OCS Study 

BOEM 2016-034 

The Identification of Port Modifications 

and the Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Consequences 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Office of Renewable Energy Program 
 

OCS Study 

BOEM 2016-034 

The Identification of Port Modifications 

and the Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Consequences 

Authors 

Payson R. Whitney, III (ESS Group, Inc.)
 

Stephanie J.K. Wilson (ESS Group, Inc.)
 

Stephanie Chaston (ESS Group, Inc.)
 

Chris Elkinton (DNV GL)
 

Alex Uriate (ICF International)
 

Prepared under BOEM Contract
 

M15-PD-00001
 

by 

ESS Group, Inc.
 

10 Hemingway Drive, 2nd Floor
 

East Providence, Rhode Island 02915
 

In association with
 

DNV GL
 

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.
 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Office of Renewable Energy Program 

April 15, 2016 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OCS Study 

BOEM 2016-034 

DISCLAIMER
 

Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC under Task Order 

M15PD00001. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for 

publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should 

not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government, nor does mention of 

trade names or commercial products constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

To download a PDF file of this Environmental Studies Program report, go to the US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program Information System 

(ESPIS) website (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies-ProgramInformation-System.aspx) and search on OCS Study BOEM 2016-034. 

You will be able to obtain this report from BOEM or the National Technical Information Service by 

writing to the following addresses. 

U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management National Technical Information Service 

Environmental Studies Program 5285 Port Royal Road 

Attn: Chief, Division of Environmental Sciences Springfield, Virginia 22161 

45600 Woodland Road Phone: (703) 605-6040 

Sterling, Virginia 20166	 Fax: (703) 605-6900
 

Email: bookstore@ntis.gov
 

CITATION 

Suggested citation: 

ESS Group, Inc. 2016. The Identification of Port Modifications and the Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Consequences. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Washington, DC. OCS Study BOEM 2016-034. 99 pp. 
 

 

 

OCS Study 

BOEM 2016-034 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report would not have been possible without the research efforts and expert assistance of the 

following members of the ESS Team: 

DNV GL 

ICF International 

The ESS Team would like to thank the many regulators, owners, and developers of offshore wind 

facilities and ports who took the time to provide project details and professional insight to help inform 

this study. 

ABOUT THE COVER 

Cover image of Liebherr mobile harbor cranes courtesy of Port of Vancouver USA. Source: 

http://www.portvanusa.com/news/image-library/ 

Cover image of “The Netherlands: Jumbo Shipping Winner at 2011 TopLift Competition” courtesy of 

www.offshorewindbiz.com. 

All other photographs belong to ESS Group, Inc., were purchased by ESS Group, Inc., or are free for use 

in the public domain. 
 

CONTENTS
 

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... ii
 

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................... iii
 

LIST OF APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................iii
 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................iii
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 3
 

1.1 Purpose of the Study......................................................................................................................... 3
 

1.2 Study Background ............................................................................................................................ 3
 

2.0 REQUIRED PORT CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................. 4
 

2.1 Introduction to Offshore Wind ......................................................................................................... 5
 

2.2 Overview of Offshore Wind Port Uses ............................................................................................ 5
 

2.2.1 Manufacturing and Fabrication............................................................................................... 5
 

2.2.2 Installation and Staging ........................................................................................................... 6
 

2.2.3 Crew Transport ....................................................................................................................... 7
 

2.2.4 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) ..................................................................................... 8
 

2.2.5 Spare Parts Storage ................................................................................................................. 9
 

2.3 Overview of Wind Facility Components........................................................................................ 10
 

2.3.1 Foundations........................................................................................................................... 10
 

2.3.2 Cables.................................................................................................................................... 14
 

2.3.3 Turbines ................................................................................................................................ 16
 

2.3.4 Substations............................................................................................................................ 17
 

2.4 Overview of Port Activities............................................................................................................ 19
 

2.4.1 Component Loading and Unloading..................................................................................... 19
 

2.4.2 Component Transportation Within the Port.......................................................................... 27
 

2.4.3 Component Storage and Preparation..................................................................................... 29
 

2.4.4 Potential Activities and Use Conflicts .................................................................................. 30
 

2.5 Summary of Port Requirements to Support Offshore Wind........................................................... 33
 

2.5.1 Manufacturing Ports.............................................................................................................. 34
 

2.5.2 Operations and Maintenance Ports ....................................................................................... 34
 

2.5.3 Staging Ports......................................................................................................................... 35
 

2.6 Current Status of Ports and Planned and Implemented Port Expansions ....................................... 42
 

2.6.1 Current Status of U.S. Ports.................................................................................................. 42
 

2.6.2 Port Modifications for Wind Energy Development.............................................................. 42
 

2.6.3 Benefits from Panama Canal Related Port Modifications .................................................... 43
 

2.6.4 Port Networks ....................................................................................................................... 44
 

2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................... 44
 

3.0 PORT IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION........................................................................ 46
 

3.1 Port Identification........................................................................................................................... 46
 

3.2 Initial Port Assessment and Screening ........................................................................................... 46
 

3.3 Port Assessment and Characterization ........................................................................................... 47
 

3.4 Port Evaluation............................................................................................................................... 48
 

3.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 50
 

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS AND
 

MITIGATION EFFORTS .......................................................................................................................... 50
 

4.1 Scope of Activities Considered ...................................................................................................... 51
 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Literature Review........................................................................................................................... 51
 

4.2.1 European Perspective............................................................................................................ 51
 

4.2.2 U.S. Perspective .................................................................................................................... 55
 

4.3 Main Drivers of Impacts................................................................................................................. 58
 

4.4 Overview of Impacts Anticipated from a Typical Port Modification and Potential Mitigation
 

Measures............................................................................................................................................... 59
 

4.4.1 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 59
 

4.4.2 Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................................................................ 62
 

4.5 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................... 65
 

4.5.1 Compensatory Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 65
 

4.5.2 Regulations and Best Management Practices ....................................................................... 66
 

4.5.3 Operational Controls............................................................................................................. 67
 

4.5.4 Mitigation Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 67
 

5.0 EXPERT DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................................................... 68
 

5.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 68
 

5.2 Key Themes and Concerns............................................................................................................. 69
 

6.0 ENIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC PORT PROFILES.................................................... 70
 

6.1 Introduction to Port Profiles ........................................................................................................... 70
 

6.2 Port Overview................................................................................................................................. 71
 

6.3 Port Classifications - Existing Capabilities .................................................................................... 71
 

6.4 Potential Port Modifications........................................................................................................... 73
 

6.5 Impact Producing Factors............................................................................................................... 73
 

6.6 Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions.......................................... 74
 

6.7 Anticipated Impacts........................................................................................................................ 78
 

7.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 78
 

7.1 Further Research Needs.................................................................................................................. 79
 

7.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 80
 

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 81
 

8.1 Required Port Characteristics References ...................................................................................... 81
 

8.2 Identification of Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Efforts References 83
 

8.3 Environmental and Socioeconomic Port Profiles........................................................................... 86
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.2-1. WindSpeed Quick Access Vessel by Windcat....................................................................8
 

Figure 2.3-1. Components of an Offshore Wind Project........................................................................10
 

Figure 2.3-2. Windy Turbine Substructure Concept - Monopile............................................................11
 

Figure 2.3-3. Wind Turbine Substructure Concept – Gravity Base Structure........................................13
 

Figure 2.3-4. Wind Turbine Substructure Concept – Jacket (pre-piled & post-piled) ...........................14
 

Figure 2.3-5. Cross-Section of Inter-array Cable ...................................................................................15
 

Figure 2.3-6. Components of a HVDC Export Cable.............................................................................16
 

Figure 2.3-7. Principal Components of an Offshore Wind Turbine .......................................................16
 

Figure 2.3-8. Wind Turbine Nacelle and Rotor......................................................................................17
 

Figure 2.3-9. Export Cable Technology vs. Distance.............................................................................18
 

Figure 2.3-10 Offshore Substation on Jacket Foundation .......................................................................19
 

Figure 2.4-1. GBS Foundations Fabrication and Deployment Using Barges.........................................21
 

Figure 2.4-2. Mobile Crane with Grabber Arm Loading Salt ................................................................22
 

Figure 2.4-3. Container-Port Crane ........................................................................................................23
 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.4-4. Specialized Mobile Harbor Cranes Lifting Wind Turbine Blade .....................................24 

Figure 2.4-5. Gantry Crane.....................................................................................................................24 

Figure 2.4-6. Pedestal Cranes on Jumbo Shipping’s Jumbo Javelin Used to Install Transition Pieces at 

the Greater Gabbard Offshore Project ..............................................................................25
 

Figure 2.4-7. Ro-Ro Capable Vessel – RollDock...................................................................................27
 

Figure 2.4-8. Typical Lattice-boomed Crawler Crane Lifting Arrangement..........................................28
 

Figure 2.4-9. Self-propelled Modular Transporters................................................................................29
 

Figure 2.4-10. Nacelle Storage in Port .....................................................................................................30
 

Figure 2.5-1. Monopiles Stored on Bunds..............................................................................................38
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.4-1. Summary of Potential Activities and Use Conflicts with Offshore Wind ........................31
 

Table 2.5-1. Example of Minimum Requirements to Support Offshore Wind Projects .......................35
 

Table 2.6-1. Summary of Port Modifications for Panama Canal Expansion ........................................44
 

Table 3.3-1. Port Requirements by Capability Category ......................................................................47
 

Table 3.5-1. Selected Ports....................................................................................................................50
 

Table 6.3-1. Port Classification Key Criteria and Thresholds for 8 MW Projects................................71
 

Table 6.4-1. Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind and Associated Impact
 

Producing Factors .............................................................................................................73 

Table 6.6-1. Description and Source of Environmental and Socioeconomic Resource Data Gathered 74 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix I Port Classification Matrix 

Appendix II Environmental & Socioeconomic Impacts 

Appendix III Environmental & Socioeconomic Port Profiles 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AC Alternating Current 

ACS American Community Survey 

AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

dBA Decibel A-weighting 

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

DoD Department of Defense 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping 

ft Feet 

GBS Gravity Base Structures 

HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current 

HVDC High Voltage Direct Current 

ICF ICF International 

iii 
 

in Inch 

kV Kilovolt 

km Kilometer 

Lo-Lo Lift-On, Lift-Off 

m Meter 

MACEC Massachusetts Clean Energy Center 

mg milligram 

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water 

MLW Mean Low Water 

MW Megawatt 

mm Millimeter 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OTB Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven 

PAHs Polyaromatic hydrocarbons 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

psf Pounds per square foot 

Ro-Ro Roll-On, Roll-Off 

SPMTs Self-Propelled Modular Transport Units 

T Tonne 

t Metric ton 

t/m2 Ton per square meter 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TOY Time of Year 

UK United Kingdom 

U.S. DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 

WTG Wind Turbine Generator 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for issuing Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) leases as well as monitoring and mitigating impacts that might be associated with offshore wind 

energy development that would happen on those leases. Although offshore wind is still in its infancy in 

the United States, it is recognized that port facilities are a critical piece for development and operation of 

an offshore wind energy facility. Currently, very few ports on the U.S. Atlantic coast are currently 

capable of fully supporting an offshore wind energy project, however, port modifications are already 

being implemented or planned to accommodate wind energy facility construction and operations. 

Traditionally, port development in the U.S. has been focused on commerce by supporting the efficient 

transport of large quantities of goods and enabling larger and deeper draft ships to access ports as far 

inland as possible (Cooper and Marrone 2013). Offshore wind energy projects will require specialized 

equipment, services, and labor not currently available in most U.S. ports. Understanding what will be 

needed to support both short-term construction and long-term operation and maintenance activities at 

these ports involves learning from the recent experience of European offshore wind projects, as well as 

identifying similar services and activities already associated with existing marine industries in the U.S. 

