . Plau_n
l.an48ca~ Arohlteotll . Surftyor.
. ~"~;t ~A=
bIl(.., __..-
~~
-
4-1
Page 23
-------------------
N
CONNECTICUT
Cu rr,,-nT
11 ,~ ~shers Island
EROSION ZONE G-'l . .
oc>~ ~
TRANSPORT ZONE
(/
LONG ISLAND
~
DEPOSITION ZONE
--
c:;- Long Island Saund ~
...
PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS IN CENTRAL
AND EASTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND
-
-*
-
Map Source: Stability of Giant Sand Waves in Eastern Long Island Sound, U.S.A.
Michael S. Fenster. Duncan M. Fitzgerald. W. Fronk Bohlen
Rolph S. Lewis and Christopher T. Baldwin
-~
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
&.e _.. . .........
Laws.oa;. Arohlt.eou . S~YO'"
. .....~..=
N:(_~4IOD
""~
-
4-2
Page 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. AL TERNA TIVES
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the Navy dated April 1991 and the
supplemental technical report generally addressed some alternatives for disposal of
the proposed dredged spoils including land disposal, open water disposal, and
combined open water/land disposal. The New London, Cornfield shoals and New
Haven sites were evaluated. The selected site was the New London Disposal Site
which is about 2.5 miles south of the mouth of the Thames River.
Because of the potential adverse impacts of disposal at the New London Disposal
Site, and because of the fact that a substantial portion of the site is in New York
State waters, additional alternative sites less subject to ecological damage are
outlined below.
It should be emphasized that the EPA review letter of the Navy's DEIS (see
Appendix B) strongly critiqued the Navy's lack of specific consideration of
alternative dump sites in any detail. The only additional work that has been carried
out and published since the letter was written is the boiaccumulation and bioassay
work.
Sa. Disposal within a diked area to form an Island at Black Ledge.
This alternative includes disposal at a site near the mouth of the Thames River
as described in the Army Corps of Engineers report entitled "The Long Island
Sound Dredged Materials Containment Feasibility Study", 198315 It would, as
conceptualized by the ACOE, provide a capacity of 12 million cubic yards,
however, it could be designed smaller to accommodate 1.5 to 4 million cubic
yards. The surrounding containment structures would consist of dikes of
quarry stone, chips, armor stone and gravel blankets, and the resulting island
15 The Lam! Island Sound Dredl!ed Material Contaminent FeasibililV Studv PrOI!reSS ReDon, Department
of the Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, 424 Trape10 Road, Waltham, MA. 02254,
February 1983.
Page 25
MAHlcaz/94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
would be 1,700 feet by 1,700 feet. After settlement and capping, it is possible
that this created land could be used for recreation, navigation (see discussion on
grounding of an oil barge on Black Ledge shoals, page 8) or public facilities.
Major considerations of this alternative are wave protection, environmental
impacts and costs. Detailed investigations of this alternative are beyond the
scope of this study, but the impacts on the environment would be negligible,
since containment would be assured by the dike.
5b. Containment Near Shore
Containment near shore is another potential alternative for disposal of dredged
materials. The aforementioned Army Corps of Engineers report evaluated the
disposal of dredged spoils along the bank of the Thames River, north of the
Gold Star Bridge. This alternative as shown in the 1983 report could contain
approximately 270,000 cubic yards of material. Major problems cited in the
report were the foundation conditions, caused by soft sediment. This option
could be re-evaluated in light of the need for a disposal site closer to the dredge
site. Also, other near shore sites should be evaluated in order to provide
adequate capacity for the remainder of the dredged material.
5e. Floatation of Submarines
Depths to the bottom from the water surface average approximately 37 feet
(unspecified tide level).16 The SEAWOLF submarine requires a depth of35.5
feet of water to float. Based upon the DEIS, an additional 7 feet (total 42.5
feet) of channel depth may be required for various technical reasons. Based
upon discussions with the Navy this depth of channel required will be reduced
to 39 feet. If the submarine could be stabilized and an air inflatable bladder type
floatation device installed, it may be possible to provide adequate clearance
16 Field Reoort. Benthic and Sediment Samolin2 on the Thames River. New London. Connecticut:
NA VF ACENGCOM, Northern Division; By Maguire Group, Inc., New Britain, Connecticut, April 1990,
Table 3.
Page 26
MAHlcazI943n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with minimal dredging. It should be noted that the portion of the submarine
which would be exposed is a relatively small because of the geometry of the
water surface intersecting a circular shape. The DEIS evaluated floatation
methods and concluded that the time constraint was too severe. However, it is
possible that the aforementioned design could incorporate time saving devices
by quickly attaching the floatation device and inflating it. This alternative
becomes more feasible if the Navy opts to reduce the required clearance
between the bottom of the submarine and the bottom of the Thames River
channel.
5d Ocean Disposal
The currents flowing out into the open ocean during ebb tide, slow substantially
after they pass from Long Island Sound into Block Island Sound.17 In addition,
the water is more than 100 feet deep in the offshore ocean areas. Disposal of
dredge material in deep water would prevent impacts by wave action and would
likely result in little, if any migration of dumped, capped, dredged spoils. An
ocean area, well beyond the "race" should be evaluated. Avoidance of impacts
upon Fishers Island, Block Island or Montauk Point, N.Y must be considered.
Based upon information supplied by Dr. Thomas Fredette of the Army Corps of
Engineers, we are of the opinion that five such sites have been historically
considered or used.
5e. Upland Disposal of Dewatered Material
Upland disposal of all or at least a portion of the dredge material should be
considered in light of the possibility that the sediment could be hydraulically
dredged and dewatered. Based upon discussions with a dredging and
dewatering firm located in Massachusetts, which has conducted numerous
17 Elderidl!e Tide and Pilol Book; Marion Jewe\1 While, Publisher; Co. 1993, Bos1on, Massachusetts.
Page 27
MAHlcazJ94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dredging projects in Florida, Massachusetts, and elsewherel8, channels can be
dredged utilizing the less costly hydraulic method. The material is then
dewatered to 60 to 70 percent solids (equivalent to in-situ percent solids) and
land disposed. The dewatering system operates at 1,200 - 1,500 gallons per
minute. Solids can be off loaded into trucks and then transported to disposal
sites.
An intensive investigation of dredged material dewatering techniques and
identification of private and/or public sites for dewatered sediment should be
initiated.
Sf. Rhode Island Alternative
Based upon Figure 4-1, overall current patterns in one area appear to be
suitable for disposal of dredge spoils. A possible location where currents split
during the ebb tide and flood tide forming a relative dead spot is located about
15 miles south of Brenton Point which is on the Newport Peninsula. Further
investigation of this site could prove this area to be a suitable alternative. Three
acceptable disposal sites near shore have been historically used or considered in
this Rhode Island area in the past, (see NOAA chart 13-218) and could possibly
be resurrected and made operational again without undue regulatory difficulty. 19
18 James Meagher: Telephone conversation, J.D. Meagher, Inc.; Specialists in Sludge Handling;
Westborough, MA. 9/8/94.
19 Ref. Map of Open Water Sites Historically Used/Considered. Provided by Dr. Thomas Fredette
U.S.A.C.O.E.
Page 28
MAlllcazl94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. The Thames River dredge material contains toxic constituents including heavy
metals and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
2. A substantial quantity of this dredged material will be released into the water
column and surrounding areas where dredge material is dumped. It is very likely
that substantial quantities would be released at the New London Disposal Site.
3. It is also likely that some dredge material will be resuspended by storm and
selected tidal caused currents because the estimated resuspension current is 1. 75
feet per second and the modeled storm current is 7.2 to 9.0 feet per second. The
current measured by Ocean Surveys, Inc., on a normal tide during August 24,
1994, was 1.94 feet per second, at 48 feet deep or 2 feet off the bottom.
Required capping would not be put in place for an extended period of time at this
site, thus exposing dumped sediment to additional current causing erosion.
4. Toxic constituents did bioaccumulate in worms and clams from the Thames
River, according to the Navy's test results.
5. Alternatives suggested herein for safer disposal of toxic dredge spoils should be
further investigated. Given the disadvantages of the New London Disposal Site,
this conclusion is strongly emphasized, particularly since a recent survey map
based on location coordinates supplied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
showed that a large portion of the New London Disposal Site actually lies in
New York State waters, presumably thus involving that State and its
environmental authorities in evaluation and permitting of project dumping toxic
spoil there.
Page 29
MAllJcaz/94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. Based upon existing available information, it is highly likely that a substantial
amount of contaminated material will be dispersed into areas adjacent to the
proposed New London Disposal Site. Therefore, without further investigation as
requested by the EPA (See Appendix B), the Navy's proposal to dispose of the
dredged spoils at the New London Disposal Site should not be carried out.
7. Further investigations and evaluations most decidedly should be given to
alternative disposal sites.
Page 30
MAHlcazJ94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. SOURCES
1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Thames River Dredge Project, Thames
River Groton, and New London, New London County, Connecticut; Department
of Navy, NAVFACENGCOM, Northern Division, Dated April 1991.
2. Review of DEIS Letter by Elizabeth Higgins Congram, Assistant, Director,
Office of Environmental Review , United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 1, to Robert Ostermueller, Department of Navy
NAVFACENGCOM; Dated: July 15,1991.
3. Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) Monitoring Cruise at the New
London Disposal Site, Published Dates: August 1988, 1987, 1985-1986, 1981-
1984.
4. Federal Registerl Volume 59, No. 1101 Thursday, June 9, 19941 Notices.
5. Eldridge Tide and Pilot Book. 1994 Edition.
6. Fate of dredged material during open-water disposal. Environmental Effects of
Dredging, Technical Notes, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Dated: September 1986.
7. Permit application fill for tidal coastal 1 Navigable waters Long Island Sound
Programs Office (Note: Alternative must be studied)
8. Stability of Giant Sand Waves in Eastern Long Island Sound, USA July 1989.
Michael S. Fenster, Duncan M. Fitzgerald, W. Frank Bohlen, Ralph Lewis,
Christopher T. Baldwin. Sand Walks of Coarse Sand Occur in Eastern Long
Island Sound Due to Tidal Espercall Storm Related Currents.
Page 31
MAlllcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9. Technical Report - Sampling and Testing of Material Proposed for Dredging and
Ocean Disposal - Thames River Dredging, etc. 1992-1993.
10. Dredge Material Management Program USACOE May 1992.
11. Ruptured Barge Causes Heating Oil Spill at Mouth of Thames, Fishers Island
Gazette, Feb. 1993, Pages 3, 24.
Page 32
MAHlcazI94377
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
CURRENT METER DATA
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC.