Port facilities are anticipated to host three primary activities to support offshore wind energy project 

development: fabrication and assembly, installation and staging, and operations and maintenance. The 

primary activities considered for this study are associated with the modification of ports to support the 

staging and installation of extremely large and heavy components associated with offshore wind energy 

projects and facilitating access and docking of vessels that transport and install them. Offshore wind 

staging ports are anticipated to require significant storage and lay-down space, equipment to transport 

large cargo within the port, cranes with heavy lift capacity to load and unload components from the 

vessels, sufficient quayside space to accommodate transportation and installation vessels, and sufficient 

overhead clearance along waterbodies leading to ports to allow these vessels to reach the port. While 

many of these capabilities are available today in ports along the U.S. Atlantic coastline, the primary 

exception is the capability of the typical U.S. Atlantic cargo port to handle the weight of the heaviest 

offshore wind turbine components since the quayside and cranes are configured for lighter load cargo. 

Therefore, the limiting factors are the quayside bearing capacity as well as the lifting capability of cranes. 

This study built upon the U.S. Department of Energy’s (U.S. DOE) Assessment of Ports for Offshore 

Wind Development in the U.S. (DNV GL 2014) and the Port Assessment Tool (DNV GL 2015), and 

included review of European experiences and studies conducted in the U.S. The study also developed a 

set of criteria defining the port requirements necessary to support offshore wind construction; identified 

and classified Atlantic coast ports that could potentially service proposed areas for the offshore wind 

energy industry; identified potential modifications needed to support the industry at these ports; and 

summarized potential impact producing factors, potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and 

potential mitigations measures associated with the port modification activities. 

Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of port modifications are typically location specific and 

depend on the magnitude of changes to the impact producing factors relative to local conditions. These 

impacts may range in severity and depend upon numerous factors, including the impact producing factors, 

environmental and socioeconomic resources present, location (a primary determinant), time of year, and 

presence of other factors not associated with the intended port modifications. In general, many of the 

associated impacts to environmental resources are temporary in nature. Such temporary impacts can be 

mitigated through regulations and Best Management Practices (BMPs); however, individual, port-specific 

analyses and/or monitoring are necessary to assess impacts resulting from proposed modifications. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Identifying a minimum set of criteria for selecting a port to support construction of an offshore wind 

project is a challenging exercise. There are many different ways to make a port facility work for a given 

project. The wind project can adjust the logistics and equipment to adapt to the available capabilities of 

the port. For example, as demonstrated by European ports, an air draft restriction may be overcome by 

utilizing a different configuration of components onboard a vessel. The height of the components may be 

too high when stored vertically on a vessel, but may be lower when configured differently or stored 

horizontally. Additionally, some components may be transported in pieces, requiring assembly offshore 

or at an appropriate location not constrained by height limitations (Cooper and Marrone 2013). A given 

project may select a port with greater or lesser capabilities depending on the needs of the project, on a 

cost-benefit review of available port facilities, and the costs and impacts associated with making 

necessary modifications to the port’s facilities. 

The financial commitment and investment of time necessary to permit, design, and prepare to modify a 

port for offshore wind component readiness can be incredibly large and take place over a long period of 

time. Unforeseen issues, technological advancements, or siting requirements that may not be known at the 

onset of an offshore wind energy project may have a material effect on the project during the 

development and permitting stage, and could affect the decision about which port to use or change the 

types of port modifications necessary to support the offshore wind project. Therefore, flexibility and 

scalability are important. 

Communication is also critical to the successful implementation of port modifications. Offshore wind 

energy project developers should be communicating early and often with the port authority; federal, state 

and local authorities; and other key stakeholders, such as fishermen, harbormasters, and other port users 

in the area of the port(s) they intend to use for their project. It is imperative that these agencies and 

stakeholders be involved early and often throughout the planning, design and ultimately construction of 

any project. 

The results of this study further confirmed the complexity of these projects, the need for more consistent 

information about U.S. port characteristics, and emphasized the need for site-specific information and 

early coordination between various stakeholders as some of the many elements that go into successfully 

siting, permitting, and preparing a port for an offshore wind energy project. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose of the Study

The expansion and modification of existing ports to accommodate proposed commercial wind energy 

development on the Atlantic OCS was the primary focus of this study. The objectives of this study were 

to achieve an understanding of: 

•	 Current port capacity, specifically ones that could potentially handle construction activities 

related to offshore wind energy development, as well as an understanding of the port 

modifications that could be required to do so; 

•	 Potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences of modifications to ports that may 

support offshore renewable energy facility construction, as well as the consequences of 

alterations to port operations; and 

•	 Effectiveness of potential mitigation measures for the environmental and socioeconomic impacts 

of port modifications to accommodate offshore renewable energy facility construction based on 

actual experience to date. 

The information gathered through existing experiences, a review of the available literature, and input 

from industry experts served as the basis for this study. This study was conducted to provide BOEM with 

an understanding of the existing status of Atlantic coast port facilities as well as activities required for 

port expansion and modification to support proposed Atlantic OCS offshore wind energy development 

projects. The deliverables were developed to provide documentation to support future National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews of offshore renewable energy actions and aid in the project 

specific assessment of potential environmental and socioeconomically impacts associated with the 

expansion and use of port facilities to support proposed Atlantic OCS offshore wind energy development 

projects. 

1.2 Study Background

In 2005, the Energy Policy Act amended Section 388 of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 

giving the Secretary of Interior discretionary authority to issue leases, easements, or rights-of-way for 

renewable energy projects on the Federal OCS. Under this authority, BOEM is charged with conducting 

OCS lease sales as well as monitoring and mitigating unwelcome impacts that might be associated with 

resource development. BOEM recognizes that new and future uses of the OCS, including renewable 

energy development, should be managed in a deliberate and responsible manner. 

BOEM has opened the door to commercial wind energy development on the OCS in the Mid-Atlantic 

with the publication of the final environmental assessment for Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site 

Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland 

and Virginia and various leasing activities in both the North and Mid-Atlantic. 

Port facilities are necessary to facilitate construction, operation, and decommissioning of an offshore 

wind project. Additionally, larger project components, such as foundations, towers, nacelles, blades, interarray and export cables, and substation top-sides are typically fabricated at a port-side facility to facilitate 

transportation to the project site. If current port capabilities cannot support the needs of offshore wind 

energy projects, it is possible that offshore wind development activities could lead to the expansion or 

modifications of ports. However, the ability and willingness to carry out significant port expansion or 

modification will be driven by future offshore wind projects as well as political and economic priorities to 

support these projects. These priorities will vary from port to port and state to state. 

3 
As the offshore wind energy industry develops along the Atlantic coast, it will be important for Federal, 

state, and local stakeholders to understand the potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences 

of such development, including the impacts from port expansion/modification and changes in port 

operations. 

The expansion and operation of port facilities can produce a variety of environmental impacts, such as 

emissions, expansion into undeveloped areas, vessel induced wake erosion, increased dredging, and 

effects on air and water quality and coastal habitats. In addition, a variety of both positive and negative 

socioeconomic impacts may occur, such as the increase in construction-related employment and the 

possible decrease in employment in other fields due to the changing characteristics and use of a port (e.g., 

a traditional fishing port changing to a wind energy hub). 

In addition to BOEM, the U.S. DOE and various state entities and port authorities have been examining 

criteria for possible improvements to existing port infrastructure. Many reports have indicated 

modifications will be needed, especially in light of larger proposed turbine sizes. Information from 

previous studies that analyzed the potential impact of the Panama Canal Expansion and European 

experiences, namely how ports were altered to accommodate offshore wind energy development, the 

environmental and socioeconomic impacts resultant from those alterations, and the identification of 

associated and/or potentially useful mitigation measures, were considered. 

Project-specific environmental impact statements (EISs) that evaluate the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic consequences of wind facility construction will need to be written and will need to 

account for impacts associated with the expansion/modification and use of port facilities for offshore 

wind energy development. The information from this study will support these assessments. 

2.0 REQUIRED PORT CHARACTERISTICS 

To identify the required port characteristics, the ESS Team built on its existing experience, conducted a 

review of the available literature, and sought input from industry experts. This section describes the port 

characteristics required to accommodate activities associated with offshore wind energy facility 

construction on the Atlantic OCS. Identification of these port characteristics is important to identify and 

understand the port modifications that could be needed to support the offshore wind industry in the 

Atlantic OCS. This section will also summarize port modifications that have already been implemented or 

are being planned along the U.S. Atlantic coast to accommodate Panama Canal expansion or wind energy 

facility construction; as well as potential activity and use conflicts. 

This section builds upon the U.S. DOE’s Assessment of Ports for Offshore Wind Development in the 

U.S. (DNV GL 2014) and the Port Assessment Tool (DNV GL 2015), which involved a review of the 

current capability of U.S. ports to support offshore wind project development and assessment of the 

challenges and opportunities related to upgrading this capability to support the growth of as many as 54 

gigawatts of offshore wind installed in U.S. waters by 2030. The resulting Ports Assessment Tool was 

designed to aid decision-makers in making informed decisions regarding the types of investments that 

would be required to make individual port facilities suitable to serve offshore wind manufacturing, 

installation, and/or operations. While this section similarly describes the port characteristics required to 

accommodate offshore wind energy facility development, the following sections further consider the 

environment and socioeconomic impacts associated with port modifications, as they relate to the NEPA 

process. In addition to the U.S. DOE report, port readiness was evaluated relative to the offshore wind 

industry in general (ICF 2012; Cooper & Marrone 2013), as well as to specific ports (Kinetik 2011; 

TetraTech 2010). 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.1 Introduction to Offshore Wind 

BOEM is responsible for issuing OCS lease sales as well as monitoring and mitigating impacts that might 

be associated with offshore wind energy development that would happen on those leases. Although 

offshore wind is still in its infancy in the U.S., it is recognized that port facilities are a critical piece in the 

development and operation of an offshore wind energy facility. Currently, very few ports exist on the 

Atlantic coast that are capable of fully supporting an offshore wind energy project; however, port 

modifications are already being implemented or planned to accommodate wind energy facility 

construction and operations. 

Based on European experiences and studies conducted in the U.S., port characteristics critical to 

supporting offshore wind energy development include: 

•	 Vessel access (channel width and depth; turning capacity; overhead draft); 

•	 Lifting capabilities given the weight and height of components (crane types, height restrictions); 

•	 Bearing capacity of the quayside and storage area; 

•	 Number of berths and storage area; 

•	 Available transportation infrastructure (haul route width and capacity; component load out; 

road/rail access); and 

•	 Location (e.g., distance from wind energy areas, construction areas, and staging/storage areas, 

skilled work force). 

A note on nomenclature: the term quayside (pronounced “key-side”) is used throughout this report in 

place of the equivalent terms wharf or pier. While wharf and pier are both more commonly used in the 

U.S., quayside is the standard term within the offshore wind industry. 

Section 2.2 provides an overview of the intended uses of ports for offshore wind construction, including 

installation/staging, manufacturing, crew transport, operations and maintenance, and storage. Sections 2.3 

and 2.4 provide an overview of the components needed for a wind facility and the activities that would 

take place at the port, respectively. Section 2.5 provides a summary of the port requirements necessary to 

support offshore wind, by both component and activity, and Section 2.6 provides a summary of 

implemented and planned port expansions with a discussion of the potential port activity uses and 

conflicts. 

2.2 Overview of Offshore Wind Port Uses 

Port facilities are necessary to facilitate construction, operation, and decommissioning of an offshore 

wind project. Additionally, larger project components are typically fabricated at a port-side facility to 

facilitate transportation to the project site. The following section summarizes the ways in which ports are 

used to support offshore wind projects. 

2.2.1 Manufacturing and Fabrication

Large offshore wind components, such as foundations, towers, nacelles, blades, inter-array and export 

cables, and substation top-sides, are typically manufactured in a facility located on the water. This 

allows these components to be loaded directly onto a vessel and transported to the project’s staging 

port or to the project site itself. This transportation-based approach is especially necessary when the 

component is too large or too heavy to be transported by road or rail. For example, a 6 megawatt 

(MW) turbine nacelle is too large to be readily transported by road due to its width and height. While 

a large nacelle could be delivered to the staging port in pieces for final assembly, it is typically 

preferable to complete final assembly in the controlled environment of the manufacturer’s factory. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the manufacturing facility is located relatively close to the project site, the project may choose to 

deploy that component directly to the site for installation, rather than staging the component 

elsewhere. In the U.S. market, where few component manufacturing facilities exist currently, this 

approach is not expected to be commonplace. 