August 11, 1994
and
October 6, 1994
I
1
0 48. L ;n. 0 46.3 0 5.9 45. I 45. \ 8
0 48.0 0 46.S 45.9 0 ~~.4 45. \ 44.7
0 47.9 46.6 0 46.7 46.5 0 6.1 45.0 45.5 0
N 47.8 47.1 ... 46.8 46.6 '" 5.9 44.8 4'.4 CO N
CO 46.9 CO 47.0 CO 5.4 45.0 45.5 CO
- 47.6 47.7 - 47.2 45.9 4.4 44.8 45.7 -
49.6 47.4 -
- 49.9 47.2 - 48.3 46.1 4.1 44.6 45.7 I
w 49.6 49.1 w 47.7 46.0 w 5.3 44.5 46.7 w
50.3 49.9 49.6 45.0 5.4 ".9 46.7
51.0 49.0 47.7 44.0 5.5 44.9 46.9
50.6 49.8 49.2 ".8 6.1 45.8 46.7
53.0 49.2 48.2 46.6 6.0 45.9 46.9
53.3 50.3 .8.8 46.2 6.' .5.8 .6..
52.8 50.5 48.6 46.' 6.5 46.3 47.'
54.2 ~O.~ 48. I 46.9 6.7 '6 4 '7.9 N 664 000
53.~ 50.6 ~U 4U IT ~\J ~U
53.5 49.0 '9. I '5.0 7.6 46.1 .7.0
53.3
53.9 50.3 48.4 46.3 7.2 46.6 .7.2
53.5 50.4 48.3 46.3 9.0 47. I 46.9
51.0 '9. I '6.0 7.5 46.7 .6.2
53.3 50.8 49.0 46.2 7.0 46.7 47.9
54.4 52.1 50.0 '5.3 6.' 47.8 '9.7
54.4 50.3 49.9 46.2 8.6 50.1 52.1
53.6 50.8 50.6 47.7 9.9 51.1 5'.1
54.3 51.3 51.9 48.3 0.2 53.3 56.'
55.3 52.1 52.9 47.4 2.9 54.6 56.0
57.6 53.3 54.5 '8.6 5.' 55.6 56.1
56.3 53.9 55.5 50.2 4.9 56.4 57.9
59.9 55.5 56.9 51.9 4.9 56.6 57.9
61.7 59. I 56.2 51.' 5.7 57.1 57.0
63.6 59.5 59.0 50.7 5.4 57.' 56.9
64.7 61.7 59.4 49.3 rH- 57.' g~:~ - - ~I
1- _66....3.- ~- ~ - ---"6. r- - - 5r:s--
66.3 59.2 44.0 4.5 57.6 59.7
~~.~ ~~.~ 57.5 44. I ... 57.' 59.1 N 662 000
66.9 --q:T 60:6 44:2 5:2 55:8 ~:5 I
I 66.5 63.9 59.0 ~4 4.0 57.0 54.7
65.4 62.8 61.5 4 . 6.\ 56.0 55.'
66~ 63.7 61.3 5.7 54.9 55.6
67 6'.3 60.5 ".3 5.4 5'.5 57.0 I
I 69. 65.7 58.9 44.2 6.4 53.' 59.1
69.1 65.6 62.2 46.5 5.0 52.5 57.9
689 66.7 61.6 46.3 6.3 55.2 54.4
72'0 66.3 59.0 49.0 9.8 53.0 55.3 I
I 72'5 65.2 56.9 50.6 9.6 51.0 53.3
73 '5 65.3 57.9 53.4 9.3 52.9 53.7
75'7 66.0 59.5 55.\ 9.9 54.9 53.6
I 75'666.1 59.2 59.6 7.0 57.4 57.9 I
75'2 65.5 58.9 61.2 7.1 56.2 59.9
75' I 61.9 59.1 61.6 9.1 5'.7 59.2
76'9 61.9 59.6 62.0 9.0 53.5 60.6
I 75'4 61.5 59.5 59.5 9.0 52.\ 60.5 I
73'5 61.8 57.9 61.0 9.9 51.9 60.3
73' 9 61.3 56.7 60.' 0.0 49.6 60.7
. 60 7
7.S'l!. 63:7 56.5 60.3 0.4 49.6 59.3 N 660 000
I 65.9 1f:l 63:4 60:8 1:1 53.9 ~H I
66.6 63.0 61.2 0.9 56.5 62.~
66.4 62.8 60.' 59.4 0.5 57.9 63.