2.2.2 Installation and Staging

During the construction phase of an offshore wind farm, historically, the most common alternative 

has been to identify a staging port adjacent to the wind farm site, then to transport all major 

components from the manufacturer’s factory to the port facility. By building up a sufficient buffer 

stock of components, the construction management team can ensure that the expensive installation 

spread has adequate supplies of each component, at all stages of the construction program, to 

complete the installation with maximum efficiency. Staging ports are also referred as marshalling 

ports or construction ports. 

The main reason for this approach (as far as wind turbines are concerned) has been that the locations 

of turbine manufacturers in Northern Europe, which were generally onshore turbine manufacturers 

branching out into a new marketplace, were rarely adjacent to the offshore development areas. Also, 

it is common for different specialist facilities or sub-contractors to manufacture only one type of 

component, so blades may be made in one location, towers in another, and the nacelle elsewhere. The 

installation vessel would then have to visit several ports, to build up a set of complete turbines 

onboard for transport to the project site. It therefore made sense to draw all the components together 

in one place, and use of a staging port adjacent to the construction site became a sensible option. 

As the distance between the offshore site and the multiple collection points at widely distributed 

manufacturers increases, the voyage times for the costly main installation vessel increases pro-rata, 

and there comes a point when it becomes more economical to carry out the long distance heavy 

transport with rapid, cheap cargo vessels and barges. Even when factoring in the additional crane and 

port fees associated with a staging facility, it is expected that there is still a net saving against the 

additional voyage costs of the main installation vessel. This is common practice in Europe and is 

expected to be the practice in the U.S., as well. 

The unit costs of the main installation vessel’s voyage cycle are central to the decision whether to 

utilize a staging port. Two factors of critical importance are: 

• The transit speed of the installation vessel; and 

• The vessel’s carrying capacity for the components being installed. 

Both these parameters strongly influence the unit voyage costs, and have led to a rapid evolution of 

larger, faster vessels across the wind turbine installation fleet. 

Most of the early offshore wind farms were built using towed jack-up barges, with transit speeds of 4 

or 5 knots that could carry one or two foundations or turbines. The newly built fleet of Wind Turbine 

Installation Vessels is generally capable of speeds of approximately 12 knots and has carrying 

capacities of several units per voyage. This is far slower than cargo vessels, which routinely transit at 

15-20 knots; however, it is fast enough to make transportation directly from manufacturers located 

significantly farther away, rather than to a staging port, the most economical option in many cases. 

The other significant factor is the carrying capacity of the installation vessel. If twice as many 

foundations can be carried per installation cycle, the additional cost per foundation of these long 

voyages is effectively halved and the balance is tipped against a staging port being an economic 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

option. A secondary consideration has always been that if the installation vessel is cycling large 

distances, the cycle time per voyage will increase and the installation rate will decrease accordingly. 

If the installation rate decreases markedly, the vessel may not be capable of carrying out the full 

season’s installation program within the good weather window for the site. This would make a 

staging port a sensible option, as it would ensure that the installation was carried out during the 

optimum season, and the cost savings of the additional weather windows may well exceed the costs of 

a staging port. 

2.2.3 Crew Transport

To date, most existing offshore wind projects utilize onshore bases and typically use work boats to 

transport technicians from port to the offshore site. In more advanced strategies, the uses of 

specialized vessels or helicopters are emerging for some existing and planned projects. Furthermore, 

as projects begin to be based further offshore, work boats may also operate from fixed offshore bases, 

‘floatels’ or motherships to substantially reduce the time required for transiting crew to and from site. 

Such offshore-based approaches require technicians to live for some or all of the year on offshore 

accommodations near the vicinity of the wind farm, whether fixed or floating, in a similar manner to 

the approach adopted in offshore oil and gas. 

A wide range of conventional and specialized vessels are currently available to provide frequent 

personnel transportation and access to offshore wind farm developments from an onshore location. 

These vessels vary in capacity, speed, and significant wave height (Hs)1 transferring capabilities and 

include: 

• Quick response vessels (e.g., Rigid Inflatable Boats); 

• Work boats (traditional catamarans); 

• Small Water-plane Area Twin Hull vessels; and 

• Hovercrafts or amphibious vehicles (for ice or inter-tidal conditions). 

A review of these vessels is provided in the following sub-sections. 

2.2.3.1 Quick Response Vessels

There are a range of Rigid Inflatable Boats and other lightweight vessels currently available for 

offshore wind farm operations. These vessels are small and designed for light work and quick 

response during installation and operation activities offshore. The vessels are typically in the 

range of 5 to 15 meters (m) (16 to 49 feet [ft]) length and capable of transferring up to 12 

technicians and achieving speeds of approximately 35 knots, well in excess of those attained by 

most aluminum catamarans and larger work boats. 

Although these vessels offer greatly reduced transit times, they are unsuitable for personnel 

transport over large distances and/or in unfavorable sea conditions. They may, however, offer 

advantages over work boats for some operations, such as when quick fault diagnosis and 

subsequent turbine restart is possible without the need for substantial spare parts or additional 

equipment, for use as supplementary transfer vessels when a greater number of service crews are 

present for a particular maintenance campaign, and for in-field transfers, particularly in sheltered 

sites in the summer months when sea conditions are relatively calm. Such vessels may also be 

1 Significant wave height is defined as the average height of the one-third highest waves of a given wave group. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

utilized as “daughter crafts” in conjunction with floating offshore-based operations (e.g., 

motherships). Quick response vessels are capable of transferring technicians onto offshore 

structures in sea conditions with wave heights between 0.75 and 1.5 meters (m) (2.5 to 5 ft), 

depending on their size and hull design as well as the profile, frequency, and direction of the 

waves. 2.2-1 shows an example of these vessels. 

Source: www.windcatworkboats.com 

Figure 2.2-1. WindSpeed Quick Access Vessel by Windcat 

2.2.3.2 Work Boats 

Work boats form an integral part of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) strategies for currently 

operational projects and are typically larger and more comfortable than the Quick Response 

Vessels. Their purpose is generally to transfer personnel and moderately-sized parts to near-shore 

projects in support of both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities. In some cases, 

work boats may also operate from fixed offshore bases, floatels, or motherships. 

Work boats are typically designed with large foredecks to allow plenty of space and flexibility for 

transporting components and equipment. This arrangement also means that all items are located 

underneath the turbine davit or nacelle crane when the vessel is in position against the boat 

landing. The maximum size of parts, tools, and consumables that may be transported is usually 

governed more by the lifting capacity of the davit or nacelle crane on the turbines than by the 

deck capacity of the work boat. 

Industry-quoted figures suggest that work boats may typically be used to transfer technicians to 

offshore structures in significant wave height conditions of up to approximately 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 

6 ft); however, operating experience suggests that this is often not achievable, especially for 

smaller vessels. 

2.2.4 Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

The operation and maintenance activities of an offshore wind farm can be divided into two main 

tasks: 

• Monitoring, controlling, and coordinating the wind farm operations; and 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Maintenance activities, which are typically sub-categorized into scheduled and unscheduled 

maintenance of the turbines and the balance of plant. 

Currently, developments in advanced control and monitoring systems enable operators to undertake 

routine checks of operational data and to control the turbines from a remote onshore location, while 

scheduled and unscheduled maintenance works require the transportation and transfer of technicians 

to the offshore structures. 

2.2.4.1 Scheduled Maintenance / Inspection

This maintenance category comprises any task which is pre-planned at the design stage and 

normally requires the turbine to be temporarily stopped for maintenance work to be performed. 

Offshore scheduled maintenance intervals of one year are emerging as the normal practice in 

contrast to the quarterly or bi-annual approach typically witnessed onshore. This reflects the 

greater expense, risk, and effort associated with offshore access. These tasks can be performed by 

trained technicians who are transported to the turbines via marine vessels or helicopters and who 

then perform the maintenance services equipped with basic tools and consumables. 

Such scheduled tasks are often conducted on a seasonal basis, with the bulk of work being carried 

out in the summer to maximize the probability of access and minimize lost production. This 

approach may lead to the need for additional resources (vessels, equipment, and technicians) to be 

brought in during these campaigns. 

2.2.4.2 Unscheduled Maintenance 

Any unplanned maintenance activities resulting from a failure of a system, sub-system, or 

component fall within this maintenance category. The level of corrective action, and the impact of 

the unscheduled maintenance upon the wind farm availability, depends on the severity of the 

failure. Most failures occur within the wind turbine generator systems and only affect the output 

of individual turbines, while failure events within the substations or cables occur far less 

frequently but can have a greater impact on the number of turbines affected depending upon their 

location. These tasks are performed by trained technicians who are transported to the turbines via 

marine vessels or helicopters and who then perform the maintenance services equipped with basic 

tools and consumables; however, some unscheduled maintenance activities could require the use 

of larger vessels. 

2.2.5 Spare Parts Storage

Ongoing maintenance of any wind project requires a supply of spare parts including major 

replacement parts (e.g., blades), minor replacement parts (e.g., hydraulic units), and consumables 

(e.g., lubricants, air filters). Typically, the most frequently used spare parts are stored at a port facility 

that is located near the project. This port also typically serves as the O&M base of operations and may 

also house offices and workshops for the project. Larger spare parts may be stored at this same port or 

at a different port if the vessel access or crane capacity at the O&M port is insufficient to handle the 

larger parts. Major spare parts, such as blades, are normally delivered directly from the supplier, as 

needed, and unlikely to be maintained in spare parts storage at the port. 

An offshore wind farm also requires storage of spare lengths of inter-array cable and export cable at a 

port facility. These lengths of cable (typically a minimum 1,000 m (3,281 ft) for each cable type) 

must be stored near the water or in an area with crane availability so the cable can be loaded on to a 

cable repair vessel when needed. Spare cable is typically stored in a large horizontally laid coil that is 

inside a structure that protects the cable from light and mechanical damage. This cable storage 

requires an area within the port that can be dedicated to long-term storage of the cable without 

interference with other port uses. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.3 Overview of Wind Facility Components

Figure 2.3-1 presents a diagrammatic representation of an offshore wind farm. Equipment is split between 

the offshore and onshore environments, with the installation, commissioning, and operation of the former 

requiring specialist vessels that are required to operate out of port facilities. 

HAT = Highest Astronomical Tide
 

LAT = Lowest Astronomical Tide
 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-1. Components of an Offshore Wind Project 

For further information on the weights and dimensions of specific components, see DNV GL (2014). 

2.3.1 Foundations 

The offshore wind farm market is now entering its third decade. Although several types of 

foundations have been proposed, the foundation types described below represent the technologies 

commonly used today and include steel monopile structures, gravity base structures, and jacket 

structures. In some cases, foundation type is the controlling factor relative to quayside bearing 

capacities and crane lifting capabilities; however, at other times, it could be the Wind Turbine 

Generators (WTGs). This is largely dependent on WTG size, as a monopile foundation is currently 

unable to support an 8 MW WTG; however, future technology improvements, such as XL monopiles, 

may allow for monopile support of 8 MW WTGs. 

2.3.1.1 Steel Monopile Structures

Monopile structures have been proven as economic solutions in Europe across various soil 

conditions and water depths. Steel monopile foundations are used in about 79% of all operational 

offshore projects, and will be used in the majority of the projects currently under construction or 

contracted. Hence, steel monopiles offer a well understood design solution. Solutions to the 

recent industry-wide issues surrounding grouted joint design of new build monopile foundations 

have been approved so it is likely that monopiles will provide an economic and efficient solution 

in the future. 

A monopile foundation consists of a single steel pile, which is embedded into the seabed. Figure 

2.3-2 shows a typical monopile foundation design. The depth of pile penetration into the seabed 

and the pile diameter and wall thickness are determined principally by the maximum water depth, 

seabed soil conditions, and rated capacity of the wind turbine. The maximum water depth 

corresponds to the highest probable combination of high tide and storm surge. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

JJ--tube tube

Grouted 

or bolted 

joint 

Monopile 

Transition 

piece 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-2. Windy Turbine Substructure Concept - Monopile 

Typically, the turbine tower is mounted onto the foundation via a transition piece, which itself is 

fixed onto the pile using a specialized grouted joint. The purpose of the grouted joint is to take up 

any misalignment tolerances that inevitably occur during installation of the monopile, and 

provide continuity of structural load transfer between the monopile and the turbine tower. 

Recently, bolted connections have also been utilized at this joint. 

The level of the top of the transition piece, or more specifically the level of the platform, is 

determined by the necessity to maintain adequate clearance over the crests of waves during storm 

conditions. On exposed sites with high tidal ranges this can place the platform up to 20 m (66 ft) 

or more above the water level shown on navigation charts. 

The J-tube, illustrated in Figure 2.3-2 above, is an externally or internally mounted steel tube at 

the base of the foundation that protects the electrical cable leading between the seabed and the 

structure top-side. An I-tube (shown in Figure 2.3-1) provides the same function as a J-tube; 

however, it is a vertical tube rather than a J-shaped tube (GL Noble Denton and DNV 2015). 

The J-tube and other more delicate attachments – such as railings, walkways, and electrical 

switchgear that would be damaged during pile-driving activities – are pre-installed (often at the 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

staging port) on the transition piece instead of on the monopile itself. Monopile weights vary with 

water depth and turbine size, as well as wave climate severity, and soil strengths, and have 

typically ranged between 250 and 800 metric tons (t) (276 and 882 tonnes [T]) to date. Heavier 

monopiles (“XL monopiles”) in excess of 1000 t (1,102 T) have recently been ordered. 

2.3.1.2 Gravity Base Structures

Gravity Base Structures (GBS) typically take one of the two forms illustrated in Figure 2.3-3. 

Although steel GBS foundations have been proposed, those which have been deployed to date 

have been made of concrete, for reasons of fabrication cost. Hence, this type of structure is 

sometimes termed a Concrete Gravity Structure or Concrete Gravity Base Structure. 

Concrete gravity bases of both narrow shaft and conical form have been used on a number of 

offshore wind farms in Northern Europe, with approximately 168 installed and 90 being planned 

for construction as of mid-2015. Most of these foundations have been of the narrow shaft form, 

with six foundations at the Belgian Thornton Bank Project being of the conical design. The base 

of the GBS foundations are typically filled with ballast, consisting of sand, rock, or even water, 

which serves to anchor the foundation to the seabed and can be adjusted to suit the soil 

conditions. The ballast can partly be installed in the fabrication yard and partly at the final 

position; all depending on the capacity of the construction yard, the available draft during sea 

transport and the availability of ballast materials (DNV 2010). 

To date, all GBS foundations for wind turbines, except those of Thornton Bank (consisting of just 

six turbines at approximately 25 m (82 ft) of water depth), have been installed in rather shallow 

waters. As a result, the required lifting capacity has been well below 2,000 t (2,205 T), ensuring 

that the transport and installation of the foundation could be executed using inexpensive barges 

customized for the installation process. For some projects, such as Middelgrunden just outside 

Copenhagen (Denmark), the foundations were manufactured in a dry dock and transported to the 

site partly submerged, thus reducing the required lifting capacity. 

Based on available information from the Thornton Bank project, it is evident that new methods 

must be considered to ensure relatively swift and continuous transport and installation processes. 

These processes need to be more independent of wave height and frequencies. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-3. Wind Turbine Substructure Concept – Gravity Base Structure 

2.3.1.3 Jacket Structures 

A general jacket foundation form is illustrated in Figure 2.3-4. Jacket structures appear to be 

favored for the support of wind turbines in the 5 MW to 7 MW range. Fabrication complexity, 

especially at the interface with the tower, is a specific issue that needs to be resolved, though 

several forms of simplified transition structure are in development, which avoids this complexity. 

Alternative forms of transition structure are also often dictated by design for natural frequency 

limits. 

In recent years, jacket structures have been developed to support REpower 5M wind turbines at 

the Beatrice demonstrator site off northeastern Scotland, at the Alpha Ventus wind farm in the 

German North Sea, and at the Ormonde wind farm in the Irish Sea. These deployments cover a 

wide range of water depths, from approximately 20 m (66 ft) at Ormonde, to 30 m (98 ft) at 

Alpha Ventus, to 45 m (148 ft) at the Beatrice demonstration site. Together, these three sites 

indicate that jacket foundations are viable options for larger wind turbines, such as the RE5M, in 

a fairly broad range of water depths. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jacket 

Piles 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-4. Wind Turbine Substructure Concept – Jacket (pre-piled & post-piled) 

The nature of the jacket concept lends itself to a considerable number of variant geometries. 

These include shortened jackets that do not emerge above sea level, 3- and 4-legged jackets, 

jackets which might be piled in-leg, and alternative leg inclination angles, among others. 

Secondary steelwork such as boat landings and working and intermediate access platforms are 

mounted on the main lattice and would be entirely pre-installed at the fabrication yard. J-tubes are 

generally mounted to the brace members and are enclosed within the lattice. 

2.3.2 Cables 

2.3.2.1 Inter-Array Cables

The inter-array cables connect the wind turbines into strings and then connect the strings to the 

offshore substation platform(s). The cables between adjacent wind turbines are relatively short in 

length and depend on the wind farm layout. The cables between the offshore substation and the 

wind turbine strings are typically longer. At present, inter-array cables in Europe are typically 

operated at a voltage level of 33 kilovolt (kV); in the U.S., 33 kV or 34.5 kV is expected to be the 

norm. Typical conductor diameters range from 120 square millimeters (mm2

) to 630 mm2 (0.186 

square inches [in2

] to 0.977 in2) depending on usage and capacity; this range of cable could carry 

between approximately 20 MW and 35 MW. In the future, it is expected that cables will be 

operated at around 66 kV, which would enable savings through the use of fewer wind farm array 

circuits. These cable sizes are consistent with those used in the offshore electric submarine cable 

industry (ORTC, 2011; PMSS, 2014). Figure 2.3-5 below shows a typical cross-section of a 3­

core cable with fiber optic communications medium. The steel wire outer armoring provides 

mechanical protection for the cable. 

14 
 

 

 

Source: http://www.zttcable.com.hk/en/submarine.htm 

Figure 2.3-5. Cross-Section of Inter-array Cable 

2.3.2.2 Export Cables

The export cables transmit the electricity from the offshore substation(s) to the designated 

onshore landfall point. Two types of cables are currently available for use: Alternating Current 

(AC) or High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC). AC export cables are similar to the array cables, 

although the insulation requirements are more significant. Therefore, the dimensions of a 132 kV 

500 mm2 (0.775 in2

) cable are greater than those of a 33 kV 500 mm2 (0.775 in2) cable. HVDC 

cables are much simpler, as shown in Figure 2.3-6 below, although in most cases two will be 

required: a send and return or positive and negative. The two HVDC cables are typically bundled 

together and installed in a single trench. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

Source: electrical-engineering-portal.com/offshore-windfarms-transmission-cables 

Figure 2.3-6. Components of a HVDC Export Cable 

2.3.3 Turbines 

This study considers wind turbines with power ratings ranging between 4 MW and 8 MW, which is 

the likely range of turbine sizes that would be principally used in the U.S. in the short- and mediumterm. Figure 2.3-7 presents a typical upwind offshore wind turbine. The primary components of an 

offshore wind turbine are labeled. 

Nacelle 

Transition 

piece 

Blade 

Tower 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-7. Principal Components of an Offshore Wind Turbine 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.3.3.1 Wind Turbine Tower 

The tower structure is usually a lightly tapering tubular section, which connects the flanged 

connection at the top of the foundation unit or transition piece to the nacelle. The tower structure 

is likely to consist of up to four tapering steel tubular sections, which are lifted into place and 

bolted together. 

2.3.3.2 Nacelle and Blades 

The nacelle typically houses the drivetrain and many of the power electronic and control 

components of the turbine. The general architecture of a typical gear-driven wind turbine nacelle 

is illustrated in Figure 2.3-8. The nacelle is usually installed at the site as a single unit, with the 

hub pre-installed. The wind turbine blades are then bolted onto the hub. Depending on the 

capabilities of the installation vessel and the assembly space available in the staging port, some 

turbines are erected using a full rotor installation, which comprises the hub and blades being 

preassembled onshore and installed on the nacelle offshore. 

Source: www.nordex.dk 

Figure 2.3-8. Wind Turbine Nacelle and Rotor 

2.3.4 Substations 

Whether an offshore wind farm has an offshore or onshore substation depends primarily on the size of 

the wind farm, distance from shore, and distance from the grid connection point. Typically, wind 

farms farther than approximately 10 kilometers (km) (6.2 miles) from land have substations offshore. 

The substation accommodates the transformers required to increase the distribution voltage (33 kV or 

above) of the inter-array cables to a higher voltage of typically 110 – 245 kV. From the offshore 

substation, the export cables then carry the power to the landfall location. 

As wind farm capacities increase and move farther offshore, there is a requirement for increased 

electrical equipment ratings and hence, for larger substations. When wind farms are located at 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

substantial distances from shore, the losses in the electrical system can become significant. To 

minimize losses as far as possible, voltages are stepped up, for example from 33 kV to 115 kV. 

2.3.4.1 Power Export Technology: HVAC or HVDC

Eventually, when distances are large, transporting power with reasonable losses using HighVoltage Alternating Current (HVAC) becomes technically challenging and may justify the use of 

HVDC technology, which is a step change in the size of the required electrical infrastructure. 

Figure 2.3-9 presents an approximation for the optimization of the power export technology as a 

function of the distance from the shore and the capacity of the wind farm. 

If the power is to be exported from the wind farm using HVDC, a separate offshore platform may 

also be installed to house the plant, which converts the AC that is generated by the wind turbines 

to direct current (DC) for the transmission of power to shore. 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-9. Export Cable Technology vs. Distance 

The approach of utilizing several substations for large projects and for projects with HVDC 

output is considered to be a likely trend as the European offshore wind industry progresses and 

projects move farther offshore. 

2.3.4.2 Substation Foundation 

The substation(s) require foundations on which to place the topside that contains the equipment 

mentioned above. Options for the foundation design are similar to those for turbine foundations 

but the topside weights are heavier, requiring significantly larger substation foundations. 

The substation foundation unit is likely to use one of the design concepts described above for the 

wind turbines, most probably a jacket structure. Figure 2.3-10 below shows typical configuration 

for a jacket mounted offshore substation. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.3-10. Offshore Substation on Jacket Foundation 

2.4 Overview of Port Activities 

Port facilities supporting offshore wind energy projects typically host three primary activities: fabrication 

and assembly, installation and staging, and operations and maintenance. Part of each of these activities are 

a set of typical tasks performed at a port, including loading and unloading components, transporting 

components, storing components, maintenance of components, and fabrication, and/or final assembly of 

components. The following sub-sections provide an introduction to each of these tasks. 

Large offshore wind project components are generally manufactured, stored, loaded, and unloaded at a 

port facility before they are deployed to the project site. One exception is jackets, which are generally not 

unloaded after loadout at the manufacturer’s factory and remain on their transportation barge after leaving 

the fabrication yard, remaining afloat until they are installed. 

Port facilities also serve as the best location for fabrication facilities. If a manufacturer happens to be 

located reasonably close to the offshore wind farm site, this facility may fulfill the dual roles of 

manufacture and staging port. 

2.4.1 Component Loading and Unloading

Historically, wind turbines were manufactured with onshore installation in mind. The remoteness of 

many onshore project sites was a key driver in determining maximum component sizes and their 

design for largely road-based transport. Nevertheless, the international scale of the wind turbine 

market led to the location of many turbine manufacturers on or near coastal, river or estuarine port 

facilities, placing them in a favorable position for the subsequent offshore wind market. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The increased size of offshore turbines can also restrict many traditional approaches to road-based 

transport of components. As a result, it is normal practice for components to be transported by sea 

directly from the manufacturer to a marshaling or staging port before subsequent transport to the 

offshore site, thus avoiding any significant onshore transport with the exception of general port 

logistics. In some cases, turbines may even be shipped directly to the site from the manufacturer port 

facility, limiting onshore handling still further. 