I 66.7 62.9 59.6 55.5 & 0.5 59.3 64.5 I
65.9 60.3 59.4 55.2 7.7 59.1 6..0
6\.4 60.2
69.4 62.7 53.7 57.0 8.5 6'.6
70.9 58. \ 9.3 59.5 63.0
62.9 55.2 5'.' I
I 72.' 63.2 57.0 55.2 O. I 63.9
74.6 55.2 57.0 0.9 52.9 62.3
73.5 65.' 56.6 56.0 2.1 56.9 62.4
66.' 59.3
73.9 66.1 57.2 57.7 4.5 64.9 I
I 73.4 55.9 57.4 9. I 60.8 65.2
65.6 61.3
71.9 65.9 55.2 57.1 9.\ 63.0 65.9
72.2 67.2 56.7 59.3 9.6 65.4 68.5
72.2 68.1 55.3 58.6 1.0 67.9 68.0 I
I 70.2 69.1 56.9 59.0 2.1 67.9 69.3
69. I 68.4 59.3 59.0 2.9 69.9 68.4
67.6 67.7 62.2 58.9 3.3 70. I 68.1 I
I 67.7 67.2 67.2 63.3 4.7 !H 68.8
~~.~ 68.5 70.3 64.6 5.4 69. I N 658 000
,- 65.4 68: I 74:6 65:4 6:7 73.5 ~t1
74.5
63.2 67.8 74.4 66.2 8.0 75.4 69.2 I
I 60.9 67.0 75.3 66.6 8.2 76.1 69.7
60.1 66.6 75.4 66.9 9.0 77.1 69.7
61.9 65.4 75.4 71.9 9.5 78.3 70.7
62.9 65.3 75. I 74.6 9.1 79.2 71.5 I
I 64.2 65.\ 74.6 76.2 8.1 79.\ 71.9
64.8 64.9 74.5 77.4 8.9 79.4 72.8
64.7 66.0 74.0 78.4 9.2 79.6 74.3
64.9 66.5 73.4 78.7 9.5 80.6 75.5 I
I & 64.8 66.3 73.4 79.5 0.5 81.1 7~
65.2 66.6 72.2 79.3 1.3 91.5 77 6
65.0 66.4 72.1 79.5 1.5 9\.5 7
68.0 67.3 71.7 79.2 2.0 8\.0 7 . I
I 70.4 69.4 72.2 79.0 2.5 81.3 79.8
71.0 69.7 71.6 79.3 2.7 81.8 79.8
71.0 70.1 71.2 79.1 2.5 79.5
71.0 71.0 ~.!.- 79.1 - - ~.9_ 91.9 90.0 _ ---l
L- - '""T1":1)- - - 7'1.1 -8.1. 9 -7r.r- N 656 000
~ CURRENT METER NEW LONDON DISPOSAL SITE
DEPLOYMENT SITES SCALE: I" - lOQO' -
a.. .....
~
I'
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATION:
TIME:
WATERDEPTIi:
#4
1419
51'
Depth ~>>-I , . Speed I Di~
';'..:
.... (nl . . see\ l"True\
Surface 2.16 3,18 087
10 2.01 2.96 087
20 1.86 2.74 088
30 1.98 2.91 089
40 1.55 2.28 105
49 1.37 2.01 ,/ 087
STATION:
TIME:
WATER DEP'IH:
#5
1430
62'
STATION:
TIME:
WATERDEPTIi:
SurfiIcc 2.01 2.96 100
10 1.84 2.70 103
20 1.67 2.45 107
30 1.43 2.09 091
40 1.30 1.91 097
SO 1.09 1.60 105
60 0.91 1.33 077
#6
1441
90'
SurfiIcc
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
88
1.96
1.84
1.66
1.51
1.45
1.38
1.19
1.10
0.99
0,75
087
098
099
097
101
097
097
096
106
116
ocr 0/ /7'7"</
oc.:c/l.tJ 5(.J/?i/EyJ'r/\/c,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATION:
TIME:
WATER DEPTIi:
#4
1700
SO'
Deptb Speed Speed Diautioa
(it\ (mDb) Iftlsec) ("True)
Swfacc 2.24 3.29 100
10 2.11 3.10 099
20 l.73 2.54 090
30 l.65 2.42 101
40 1.42 2.08 089
48 1.32 l.94 086
V'
STATION:
TIME:
WATER DEPTH:
#5
1717
59'
>>:~ Speed Speed Diredioa
. (~Db) (Wille) -/"True) .
Surface 2.13 3.13 105
10 2.11 3.10 098
20 1.77 2.60 101
30 1.70 2.49 102
40 1.47 2.16 to2
50 1.06 !.S6 102
57 0.82 1.20 115
STATION:
TIME:
WATER DEPTH:
#6
1737
79'
Deptb ~:~ Speed Diredioa
L .:.(in .. . .. (ftI_) ':: ,"
Surface 1.90 2.79 088
10 1.82 2.67 091
20 1.73 2.54 096
30 1.70 2.49 102
40 !.SO 2.20 110
50 1.27 1.86 113
60 0.98 1.44 125
70 0.94 1.38 128
77 0.69 l.01 133
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
July 15, 1991 EPA Review
Letter Regarding the Draft
Environmental Impact
Statement
I,...:.".... .
. ^~..
I' ~/j 7,
~:
.... ,.:""
'.,/"OIICf1"'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U~ITEO STATES ENVIRONMa:NTAL. PROTECTION ..GENCY
A!QIO~ I
.J.F. KI!HNl!OY 'I!OI!I=lAL 9UILOIHO. BoaTON, .....".AcHUalTT"S ln203-2211
July 15, 1991
Hr. Ro~ert oste~=ueller
Depar~ment of ~he Navy
Nor~hern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering co~~and
Building 77L, U.S. Naval Base
philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112-5094
Dear Mr. oster=ueller:
!n accordance with our responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl and S~~Qn 309 ot the Clean Water
Ac~, we have reviewed the Department of the Navy's Draf-=-/.