In the U.K. and Europe foundations and other offshore components have, by necessity, followed a 

similar route, with fabricators and suppliers largely based close to a suitable port. Once again, a 

marshaling or staging port may be adopted as an interim storage facility, depending largely on the 

transit distance between the site and the fabrication port. 

There are various transportation alternatives for moving turbines and foundations from the 

manufacturer’s premises to the offshore wind farm site. The generally applicable alternatives are: 

•	 Loading of components at the manufacturer’s port facility and offloading them onto quayside 

storage areas at the staging port to be collected by a feeder vessel or installation vessel as 

required on site; 

•	 Loading of components onto a transport vessel or barge at the manufacturer’s premises and 

either anchoring the transport barge or offloading onto a storage barge in a sheltered harbor 

near the offshore wind farm site while awaiting transfer to the installation vessel; 

•	 Loading of components onto a transport vessel or barge at the manufacturer’s premises, and 

offloading onto the installation craft at the offshore wind farm site – known as feeder vessel 

duties; or 

•	 Loading of components directly onto the installation craft at the manufacturer’s premises for 

transport and installation at the offshore wind farm site. 

The loading of the vessels in ports can be performed in a variety of ways, but currently the most 

common approaches are the lifting and rolling of components onto the deck or into the holds of the 

vessel, using techniques known as Lo-Lo and Ro-Ro, respectively. The term Ro-Ro is an abbreviation 

of the descriptive term: “Roll-on, Roll-off,” while Lo-Lo is an abbreviation of “Lift-On, Lift-Off.” 

Both have significant implications, with regard to vessels, port infrastructure, and mechanical plant 

selection. The practicalities and implications of both techniques will be described in the following 

sections. 

For completeness, other techniques that are used include rollers, grease and air skates, crawler 

transport units, and skidding techniques, all of which are technically possible, but are generally less 

favored within the industry. 

Due to their size and weight, GBSs are considered a separate case. There are four primary approaches 

to fabrication of GBSs: 

•	 in a dry dock, 

•	 in a floating dry dock, 

•	 casting on a quayside or 

•	 casting on a barge. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In each case, the GBS needs to be either lifted from a quayside or launched and floated to site. In 

Europe, heavy-lift crane vessels are used to lift GBSs at the quayside. These vessels are not available 

to service ports in the U.S., nor are they expected to be available in the near- to medium-term. As 

such, the most likely scenario for GBS fabrication and deployment will be to cast them directly on the 

barge. A heavy-lift vessel will still be required to install the GBS, but such a vessel could be brought 

in from Europe or elsewhere, if needed. Figure 2.4-1 shows 12 GBS foundations on a barge being 

towed to a project site and four others being fabricated on a second barge. 

Source: http://businessguide.offshorewind.biz/profiles/view/jan_de_nul_group 

Figure 2.4-1. GBS Foundations Fabrication and Deployment Using Barges 

2.4.1.1 Lift-On, Lift-Off 

Lo-Lo has traditionally been the most common way to load and unload ships, and port facilities 

will often have cranes designed to accommodate the most common types of cargo passing 

through the port. It is important to note that the cranes currently located in ports may not have the 

lifting capacity to meet the demands of the offshore wind industry. 

Lifting operations within a port may be carried out either by land-based cranes on the quayside or 

by the use of the vessel cranes, if present. 

2.4.1.2 Quayside Cranes

The types of freight which are commonly loaded on and off ships using cranes within port 

facilities vary dramatically and require very different lifting solutions: 

•	 Bulk and Granular Material: Some bulk material cargos require cranes with grabber 

arms (Figure 2.4-2), or pneumatic transport systems, while some ships may have internal 

hoppers and conveyor discharge systems built in. These types of arrangements are 

suitable for rocks, aggregates, other granular materials (like grain or iron ore), traditional 

solid fuels (like coal) and, increasingly, for wood-chips and pellets for biomass heating 

systems. Cranes dedicated to this application tend to be highly specialized, with relatively 

light lift capacities, but fast cycling capability (both hoist speeds and slew-rates). All but 

21 
 

 

 

the largest of these, operating in tandem, would be unsuitable for lifting heavy turbine or 

foundation components, but may prove beneficial for loading or unloading rock, gravel, 

and grout materials during seabed preparation works, grouting works, and burial or scourprotection works. 

Source: http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/portoperations/cargo-handling/gift-of-the-grab
 

Figure 2.4-2. Mobile Crane with Grabber Arm Loading Salt 

•	 Containerized Freight: Most “transit” cargos pass inland, through ports, and are 

therefore “packaged” in such a way as to be suitable for forwarding as either road or rail 

freight. The most common example of these is container shipping, which has dedicated 

vessels and port cranes (Figure 2.4-3), most of which are generally inappropriate for 

offshore wind installation purposes due to their relatively light lift capabilities and “made 

to order” configuration. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: 

http://www.portstrategy.com/news10 

1/port-operations/cargo-handling/giftof-the-grab 

Figure 2.4-3. Container-Port Crane 

•	 Specialist and Non-Containerized Break-Bulk Cargo: Typically located at ports 

serving large component fabricators, ship builders or other heavy industries, large harbor 

or gantry cranes are generally the most appropriate permanent quayside cranes for the 

purposes of offshore foundation and turbine loading and unloading. Ports that do not have 

such permanent specialist heavy-lift cranes may, however, utilize large mobile, crawler, 

or ringer cranes as long as sufficient quayside soil bearing strengths exist (or can be 

constructed). See Figure 2.4-4 for an example. One valuable feature of a crawler crane, as 

opposed to mobile or ringer cranes, is its ability to pick a load up and to track forward, 

thereby transporting the load while suspended, an operation which is called “pick and 

carry.” This enables the use of a single crawler crane both to load and to transport turbine 

components around a marshaling yard, and avoids the additional expense of transporters 

such as Self-Propelled Modular Transport Units (SPMTs). The cost penalty is that the 

transit speed of a laden crawler crane is extremely slow; therefore, the time requirement 

for chartering delivery vessels, and any associated equipment and personnel, will be 

greatly increased, but it may be cost-effective if pick and carry travel distances can be 

kept to a minimum. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

Image courtesy of Port of Vancouver USA
 

Source: http://www.portvanusa.com/news/image-library/
 

Figure 2.4-4. Specialized Mobile Harbor Cranes Lifting Wind Turbine Blade 

Many areas adjacent to quays have had rails fitted for tower or gantry cranes (Figure 2.4-5). 

Generally, these cranes are too small to meet the requirements of offshore wind installation, but 

the reinforced concrete beams along which the rails run, are often well supported by piles and 

may well have useful load bearing capacity, either for lifting or as haulage routes. 

Source: http://firsttech.com.hk/special.html#t9hit 

Figure 2.4-5. Gantry Crane 

2.4.1.3 Vessel Cranes for Loading and Unloading

A common solution to loading and unloading wind turbine components in port is to use the 

onboard vessel cranes. This type of vessel with its own lift-gear is variously called a “geared 

vessel,” a multi-purpose vessel, or a heavy lift cargo vessel. This option will require adequate 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onshore transportation facilities (such as SPMTs) and quayside bearing strengths to allow 

components to be located close enough to the vessel to be within the crane’s operating radius. 

Vessel cranes are not limited to installation vessels, but may also be present on large cargo 

vessels that are used to transport components between manufacturers and marshaling ports. 

Figure 2.4-6 shows two pedestal cranes on a heavy lift cargo vessel used for the transportation 

and installation of transition pieces at the Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Project in the United 

Kingdom (UK). As with other cranes, these vessel-mounted cranes may be used in tandem to 

increase the overall lifting capacity. 

Source: Offshorewind.biz 

Figure 2.4-6. Pedestal Cranes on Jumbo Shipping’s Jumbo Javelin Used to Install 

Transition Pieces at the Greater Gabbard Offshore Project 

2.4.1.4 Independent Floating Cranes

Another option, to avoid having to use either a vessel fitted with its own crane or land-based 

cranes, is to use an independent floating crane. There are often lifting requirements in ports where 

the port’s cranes are inadequate to meet the lifting needs of large items, and a large number of 

ports have floating cranes available to carry out these unusual, intermittent lifts. 

One type of floating crane that is ideally suited to heavy lifting is the sheerleg crane. In its 

simplest form, it is effectively an unpowered (often termed “deck” barge), with a structural steel 

frame protruding over the forward edge and some form of lifting winch and pulley system. 

2.4.1.5 Roll-On, Roll-Off 

Ro-Ro is most commonly associated with passenger car ferries and the transport of new vehicles 

to their port of entry, where vehicles and other wheeled equipment are loaded and unloaded onto 

the vessel by driving on and off ramps, using a customized port access device called a link-span 

(Figure 2.4-7). 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many onshore wind turbine components are transported using Ro-Ro ferries, when they are not 

operating to a commercial timetable. The larger offshore turbines are unlikely to be transported 

using ferries, as their components are generally larger than even the largest freight transport for 

which the ferries and link-spans are designed; they are also too large to be road-hauled via 

infrastructure designed for similarly-sized vehicles. However, this methodology is applicable to 

loading and unloading turbine components that are transported by barge, and some cargo vessels 

that have decks that can be used for Ro-Ro cargos. 

To determine whether a particular link-span (ramp for loading/unloading components using RoRo) can be used with a particular barge or vessel, and under what particular circumstances (i.e., in 

terms of ballasting, state of the tide, around timetabled usage of the Ro-Ro, etc.), a separate study 

by a specialist project cargo freight-forwarding specialist would be required. 

While some ports do not have permanent Ro-Ro berths, it is possible to accommodate this facility 

by using a mobile Ro-Ro ramp. This is a highly specialized piece of equipment, as it enables 

extension of a port’s capability beyond that of its fixed infrastructure. 

There are some general cargo vessels and heavy-lift cargo vessels which have aft and/or bow 

ramps designed for Ro-Ro cargos. Some vessels are designed with reinforced decks, and will only 

accommodate the Ro-Ro cargos as deck loads, while others have more elaborate arrangements for 

accommodating the cargo below deck. An example of a Ro-Ro capable vessel is shown in 

Figure 2.4-7. 

The number of Ro-Ro berths, and the category of cargo they are capable of carrying, are 

important factors to consider in evaluating port capabilities. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: www.roll-group.com/projects/windmill-equipment.html 

Figure 2.4-7. Ro-Ro Capable Vessel – RollDock 

2.4.2 Component Transportation Within the Port

Components are transported within the port facility using a number of different techniques. This 

section summarizes the primary techniques employed currently. 

2.4.2.1 Crawler Cranes 

In general, the types of cranes currently found in ports are highly evolved to meet the specific 

requirements of loading and unloading what can be categorized as “general cargo” from cargo 

ships. They generally have cabs at high level, to allow the crane driver to see into deep holds 

easily. They also have relatively low lift capacity, but high operational speeds, to quickly perform 

small lifts to load the vessel. Some of the largest harbor cranes currently in operation can only lift 

approximately 200 t (220 T), which is insufficient for most wind turbine components. 

Crawler cranes can be used in versatile roles, not only for loading and unloading components but 

also transporting items from storage around the port (Figure 2.4-8). This can minimize the 

requirement for SPMTs, although these can prove to be significantly more economical than using 

a suitable specification crawler crane for all operations. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.4-8. Typical Lattice-boomed Crawler Crane Lifting Arrangement 

In general, crawler cranes in the 500-600 t (551-661 T) range have proven to be the most versatile 

cranes in staging yards in Northern European wind farm developments. However, for handling 

large nacelles, larger cranes may well be needed. 

It is possible to use a 1,000 t (1,102 T) crawler crane in tandem with a smaller crane to place 

larger components at a distance aboard the vessel. 

An alternative option to the lattice-boomed crawler crane is a mobile crane. These are generally 

self-transporting, and can mobilize quickly. This means that the crane can be brought to and from 

site in short order, allowing the contractor to minimize the number of days the crane is sitting idle 

on-site. While day rates for mobile cranes are significantly higher than those for crawler cranes 

on long-term hire, this could work out to be less costly over the project duration. 

A mobile crane stabilizes itself with a set of out-rigger legs, generally four. A major disadvantage 

is that these concentrate lifted loads into relatively small points, which is inadvisable immediately 

adjacent to the quayside edge. This condition is known as “super-loading.” Most quaysides are of 

a sheet-piled construction, with a capping beam, and there is a significant danger of the sheet 

piling failing if large loads are placed too close to the edge. 

Another disadvantage of mobile cranes is that they cannot “pick and carry,” and can only rotate 

and place a lifted load within the safe operating radius. This means that SPMTs will also be 

required to transport components to storage, incurring additional daily costs. 

2.4.2.2 Self-Propelled Modular Transporters (SPMTs)

Some wind farms have managed to avoid the need for heavy cranes by loading turbines and 

foundation components onto SPMTs, and by utilizing Ro-Ro ship-type vessels or transport barges 

loaded from Ro-Ro link-spans. Common forms of SPMT have individual two-axle units with a 

load carrying capability of approximately 30t / axle (33 T/ axle), and can be arranged side-by-side 

or end-to-end in a rolling transporter for extremely large loads (Figure 2.4-9). 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.4-9. Self-propelled Modular Transporters 

Whether this type of unloading arrangement will be possible will be specific to each port facility 

and vessel combination, as gentle gradients, large turning radii, and sufficient headroom are often 

required (often not available in existing port Ro-Ro facilities). Any usage of incorporated roads 

would require that transportation complies with road haulage regulations for that part of the 

haulage route. 

Specialist heavy transport firms, or project cargo forwarders, can support companies wishing to 

investigate the suitability of individual port facilities for accepting specific cargos. However, each 

combination of vessel, port, and component will require individual assessment. If large numbers 

of components require storage, further assessment of the deck strengths or axle loads of haul 

routes between the Ro-Ro offloading and storage areas will be required. 

Despite the complexities of this transport method, it avoids the need for large cranes, which can 

result in significant savings. Additional cost may be incurred due to the need for storage frames 

or equivalent, which allows SPMTs to roll underneath and jack the load on and off. 

2.4.3 Component Storage and Preparation

Wind turbine components are large structures, which require significant storage space at ports. This 

section will describe storage methodologies and describe the assumptions made pertaining to storage. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: www.mlm.uk.com 

Figure 2.4-10. Nacelle Storage in Port 

It is assumed that components will be raised off the ground during storage, as shown in Figure 2.4-10 

above. This enables SPMTs to maneuver underneath, jack-up to take the weight of the component, 

and transit to the quayside for load-out. A sufficient gap must therefore be left for the SPMT beneath 

the component. The typical method to achieve this is to use short metal columns to raise the 

component off the ground and baulk timbers to distribute the load to the ground. 

It is assumed that blades are stored in stacks of three and the frames are supported by 4 m (13 ft) long 

blocks at both ends. For nacelles, it is assumed that four columns would support the structure and 

would rest on timbers the length of half of the nacelle. The transition pieces are assumed to rest on a 

frame, which rests on four columns, the weight distributed over two pieces of baulk timber as long as 

the diameter of the transition piece. The monopile foundations are assumed to be stored on ten 

columns at five points along the foundation, each column resting on a 4 m (13 ft) long piece of baulk 

timber. Lastly, the jacket foundations are assumed to be stored upright or on their sides, each of the 

four contact points resting on 12 square meters (m2

) (129 square feet [ft2]) pallets. It should be noted, 

however, that it is not recommended for the jackets to be stored at the staging port, but loaded 

immediately onto a barge from the manufacturing port and kept there until ready for installation. 

Jacket foundations are particularly fragile and this method avoids double handling and potential 

damage. 

In the early days of U.S. offshore wind development, it is expected that numerous components will be 

delivered to the staging port from Europe rather than from a local manufacturing facility. This longer 

transit time will likely result in a requirement to store more components at the staging port in order to 

provide sufficient buffer during construction. As a result, U.S. ports would need larger storage areas 

than are common in European staging ports. 

2.4.4 Potential Activities and Use Conflicts 

Ports that offer the ability to accommodate the activities associated with offshore wind also host a 

variety of other activities that can aid, conflict, or occur simultaneously with uses related to offshore 

wind facility development. The activities that are already established at these Atlantic coast ports can 

affect offshore wind uses both directly and inadvertently (and both positively and negatively) due to 

the logistics, infrastructure, and benefits of the activity. An example of a positive direct effect is that a 

port may already have the road systems in place to handle large freight trucks. An example of an 

inadvertent negative effect is that a port authority may prefer to maintain established relationships 

with industries they may currently be serving on a consistent basis, and be hesitant to embrace change 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for what may be considered intermittent or project specific activities. It is common practice for an 

offshore wind project to lease an entire port or at least an entire terminal, which can serve to minimize 

vessel conflicts and interference with onshore activities. Below are the major activities and uses 

currently found at potential offshore wind ports along the Atlantic coast: 

•	 Shipping – the waterborne cargo and associated activities contribute over $600 billion 

annually, sustaining 13 million jobs (U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime 

Administration, 2015). Vessels involved in the shipping industry are in the range of a couple 

hundred meters to several hundred meters (several hundred feet to over 1,000 feet) in length 

and utilize ports on a daily basis. 

•	 Commercial Fishing – the commercial fishing industry is a $70 billion industry (NOAA, 

2010) typically utilizing vessels 9 – 30 m (30 – 100 ft) in length. Commercial activities occur 

on a daily basis involving on and offshore logistics. 

•	 Cruise lines – the cruise industry is a $20 billion industry (Business Research & Economic 

Advisors, 2013) utilizing ships a couple hundred meters to several hundred meters (several 

hundred feet to over 1,000 feet) in length. Cruise ships typically do not visit ports on a daily 

basis and visit northern U.S. Atlantic coast ports more regularly in warmer months. 

•	 Recreational Boating – the recreational boating industry contributes approximately $18 

billion annually (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 2000). While recreational boaters often navigate the 

same waterways as large commercial vessels, in most cases, marinas for recreational vessels 

are not located directly adjacent to port facilities. 

•	 Other activities are conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, passenger ferry services, 

and marine tourism (i.e., whale watching and scenic tours). 

The Table 2.4-1 below compares aspects of current marine industries in ports along the Atlantic and 

how their specialized infrastructure could possibly compliment or conflict with the requirements 

needed to build the offshore wind infrastructure. 

Table 2.4-1 Summary of Potential Activities and Use Conflicts with Offshore Wind 

Industry Potential Compliments with Offshore 

Wind 

Potential Conflict with Offshore Wind 

Port Use 

Shipping • Due to the size of shipping vessels, the 

ports that handle this industry meet the 

requirements to handle large ships and 

therefore can handle the barges and 

vessels required for offshore wind. 

• The infrastructure on land including 

warehouses, lifting equipment, 

roadways, railways, and wharfs are 

already largely in place to handle most 

required aspects of the offshore wind 

industry. 

• Areas surrounding large ports are 

already accustomed to the noises and 

visual impacts associated with the 

shipping industry at the ports. 

• The tug and towboat network is 

established. 

• The navigational channels are 

• Shipping is a source of reliable recurring 

revenue and some ports may not be 

accepting of the potential economic risk 

involved with incorporating a new 

industry with intermittent needs that 

could potentially conflict with existing 

uses. 

• Possible conflict of usage of existing 

infrastructure if Port is currently space or 

equipment constrained. 

• Current operations may be negatively 

impacted while necessary modifications 

for the specialized equipment used with 

offshore wind are taking place. 

• Schedules are not flexible and delays 

can have significant cost implications; 

however, the high traffic implications will 

only occur during offshore wind 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industry Potential Compliments with Offshore 

Wind 

Potential Conflict with Offshore Wind 

Port Use 

established with appropriate channel 

depths and widths, in most cases. 

• Port modifications completed to 

accommodate offshore wind may open 

the shipping industry to new 

commodities. 

• The communication and safety systems 

are in place to handle daily vessel traffic. 

construction and major maintenance 

activities. 

• Cargo ports prefer to enter into longterm (10+ year) contracts, whereas an 

offshore wind project typically requires a 

staging port for only 2-3 years. 

Commercial • The roadway infrastructure is in place for • Operate year round and on a daily basis 

Fishing freight trucks; however, not all ports offer 

the capability to handle oversized freight 

loads. 

• The communication and safety systems 

are in place to handle daily vessel traffic. 

• Most fishing vessels are smaller in size 

and have good maneuverability to avoid 

vessel traffic conflicts. 

• Commercial fishing vessels are similar in 

size to any light duty or maintenance 

vessels; therefore vessel servicing and 

lift locations are in place. 

• Does not operate on a fixed schedule. 

which could cause complications with the 

port operations without proper 

coordination. 

• Land-side operations are significantly 

smaller in scale than offshore wind 

construction activities with little to no 

versatility between the industries. 

Cruise Lines • Busiest during the warmer months, 

limiting vessel traffic complications 

timeframes. 

• Ports able to accommodate large cruise 

lines will also have adequate port and 

navigational designs required for 

aspects of offshore wind. 

• Port modifications completed to 

accommodate offshore wind may 

provide additional locations for cruise 

vessel servicing. 

• Cruise ships arrive and depart on fixed 

schedules, which are known in advance 

and can be planned around for other 

vessel movements. 

• Vessels and their security perimeters are 

large enough to limit movement of other 

vessels in constrained locations. 

• Land-side operations are significantly 

different than the requirements for 

offshore wind. 

• Warm weather construction window for 

offshore development activity will 

coincide with highest level of cruise ship 

activity. 

Recreational • Established marinas can provide • The presence of large marine 

Boating docking space for small maintenance 

vessels and crew transportation vessels, 

which provides additional revenue to 

marinas. 

• Other port industries are accustomed to 

the recreational boating community and 

the added vessels to fulfill maintenance 

trips will not be cumbersome to other 

industries. 

• Does not operate on a fixed schedule. 

• Smaller vessels have excellent 

maneuverability to avoid traffic conflicts. 

construction activities or unique vessels 

becomes a curiosity for the recreational 

boater, which leads to recreational 

vessels approaching the work vessels. 

• Sailboats have limited maneuverability. 

• During summer months the volume of 

vessels exponentially increases 

potentially causing conflicts with offshore 

wind construction season activities. 

• A large percentage of recreational 

boaters do not fully understand or comply 

with navigational rules, which could lead 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industry Potential Compliments with Offshore 

Wind 

Potential Conflict with Offshore Wind 

Port Use 

• Primarily operate in warmer months. to conflicts. 

Other • Ports with major Naval or Coast Guard 

facilities will have harbors clear of ice and 

obstructions year round. 

• Ports with major Naval or Coast Guard 

facilities will have adequate channel 

depths. 

• Ferries and tourism typically operate only 

during warmer months of the year. 

• Ferries and tourism operate on fixed 

schedules. 

• Large naval vessels may cause vessel 

traffic implications. 

• Vessels and their security perimeters are 

large enough to limit movement of other 

vessels in constrained locations. 

Additional concerns of ports, not directly associated with other industries along the Atlantic coast 

include hurricane barriers limiting vessel sizes, availability of heavy lift cranes for gravity-based 

structures, and adequate dock bearing limits to support heavy lift cranes. Offshore wind port 

modifications that may require in-water work, either quayside or in harbor channels, would have the 

greatest potential to impact the existing Port uses described above. 

While there is the potential for conflict between navigating vessels engaged in routine waterborne 

commerce and those engaged in the offshore wind industry, these type of potential conflicts are well 

managed and minimized by the marine industry and the U.S. Coast Guard. As part of its mission, the 

U.S. Coast Guard routinely de-conflicts waterways to maintain marine safety and to allow marine 

construction activities, specialized vessels, and routine vessel traffic to operate in the same waters 

with minimal disruption. In addition, professional mariners routinely maintain radio contact with one 

another when operating close to each other so each vessel’s intentions are known and conflicts can be 

minimized or avoided. 

2.5 Summary of Port Requirements to Support Offshore Wind

In this section, the port requirements that are specific to offshore wind are addressed. Overall, the size and 

weight of offshore wind turbine components makes the ports that support these projects relatively unique 

when compared with the typical U.S. port (DNV GL, 2014; Cooper and Marrone, 2013; Kinetik, 2011). 