Environmen~a1 J::npac~ State!:l2::t (!lE!S) for the proposed Tha:::es River
Dredging project at the Naval SUbmarine BaSel in Groton and New
London, connecticut. Because the proposed action requires a per:::it
from thEl Armv Coros of En~ineers under Jection 404 of the Clean
Water Act, ~YA nas'also rev ewea the EIS from ~~El siandpoint ot ens
cr~eeria to be applied during its review of the subsequent 404
permit application. ---
- _h_
According to the DEIS, the Na~l is proposing to dredge 2.7 million
cubic yards of sediment from an a-~ile stretch of the Thames .River
in order to provide sufficient channel depth for the SE.\WCLF
nuclea::- submarine. which is sc~eduled to unde::-go a se:::-ies of
pel:"~ormance tes~s. evaluations, and modifications at the naval
:acili~y. The Navy proposes to dispose of the material at.the New
London Qisposal Si~e (~LDS). lcca~ed 2.5 miles due south of ~he
~oueh of the River in Long-Island sound.
The Thames River is one of four major estua=ies in the state of
. Connecticut opElning into Long Island Sound. .>.ccording to the DE!S,
the estuary provides important spawning and migratory habitat ~Cl:"
::-esiden~ and migrant fish, is an area of intense rec::-eational
fishing as well as lobstering, and contains oyster beds and
hardshell clam habitat, the la~ter of which is closed to
shellfishing because of high fecal coliform lavals. !n addition to
r-ec:::-eational fishing, the Tha~~s ~iver is heavily used for_
shEllfishinq, recrQa~ional bOa~ing, manu:ac~~=ing, commercial a~d.
mili~~~~~' and wastewater tl:"eat~ent operations. Groweh
~ a~~ of these uses is ex~eceed in the fut~:::-e (D~!S. p. 3-2).
~s part of thEl National ~stuary ?rcgram, Long Island sound has ~een
designa~ed an "Es~uary 0: ~lationa::' Significance. II Through this
progr-am, ~?A has carr-ied cut water quality research. monitor-ing,
a~~ asses$men~s 0: ~~e es~~a~y and is develo?:~g, along ~~~~ s~~~a,
local, public and private gr-oups, a Conserva~ion and xanage~ent
?la~ designQ~ ~o i~p~ove ~ha heal~~ of ~~2 es~~a=Y. ~~e ;=i~a=y
,-"".,
:.!~~"
-"_-A.;~-
.~,
oJ ~ .. .. ....
a.'N":'IO ON ~'C:""C;..ig .....lJf,A
. -
.~' .
"_. ~ ~-...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
2
.. 9=ohlems identi~ ied i:1 :"or.g Island Sound -:~.=ou;:-. ~he Na~iona:
'::stuary Progrll::l are: low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia); toxi:::,
contamina5ion; pa~hoqens; floatable debris; and ~he health or ~h~
communf€9 o~ livi~; ma=ine resources as they rela~e ~o ~.,a':e:
quality.
Also pertinent to this proposed proj ec': is ';.'le existence oJ: eleven
currently ident"fied hll::a::-dous waste sites at the Croton Nllval
submarine 9ase;~11 of which are included as II site on the National
Priority,List (NPL) u:1de::- ':na COl!'.p::-ehensive ~nvirol'_'tIental Response,
compensation, and Liability Act (super!und), 42 a.s.c. Sec. 9601 ~
ug, and are underqoing a cleanup process referred to as the
Installlltion Resto::-ation p::-oqram (IRP). Three of these sites a::-e
located along the Thames River, while a fourth sit.. ia located
alona tributaries to the River. Thev are believed to be
contaminated with metals and fuels resulting froe previous
operations at the Naval :a:::i11t1.-----
~
'Based on ou::- ::-8view, EPA believes ~hat tne D~IS does not adequately
assess the potential envi::-onmen':al impacts of the proposed action
and that tant1ally more scientific infor:ation particularly
with ::-eqard to the, su~~ ~_~~ 0 tne se l::lent for ocean disposal
and the availabili tV of clean material ~or QaitP..1...ng I mus'::. ce
provided to demonscrace chat the p::-oposed ac'::.ion will not resul'::. in
unacceptable adve::-se biological i~pacts to the marine environment.
Without this demonscration. we would occose the issuance o! a 404
permit to allow disposal of the dredged material at the NLDS and
. recommend that othe::- alce::-natives to d::-edqing and ocean disposal be
more fully evaluated and conside::-ed in the !IS. Our ~ore detailed
'oncerns are as follo~s.
,
,
Adeauaev Q! Data
We believe the analysis in the D~!S fails overall tod.provide
.~e~a.:te 0::- in some cases app::-op::-1.ate 5c::..ntific intor:naticn--t-Q
support its conclusions reqa::-ding the acceptacility of the dredged
.~~erial fo: ocean disposal and the po~en~ial i~cac~ f~om dis~o5al
on the ma::.ne envi=o::m.;\~. .. -~ --
=C~ example, ~ecp~- ~Q~'-en~ che~is~=Y da~a ~aken as ~ar~ of ~~e
::-emedial investigac~on o~ the Su~e::-=und Slees snowS n::.gnar
contam::.naclon eve~s chan those - -ted::.n E~. 3asaa-on
1:. .1. n.o.1 on, we -ion ....rhe"=.har ~he a....- ":;~Q
~.. I on wnJ.cn co ' 11 ~....,.. .~ ~ha aCCQo't:a i:'':'t.yo=--=~.= ;. ~'g'-Qci
::\a ..__... _ :or ocean d:i.3cosal a=a :::ased, are rat:Sr"e"gen1:a':.-i;ve-of- -=ha
a=aas ~o be d~ac~ed. We tharefore" r9que9~ i~=s~~~~tne Navy
:eper:or::lt;~e chem~~~=Y ar:'~l:Ls)._~. o~ -:hesa a:-eas (Seil :"..1.:::,-::-'9=
cottunents- ::810w) and ~:le:;- c:::~d.~c~ :,ioassay and bioacc'..:::t~~_~~
eesting 0: t~ese areas i~ o~:e~ ~~ acc~~a~alv assess -:~e ?o~an~ia:
:o~ adverse biolog~cal a=:ac~s on Long !sla~d so~nd.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Whe=a con~aci~a~ion is iden~~~iad in ~he analysis, the OE!S scoulc
include a discussion of ~he so~ce or :his cQn~a~ination, as well
's ~he known risk i~ poses ~o h~~an heal~h and the enviror~en~,
whe~her it be let~ in place, dredged, or disposed. This analysis
should !'urther include a disc:..:ssion of the Super!'und si'::es and
cleanup effor~s ~o the extent that any research identifies these
sites as being possible sources of conta~ination in the River.
This infor~ation is r~levant to the proposed ac~ion, particularly
~ In te~s of a9sess~ng eXls~:ng envl=onmental condi~ions anc
pot.en~ial cu=lula<:ive 1mpac~9, and t:he=-e:ore uncle:::" NE?'; :1U5-:: be
analyzed and discl03ed in ~~e ~:S.
!n addition, we do no~ believe ,::ha':: '::he D~~ aocrocria~el' applies
~he OAMOS data collected bv tne ;>''''''y Cor!:lS of Encrineers ~o _~s
analvsis of poten~ial i~cac'::s. The D~~OS program is a series of
scient~f~c s~udies ~o mon~tor ,::he effects or past dredged material
,disposal at opan wa~er sites. ~~~~!SJ__~lly, the O::__:::_S conclud.e.s .that
. ~ecause these 9~\1ci.i~.!; h~ ~e.._, .:...~us= a:= - ,::~yea.l e_d._!"..~~a..:,....._e;:,s_9-.!I_,{~_a_~~ 5 .,9n
ene ;aru.ne_..llY::'.;'...QLlm_~n.=__;.::~r.: oa.sJ:-U5 E!. ___o! -E.rJl_NLo.s..-:.h.e_ -P:'9PQ.:? ed
d:.isposal._o.f .dred.'lEld._l)!.~;E!rial_. "fro::! ~he_ .'I'hamas-.RJ..\tll::--:.t..iJ,Llikew.ise
;~~.~..nCl.h~r,:t. The Ocean Dur.:pii'1g 'Re,gula~ions a-;: 40 CFR, Sec.
227.1J(c) require, however, eha':: any d::.sposal of dredged rnaeerial
be in compliance wi~h the requirements 0= 40 CFR, Sec. 227.0, which
s~a~es that ma~erials shall be deemed environrnen~ally accepeable
when "...bioassay resules on ~he solid phase of: the wasees do no~1.
indicate OCCUrrence of significane ::!oreality or significane advers~
SUblethal effllc'::s due to the dU::lping o~ ......51:es."....
!n order for ~~is conclusion ~~ have credibi~ity, ~e t~us believe
- Navv snOU.l.a c;:;"...id.. '" ,.c~ent.~'=lcall'l sound cornoarison b"et.ween
- ehe che;~ca cornp051t.~ons -. ...: prcocsed dre-dged materfa", anatt;e
:na~er~al dl.scosec. of. 1.n .:~e pas~ at: '":he NLDS. _0.._-
,
,
?rOC059d Canoina o! co~~~:ni~atq~ gedi~Qn~3
AS a ::1i -:.iaa ~i:;):'\ measu~e I ':.he Na~r! ~::'c;::cses to ~ap .",'l:::' .:l.c1ar:
sedirnen~ any disposed. dredged :nae..:-ial conside:-ed '::= oe
conearninated. This pro\=osal ::-aises several concerns eha~ './e
believe =ust be ~~l~y ana~/~ec :~ ~~e E:S be:cre ccn=lusions abcu~
i~s accepeabi~:~y can be ~aaG.
Fi=s~, we believe che E!S =us~ iden:i~'! :~e c=iteria by ~hich ~~e
Navy .",ill ud e ~heeher sea:::1en-:s are "clean" and ~."U9 acce?~~bla
..__ PP.l:':q, 0:- con~a:n~na~ec. T~is i;::o=~a~':'on is Qssanc:.3.~ _..
ord.ar ~o iden-:.:.::y ~:le c::::=:..es;:c~~:.:-:..:; '/olu~es 0: ~a~e:-:.a.;. ....., O=Q
::1anaged.
~~ addi~~on. in ~~a a~gance == ca~~ :o~ ~hQ N~OS =e:eranCQ si~e, ~c
~sed sedi:en~ c~emis~=v cia~a ==o~ naa==v sca~ions ccllac~ad ~v ~~e
'Ia-'ona' 'Ocea""....,..-~-.....;c. a~d "--oso~e-;.- ~d-~"";""--a-;on's (;/0'"
. '-- - ......":1--:-0..-.. ^...... a 4~ ... -'- .. ...-.....--- ..._ o. .t"l.I"Ioi
5:a~~s and T=e~d9 ~~cg=a~ (see ~ppendix A). ~~8S9 =~~3 ap?ea= ~~
':"::c:"::a~a ':~a": ~:le ::ajc=:':.:: v_ ~he sedi::-.a~~9 ~o :6 d=~cged. a.:Q
-
"..