The seven primary factors that are especially important for ports handling offshore wind components are 

the following: 

• Access 

o Port access channel width and turning capacity 

o Port access maintained and controlling water depths 

o Overhead draft (i.e., bridge clearance, port crane heights)—also known as “air draft” 

o Number of berths 

• Quayside 

o Length of the quayside 

o Bearing capacity of the quayside 

o Bearing capacity of the seabed at the quayside 

• Storage 

o Bearing capacity of the haul route(s) between the quayside and storage area(s) 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o	 Bearing capacity of the storage area(s) 

o	 Size of storage area 

•	 Roll-On/Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) capability 

o	 Width and headroom of Ro-Ro berth 

o	 Bearing capacity of Ro-Ro berth and ramps 

•	 Cranes 

o	 On-site cranes capabilities 

o	 Crane height restrictions 

•	 Transportation infrastructure 

•	 Location 

o	 Vessel transit distance to Wind Energy Areas —more appropriate than straight line 

distance 

o	 Availability of skilled workforce 

The majority of this section will be spent on staging ports; however, it is worth briefly addressing 

manufacturing and O&M ports as well. 

2.5.1 Manufacturing Ports

Ports that house manufacturing activities will have requirements specific to those activities. The 

following considerations are important when developing these ports. 

•	 Vessel access: Ports that support manufacturing activities for turbine components, 

foundations, cable, etc., share the same vessel access requirements as staging ports, since 

components are often transported from the manufacturing facility to the staging port. 

•	 Specific requirements for manufacturing: Manufacturing ports may also have specific 

requirements based on the needs of the manufacturer, for example covered warehouse space, 

overhead cranes, rail access, heavy lift capacity, indoor and outdoor storage. 

•	 Lifting capabilities: It is expected that ports where the heavier components, such as nacelle 

and foundations, are handled will need strengthening to be able to handle the weight of these 

components, and may require swept path analysis on bend radii of haul routes to be 

considered. 

•	 Specialized vessels: If special vessels are required to load or offload the component, the 

manufacturing port must also be able to accommodate these vessels. Examples include jackup vessels for transporting nacelles, heavy-lift crane vessels for lifting gravity base 

foundations (these vessels are primarily used in Europe), and cable laying vessels. 

•	 Location: Manufacturing ports do not need to be located near the offshore wind project site 

but are instead typically located for economic and business reasons, such as adjacency to 

skilled work force and in desirable residential areas. 

2.5.2 Operations and Maintenance Ports

The project O&M port will be a port that is close to the project location. Based on the results of DNV 

GL (2014), most U.S. ports fulfill the requirements for O&M ports with their existing capabilities and 

with little or no upgrades required. Some considerations relative to O&M ports include their ability to 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provide 24-hour port facility and navigational access; as well as the identification of tidal restrictions 

and/or seasonal limitation in certain locations. 

•	 Crew transfer: The majority of U.S. ports can serve as crew transfer ports with their existing 

specifications. 

•	 Service vessels: Existing port infrastructure is generally sufficient for maintenance the 

vessels that will be used for the majority of the routine maintenance on offshore wind 

turbines. Larger vessels that would be needed for major repairs would need to be deployed 

out of a port designed to accommodate the required vessel(s) and components. This does not 

need to be the project’s primary O&M port. 

2.5.3 Staging Ports

The port readiness study conducted for U.S. DOE (DNV GL, 2014) found that most U.S. ports will 

require improvements to be able to support staging activities for offshore wind projects. As 

mentioned above, this is primarily due to the weight of the components, which is greater than most 

other cargo that passes through most U.S. ports. This finding is also supported by Cooper & Marrone 

(2013), Kinetic (2011), and TetraTech EC (2010). 

The following sections describe the port requirements and important characteristics for specific 

components and types of port activities necessary to support offshore wind projects. Table 2.5-1 

provides some examples of the characteristics that represent the typical “minimum requirements.” It 

is important to keep in mind that this table is an example and may not represent the best solution for a 

specific project. 

In reality, when assessing ports for potential use to support an offshore wind energy project, it may be 

the case that a facility with significantly lesser characteristics to those listed in Table 2.5-1 may prove 

to be the preferred option for a given project. As has been the case in Europe, particularly in the UK, 

if experienced engineers are encouraged to consider adopting some of the myriad of reasonable 

alternative transportation and installation strategies during the front end engineering design study 

phase, port facilities with capabilities below the “minimum requirements” can be viable with minimal 

improvements required. Cost-benefit analyses should always be carried out between utilizing 

alternative means and methods in existing infrastructure, versus adopting “non-transferrable” 

construction strategies that require capital investment in enhancing port infrastructure up to what 

some may be considered to be ‘ideal’. In short, identifying a minimum set of requirements is 

complicated and challenging. 

Table 2.5-1. Example of Minimum Requirements to Support Offshore Wind Projects 

Requirements Units 

BladesNacellesTowersMonopiles GBSJacketsFloating 

Port access 

channel width (1,2) m 22 29 22 29 120 (7) 30 75 

Port access 

turning capacity (1) t/m2 160 170 160 170 100 120 n/a 

Port access water 

depths (1) m 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 6.5 6.5 10 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Requirements Units 

BladesNacellesTowersMonopiles GBSJacketsFloating 

Overhead draft (3) m 35 42 35 42 60 75 Unlimited 

Number of berths 

(4) - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Quayside bearing 

capacity t/m2 5 10 10 20 15 15 n/a 

Quayside length (1) m 100 170 170 170 n/a 100 n/a 

Quayside seabed 

suitable for jacking - Advantage Advantage Advantage Advantage n/a Advantage n/a 

Haul route bearing 

capacity t/m2 10 10 10 10 15 10 n/a 

Storage area 

bearing capacity t/m2 10 10 10 10 15 10 n/a 

Size of storage 

area (4,5) m2 25,000 5,000 20,000 TBD TBD TBD n/a 

Roll-On/Roll-Off 

capability - Advantage Advantage Advantage Advantage Advantage Advantage n/a 

Width of Ro-Ro 

berth m 8 8 8 10 40 25 n/a 

Bearing capacity 

of Ro-Ro berth 

and ramps 

t/m2 8 8 10 8 40 15 n/a 

On-site cranes’ 

capabilities t 100 600 2 x 250 2 x 600 n/a 2 x 600 n/a 

Crane height 

restrictions m 50 50 50 50 n/a 50 n/a 

Transportation 

infrastructure - Undefined Undefined Undefined Undefined Undefined Undefined Undefined 

1 Dependent on vessel selected 

2 Minimum channel width is calculated as twice the vessel beam (width) 

3 Dependent on project site conditions 

4 Dependent on project logistics 

5 Dependent on number of turbines 

6 Multiple cranes required for heaviest loads 

7 Assumes the GBS is transported on a barge 

2.5.3.1 Requirements by Component

The following sections address specific port characteristics required to accommodate different 

types of offshore wind project components. 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wind Turbines 

If the turbine is installed in port, a crane capable of lifting the heavy nacelle and rotor to hub 

height will be required. One or more cranes will be used for this operation. For a large wind 

project that requires assembly or final assembly of the turbines in port, sufficient quayside space 

and berth space will also be required. 

Blades 

Wind turbine blades are long and require specialized rigging to load and unload, but at 18-40 t 

(20-44 T), are within the typical weight limits of other break-bulk cargo handled at U.S. ports. As 

such, the bearing capacities of the quayside and storage areas of typical U.S. ports are sufficient 

to support these components without modifications. The size of the blades requires the port to 

have sufficient space on the quayside during loading and unloading of transportation and 

installation vessels. In the storage area, the blades can usually be stacked 2 or 3 units tall, which 

minimizes the storage area required. Haul routes between storage and load-out quays must have 

gentle bend radii to allow the telescopic-trailer haulage to pass freely. 

Ro-Ro loading and unloading is a viable option for blades. 

Nacelles 

Offshore turbine nacelles can weigh 160-450 t (176-496 T) and are heavier than typical breakbulk cargo. Therefore, 10 t/m2 (2,048 pounds per square foot [psf]) is the recommended minimum 

bearing capacity in these areas to support nacelles. Improvements to ground bearing capacities of 

the quayside, haul routes, and storage areas at U.S. ports is anticipated to be required. If a heavy 

lift crane is used to load and unload the nacelles from the transportation vessel, the quayside will 

need to be strengthened to support these lifts since such lifts can impart point loads from the 

cargo or the counterweights under the front or back of the crane. Transportation is typically 

accomplished using SPMTs to distribute the weight. 

The turbine supplier may require that the vessel be jacked up at the quayside when loading or 

unloading nacelles. This means that the bearing capacity of the seabed at the quayside must be 

capable of supporting a jack-up vessel. The DNV GL port readiness study (2014) found that U.S. 

ports did not typically comply with this requirement. Guidance on determining the required 

seabed bearing capacity is available from the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 

(2008). 

Ro-Ro loading and unloading is a viable option for nacelles. 

Towers 

Towers for offshore wind turbines can range in weight from 185 to 310 t (204 to 342 T). 

Therefore, 10 t/m2 (2,048 psf) is the recommended minimum bearing capacity in these areas to 

support towers. Improvements to ground bearing capacities at the quayside, haul routes, and 

storage area can be expected to be required at U.S. ports to load/unload, transport, and store these 

components. 

Ro-Ro loading and unloading is a viable option for towers. 

Foundations 

Offshore wind turbine foundations are much heavier than most other cargo stored or staged at 

U.S. ports. As such, specific load-spreading provisions and ground strength modifications must 

be made to accommodate these components. 

37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monopiles 

Monopiles can weigh in the range of 500-1,000 t (551-1,102 T) or more. As such, ground bearing 

strength improvements will often be required at U.S. ports to handle this type of cargo at the 

quayside, along the haul routes, and in the storage area. Ground bearing capacities on the order of 

15-20 t/m2 (3,072-4,096 psf) are recommended, depending on the size of the component, 

although this can be reduced if additional load spreading is utilized (e.g., additional axles on the 

SPMTs). It is expected that additional lifting capacity (e.g., multiple cranes) will be required to 

load and unload these components as these weights are beyond the capacities of typical harbor 

cranes. Monopiles are typically transported within the port using SPMTs. 

Some sites lay parallel bunds of granular material of approximately 1.4 m (5 ft) height and with 

gaps to allow SPMT units to pass in between, as shown in Figure 2.5-1 below. 

SPMT Monopile 

Bund 

Source: DNV GL (2014) 

Figure 2.5-1. Monopiles Stored on Bunds 

Transition pieces weigh approximately half of what a monopile weighs and are typically 

transported and stored vertically using cranes or horizontally by SPMTs (prior to equipment fit 

out). Ideally, they should be stored adjacent to quaysides, to minimize transport distances. 

Gravity Base Structures 

GBS foundations are the heaviest offshore wind component, weighing between 2,500 and 10,000 

t (2,756 and 11,023 T) and heavier GBSs are currently being developed. Therefore, 15-20 t/m2 

(3,072-4,096 psf) is the recommended minimum bearing capacity to support GBS foundations, 

especially if transportation within the port is required. If GBSs are to be fabricated on the 

quayside, the quayside will most likely need to undergo significant ground bearing strength 

improvements to be able to support this weight. 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other options for GBS fabrication are in a dry dock facility and on a barge. GBSs built in a dry 

dock would be buoyant and would be floated and towed to site. The dry dock needs to be wide 

enough to support the full GBS diameter plus a buffer; 45-60 m (148-197 ft) width is 

recommended but this will depend on the specific GBS design. Similarly, the barge would need 

to be of sufficient size to accommodate the GBS and supporting fixtures and activities. The port 

will likely need to be able to support multiple GBS construction barges simultaneously, so the 

quayside length and number of berths become important. 

GBS foundations may well benefit from the widening of the Panama Canal, which will allow 

GBSs for 6-7 MW turbines to be transported through the Canal to projects on the Atlantic coast 

of the U.S. Currently, the width restrictions for of the Canal do not accommodate these structures. 

A tower crane is often used during the construction of large GBS foundations, and has its own 

ground bearing strength requirements. 

SPMTs can be used to transport GBSs within the port. If SPMTs are used to deliver the GBS to 

the quayside for load-out, additional reinforcement of the quayside will be required. 