---'-
~'.:~) . .,.-.:....;:.~~--~~:.-::~..--
. _. _ _ _ _ a _ .__'_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+
lco~~a~ina~ec. Sased on ~his ~ e
su!~icien~ vo~u~~ ~- \. 1
clean sed1mem:, wi';h comoa~;
capp~ng wl~~~n ne same ~ime!rame
E:~S
ove
~ i
" ..
.s~"" - -:.'"'l - a
9 :~111on cucic -~~) 0:
; &-a.\lailable to::-
dreaging op8r~tlons.
as ~he
-.-
:u:ther, though ~he DE!S indicates that the NLDS is considered a
-llcon1:ainmen,;1l site (La., deposited material tends to be unaffected
by ocean dyna:tics), r!H~~~"; acadR"'~'" '~':e=a-e.~_l; _~":t:I~~..'-a~ ....~..~= ~~ga-
~~ ~n I'erosional zonA 'f sugges~inq ~he poeen~ial fo= ~he
::-asuspansion ana m~gration of deposited material. (saa Michael S.
Fenster, at. al.. 1990, Marine Geology, Vol. 91, p. 207-225,,""""'-
"Stability of Giant Sand Waves in Eastern Long ISland Sound.") We
recommend thae the E!S include data that indicates whether
sediments outside the NLDS reflect any migration of material fro:
within the dumcsite. This in turn would be useful info~ation to
further evaluaee the effectiveness of capping as a mitigation
measure for this project.
,,'
Finally, thou h the DEIS i dioates that adeauate p~~;~~eXists h~
the NLDS to accornmodaee the 2. ml o~ cubic yards of material,
the ,,,,,.ly";" should incl""'Q ~he add.i.::ional volume of caooing
maeerial in its evaluation. The ability ot" tne NLDS i; acco!:'.:tI~daee
tn~s ~arge a voT~~e of maeerial should be discussed i~ the E!S in
rela~ion to pase disposal practices, includi~g whether a sub~ari~e
groundi~g incident a~ the NLDS in the mid-1970s was the resul~ of
disposal beyond the capacity~of the site or some other probler..
The discussion of ~he submarine ground in should include a~
analysTS Ot whae env~ronmenta ~mpa s resulted, if any, as well as
what measures were taken to mitigate those impacts.
~ for ~d~'~ion"l ~efltinq
!:'l ~ne absence of '!'::~al. organic Ca:-::cn (TOe) and ?ol:.=ycl:.~
Aromatic ~yd::-ocarbon (PAn) data for the NLDS reference site. E?A
used sites EL:l and E:I2 from the NCAA Status and Trends Program to
compare "clean" sediment with that proposed ~o be dredged from the
Thames River. Use of ~he NOAA data shows that a subseaneial amour:":
o~ the proposed dredged material has a signi!icantly highe::-
Theor9l:ieal 3ioace-.;:nula:lon Potential (TS?) than the :-eferenoe
material. (See ~:able in ';?pendlx A.)
rli~~ t~e ex~e;cion 0: sed~~en~s ~~c~ s~a~~c~s 2, 3, 5, a, S, :~f
and lJ-~5, ~~ese ~esc sadi~en~s ~~o= ~he T~ames River ex~~=i~ a
?o~en~ial ~o bioac=umula~Q PAHs ~hen co~pared ~o either ~he ~~:l c=
::!...!2 =e:e:-sr.ca st~~.:..~ns. ~olher. ~ha T9.P of the cas": :na,:e=:.al
a~~=oac~es C~ exceacs cne T3? 0: ~ha =e:ere~ce ~a~erial, ~e =a:ieve
'-~c.ac"""-"'a-''''n "es""~CI;s -eeui-ed ~o eva"':I-~ -"'.o.s".;-a'-.;~'-v 0"
.J_ __...'-. .._.... _ "'-_.. ... _ _. _ _...___ ""'.~ ..._~_...._ -
~he proposaa-a[i2haige fo: ooen Na~e~~posa~ Consequen~~y, ~e
:-ec;:u.~s-=--=~3~_._~,,:,,:......,_~a~ . :es'C:':1g 0: ,:heo- sea..:.'ffi!rt1;;.~_. W:":;1:'~ ~~a
o~osed :=ecigi:1g.' a::-ea .'be '=-onauc-=acw. -. t!'na ::-9sul~3 o~ ,=~ese -":e~5~s
ar:d. an ava!._~:lo.:. '::1er=s~gn~=:..=a-n-ce sho-..:.l.ci be :.~cl'.lc.c! i:-t ~::.e
::';1~l. =::5.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
!n ~ddi~ion, we ~eques~ ~~a~ ~h _ p:::Jv~de-add:~1~nal cheoical
testin ~ sed~men't.s _:'~g a . -.... ~ that does noe cOiipo&ree- ehe
e ~ha~ deeper se lments are mixed wlth surface sedimen~s
w_~ hin the same c ~t:S :a. .. 8. To be~~e= charac~erJ.ze the secrr-:J.~Hl..:::;,
several strata snou a J:le composited vithi:1 each core. This
approach will allow one to distinguish between clean native
oaterials in the unde~lying strata fro~ contaminated materials in
the sur~icial layers.
cumula~ivQ !~~aa~9
council on Environmental Quali~y reg"..1lations i::lple::lenting NE?A
define cu;uulative irncClCt as ".. .the imeac~ on the environment whiCh
results from the incremental imcact of the action when added to
other past:, presen~, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
ragardles3 of *ha'C aqency (Faderal 0= ~Qn-::::!d~=al) or pers;:n
under~akes such other actions. cumulative imeac~s can result from
individually minor but collectively significan~ ac~ions tal<:ing
place oVer a peri6d of time." (40 CFR, .SQc~ion 1508.7)
With regard to the proposed project, the DEIS fails to satis~y
these NEP.... requirements in that i~ a.iscusses only dredging a~d
diseosal activities in its assessment of cumulatJ.ve lmcac"". "lJnde~
.
NEPA, the cumulatlVe lmpacts analysJ.s should incluae an evalua~ion
ove~ time of those actions, both related and unrelated to dredging
or disposal activities, that have caused an impact on the physical,
chemical and biological charac~eristics of the Thames River and
Long ISland Sound. With regard to Long Island Sound, this llnalysis
should in particular address those problems identi~ied in the Long
Island Sound Study unde~ the National Estuary Program (see com.-nents
above) as being mos~ critica~. .
'!n addition, as discussed ear~ia~, because ~e believe the analysis
ot potential direct and indi~ect impac~s trom d~edg:ng and disposal
activities to be flawed trom a tecnnical standpoint, we si~ilar~y
quest; the accuracy of anY conclusions that rel on this
i or:nation to eva.ua. ... cumu atlve e_ ec~ 0_ tn se actlons. e
~herefore recomm ~ '-u ow ..... ase conclus~ons ~e'" ,.... ~n the
Final EIS once ~ne ac=~~_y.. ~ sc~en~~_~= i~~o=~a~~c~ concerning
di:ec~ and i~d~=ec~ i~pac~s ~=o~ these ac~ivi~ies has =een
provided.
.~lte-""a~"ve9
Di3co3~1 ooe:.ons: '-:houc:-. severa: ::caan- a.~c :'a::~-:::a5ec
alta=~a~ives ~o= d~sdge~ ~a~~~:al d~s;osal ~e~e co~s:=e:8ci ~~ ~~e
DE::S, ',0/8 do ~o'C ::el':'9ve -..,;Ito~ .''''A :""al"..!...is_~::~',"i.;lad ~n;ou_gh__s!~a_":ai.~ -:.:
allow :0=-- a meanir:g:~l c:~?a:-~son of i~:::ac-:.s '::'g-:,-..;een -::-..ase
a l-:e':..~...~ -,/es .
-0: ~xa~ple, ~hc~;~ -:he ccc~~e~~ 3~a~~~ ~~~~ vi~~la al~e=~a~~~Qs
:0= d=ec;ed mac9=i~: dis;osa: exis~, ~hese op~:o~s ~e~a dis=~s$ec,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
af1:ar only brier and general discussion, largely for reasons of
"logis1:ics" or economics. (see p. 2-23 - 2-42, O~!S) In addition.
discussion o~ ~he Combined Land and Wa~er Oisposal option (p. 2-JO,
DE!S) was so general as co preclude any :eaningful evaluation of
i~s accepeabiliey and 15 illust:rat1ve Of the overall approach that
\ole believe does noe Illeee the requirelllents of the CEQ or Ocean
Dumping Ace regulae ions regar:ing alternatives analyses (see 40
CFR. Sec. 1502.14 and 40 CFR. Sec. 227.16(a) (2), respec~ively).
~
C~Q regulacions seate that an alt:ernatives analysis shoUld
" . . . . present: the envi.ronment:al impacts ot the proposal and the
aleernatives in comparative fer:, thus sharply defining the issues
and providing a clear basis fo:: choice among options..." l"urt:her.
agencies are required to "(:-) igorously explore and object:ively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives....(d)evote SUbstantial
~rea":ment to each a!.te:":lative con~iide~ed in de':~!l..... .50 i:ha:.
:-eviewers may evaluate thei:- compa:-ative merits. II (40 CFR, Sec.
1502.H)
As staeed above, we believe that: t envi:-onmental acceptability Of
ehe orocosed dred .._i , for 0 as n _ een
demonseraeed b ehe Navv and -... .. . . - .-.. -- .. r.:n a
- - - -.... ,~.. e issued. In the event that
~he furthe:- eesting and other info~ation requested above does no~
demonstra~e thae :ha project is environmentally acceptable. it is
especially important thae the Navy reevaluate and more thoroughly
examine other alternatives thao: may crovide an environmeneallv
acceptable disposal opeion. . - .
COMc=lusion
For ehe reasons discussed above, we have rated chis ~:S EO-2 (see
enclosed explanaeion of ratings). We would be pleased to ~ork ~1th
you so that the concerns we have :-aised ~ill be resolved in the
Fin~l EIS in crce:- to avoid dalays in t~e subsequent pe~it phase.
I~ you have any ques1:ions a::cu-: au:- com.."':\ents, please con~ac~
Peelence Whio:een 0: this o~~ice (ol7/505-J~lJ) or ~ymberlee Keckler
of ~he ~a~e~ D1vi3ion (617/365-4~J2).
~i:"'\ce-"ly
~_.. . -, r
I /7. r ' /l
. l"-l" ; \...".... I
C(\t~-64< ~i~"'" U~1\(a0/)
I ~"~~~e~'" V;~_"__ Cong-~~' 'ss's-~--
---~......, ..... .._'='':r-'~ ....:.10__ 1"\ _ _...._
Of=ice of ~~v~~=n~Qncal Rev~e~
I
I
I
I
=:..=-ac~o=