Lifting of GBS structures in Europe is done using heavy lift vessels. These vessels are not 

expected to be available in the U.S. in the near future, so construction on a barge is the most 

likely scenario. The barge will dictate the required harbor channel width. Overhead clearance will 

need to accommodate the full height of the GBS and the barge. If construction is done on barges, 

the installation vessel is not required to interact with the port. 

Jackets 

Jacket structures for offshore wind turbines are typically manufactured and delivered directly to 

the wind farm site using deck barges. If storage at a staging port is required, transport is typically 

done using barges with the jackets oriented vertically. The overhead clearance will be determined 

by the height of the jacket. In general, it is recommended that ports with unrestricted headroom be 

considered for handling jackets. 

Based on their weight, which is estimated to be 600-850 t (661-937 T), port facilities 

accommodating jackets will require ground improvements such that bearing capacities on the 

order of 13-17 t/m2 (2,663-3,482 psf) are achieved. The actual bearing capacity required will 

depend on the type of lifting equipment used, the type of transportation available, and the load 

spreading techniques used. 

Alternatively, jackets can be stored on barges in the harbor, provided that sufficient harbor 

storage area is available. 

Suction Bucket 

Like the other types of foundations described herein, suction bucket foundations will exceed the 

weight thresholds of most U.S. ports. As such, ground improvements will be required at the 

quayside, along the haul route, and in the storage area, and additional lifting capacity at the 

quayside will likely be required. 

Suction buckets can be fitted to both monopiles and jackets, and while the latter will require 

similar logistics to piled jackets, suction buckets on monopiles will need modified transport 

frames on SPMTs and greatly increased headroom over their conventional counterparts. 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Floating 

Floating foundations will likely be deployed from a staging port and have specific requirements 

for the port facility. If the turbine is fully installed on the foundation in the port, either in a dry 

dock or at the quayside, then towed to the project site, the port will need to have unlimited 

overhead clearance both within the port and along the access channels to the sea to accommodate 

the tower and rotor. Water depth is not anticipated to be a driving factor in the harbor as the 

floating foundations currently in development all have the ability to add buoyancy and float 

higher in the water during construction and transportation. 

Cable 

It is common for inter-array (collection) cables to be transported individually on cable reels and 

stored at a staging port; the project export (transmission) cable is more likely to be delivered 

directly from the cable supplier to the project site. To accommodate reels (or drums) of array 

cables, the port must have the ability to lift the fully loaded reels onto the quayside. This typically 

requires a heavy lift crane. Alternatively, the vessel crane may be able to complete this task if it is 

of sufficient capacity. Sufficient storage space is required to house the cable drums. 

As described above, there is also a requirement to store spare lengths of inter-array and export 

cable in port facilities for use should a cable repair become necessary. This long-term storage 

typically takes place in drums or carousels that are placed in an area where the cable can be 

transferred to the cable repair vessel when needed. 

Ground bearing capacity improvements to support cable storage during installation or for longterm spare cable storage are less likely to be needed in U.S. ports since the weights of the loaded 

drums and carousels would be within the range of the weights of cargo typically handled at U.S. 

ports. Some port modifications may be required on a case-by-case basis to support this use. 

Substation 

Substation foundations are assumed to be either similar to the wind turbine foundations for the 

project, or a jacket foundation. As such, the same storage and handling requirements described 

above apply to this foundation. 

Substation topsides are extremely heavy items and as such tend to pose similar port requirements 

as GBS foundations due to their size. Due to the difficulty of handling large substations, they will 

typically be installed directly from the manufacturing port. If the topside is stored at the port, the 

quayside will need to have sufficient bearing capacity to carry the weight. It is noted that if the 

topside is offloaded at the port, it is expected to be stored on a reinforced section of quayside to 

await deployment to the project site; topsides are unlikely to be transported or stored elsewhere in 

the port. A heavy lift crane would be required on the quayside to load the topside onto the 

transportation vessel. The quayside will need to be strengthened to accommodate this lift. 

2.5.3.2 Requirements by Activity

The following sections address specific port characteristics required to accommodate the primary 

activities conducted in port during the construction of an offshore wind project. As indicated 

above, the weight of the various components is a critical factor that needs to be accommodated 

for in each of the activities addressed below. 

Loading and Unloading

The loading and unloading of components requires sufficient berth space, crane capacity, and 

area on or adjacent to the quayside to temporarily store the components. This quayside and 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

temporary storage area must have sufficient ground bearing strength to accommodate the 

components. When nacelles are loaded or unloaded, the turbine supplier may require that the 

vessel be jacked up at the quayside. This means that the bearing capacity of the seabed at the 

quayside must also be capable of supporting a jack-up vessel. The DNV GL port readiness study 

(2014) found that U.S. ports did not typically comply with this requirement. 

A staging port during project construction is a busy place, with vessels coming and going at all 

times. The port needs to be large enough to support this level of vessel activity without constraint 

to the offshore wind staging operation or any other activities in the port (it is noted that an 

offshore wind project would typically contract the entire quayside area and thus minimize 

interference to and with other port activities). Similarly, vessels would ideally have unrestricted 

access to the project site, meaning that no drawbridges or locks stand between the port and open 

water and the access channel needs to be of sufficient width to allow vessels to pass. 

Given the number of trips required to and from the project site, the staging port is ideally located 

close to the project site. While this is not essential, transit distance to site is a significant factor in 

the cost of construction, as well as vessel access to the port. 

Transport and Lifting in Port

Transport within the port is assumed to be done using SPMTs, which allows the bearing pressure 

of the component to be limited. For foundations, the recommended bearing capacity is 20 t/m2 

(4,096 psf), while for turbine components, the recommended value is 10 t/m2 (2,048 psf). Ports 

with bearing capacities greater than these recommendations will have additional transportation 

options available, such as the use of crawler cranes. These levels are higher than was found for 

the typical cargo port in the U.S. (DNV GL, 2014). 

Lifting of components requires a land-based crane or the use of the vessel crane. For heavy 

components such as nacelles and foundations, the specific crane plan and lifting locations will 

need to be engineered such that the distributed and point loads are accommodated. Different 

options exist for accomplishing the load-spreading required during lifting, including 

modifications (e.g., soil compaction, pile installation, increased pavement/quayside decking 

thickness) to provide sufficient ground bearing capacity over the entire quayside or storage area, 

and the use of “hard points.” Hard points are small areas that are strengthened, for example, 

where cranes are positioned or mounted. 

Component Preparation

Final assembly of components may be performed in port. The key considerations for this type of 

activity are the overhead clearance for any cranes required for the work, ground bearing capacity 

to support the required transportation and lifting activities, work space with sufficient buffer to 

complete the assembly safely, and power and other auxiliary services required to complete the 

work. 

Storage

Storage of components requires sufficient area to store the components, sufficient ground strength 

and load spreading (e.g., cribbing) to distribute the weight of the component, security at the site, 

and potentially auxiliary services (e.g., power) to provide any periodic maintenance required by a 

given component. For ground bearing capacity, a minimum of 10 t/m2 (2,048 psf) is the 

recommended threshold for turbine components and 20 t/m2 (4,096 psf) for foundations. These 

levels are higher than was found for the typical cargo port in the U.S. (DNV GL, 2014). 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.6 Current Status of Ports and Planned and Implemented Port Expansions

Much of the infrastructure critical to the success of offshore wind projects does exist in the U.S.; 

however, it is currently serving other industries. Furthermore, modifications have already been 

implemented or are being planned in the U.S. to accommodate wind energy facility construction (i.e., 

Quonset, RI; New Bedford, MA). This section provides a brief summary of the current status of U.S. 

ports, as well as some of the planned and implemented port expansions to further support offshore wind. 

2.6.1 Current Status of U.S. Ports 

There are approximately 360 commercial ports in the U.S. today handling various types of cargo. The 

most abundant types of cargo include petroleum products, chemicals, coal, farm products, timber 

products, iron, steel, soil, sand, gravel, and stone (American Association of Port Authorities, 2013). 

As stated in (DNV GL 2014), U.S. ports possess much of the required infrastructure for successful 

offshore wind project installation. Specifically, offshore wind staging ports require significant storage 

and lay-down space, equipment to transport large cargo within the port, cranes to load and unload 

components from the vessels, sufficient quayside space to accommodate transportation and 

installation vessels, and sufficient overhead clearance to allow these vessels to reach the port and the 

project site. All of these capabilities are available today in many of the ports along the U.S. coastlines. 

In the case of the cranes to load and unload components, this equipment typically is not provided by 

the port but is readily available for hire. 

The exception is the capability of the typical U.S. cargo port to handle the weight of the heaviest 

offshore wind turbine components. Today’s U.S. ports are configured for containers, automobiles 

(Ro-Ro), or bulk cargo (e.g., liquids or grain), whereas wind turbine components are considered to be 

breakbulk and/or heavy-lift cargo. Because the typical cargo that passes through a port is much lighter 

than offshore wind turbine components, the typical port has a lower bearing capacity requirement at 

the quayside and in the storage area – typically in the range of 5-8 t/m2 (1,024-1,639 psf) (DNV GL 

2014). Improvements to quayside or ground bearing capacity can be accomplished by recompacting 

soils, adding piles, or various other ground modifications (e.g., draining soils; confining soils). 

Quayside bearing capacity improvements will most likely require additional strengthening measures 

along the quayside bulkhead to maintain its structural integrity. Similarly, the deepening of berths 

will also require major strengthening measures of the quayside bulkhead. 

Finally, it is important to note that several U.S. ports, including New Bedford; Quonset/Davisville; 

Searsport, ME; and the Port of Freeport, Texas, already handle cargo for onshore wind projects and 

are therefore familiar with the components, fixturing, storage requirements, and transportation of 

onshore wind turbine components, which are often smaller (1-3 MW turbine range) than offshore 

wind turbine components. 

When assessing ports, it is possible that a port that does not meet a specific criterion identified in this 

study may still be able to accommodate a given project with alternative capabilities. As has been 

demonstrated in Europe, if reasonable alternatives are incorporated into the engineering design phase, 

a port with some capabilities below the minimum criteria can be a feasible option. For example, a port 

may not have the on-site crane capabilities required for an offshore wind energy project, but with 

proper coordination may be able to bring in temporary moveable cranes capable of handling offshore 

wind components. Insufficient storage area bearing capacity may be overcome with proper planning 

and distribution of the components over a larger area. 

2.6.2 Port Modifications for Wind Energy Development

There are a number of existing ports along the Atlantic coast, that could provide some, or all of the 

infrastructure elements needed to support the development of the offshore wind energy industry ­

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with some level of modification. The willingness to undertake significant port modifications will vary 

from port to port, and state to state, depending upon political and economic priorities, and is likely to 

be influenced by input from numerous stakeholders. State government officials and port authorities; 

existing port users (such as commercial fishermen, cargo shippers, tug and tow vessel operators and 

cruise line operators) as well as wind energy developers, construction trade unions and manufacturers, 

will all have strong voices and sometimes competing or conflicting opinions, priorities and 

expectations as to what modifications are warranted. These stakeholders should be engaged early and 

throughout the process where a port is under consideration for use to support an offshore wind energy 

project. 

While some of the environmental impacts related to many of the current marine industrial activities 

taking place at existing ports would not be expected to experience significant changes if modified to 

accommodate the offshore wind industry (i.e., noise, visual, air quality) there are a number of impacts 

that might be expected to change. These may include: socioeconomics; marine and land-based traffic; 

benthic and sediment transport impacts due to quayside construction; and/or water quality. If multiple 

ports look to compete for or simultaneously serve the offshore wind industry, the cumulative effects 

of the environmental impacts from modifications at more than one port will also need to be evaluated. 

Section 4.0 provides information on potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts that could be 

associated with port modifications to support the offshore wind energy industry as well as potential 

mitigation measures for these impacts. 

2.6.3 Benefits from Panama Canal Related Port Modifications 

Many Atlantic coast ports are making modifications to their port facilities and navigational channels 

to support the expanded Panama Canal, which will allow larger vessels to transit the Panama Canal 

and make calls at ports capable of handling these vessels. The original Panama Canal was capable of 

accommodating vessels with capacities of up to 4,400 TEU and drafts of 12 m (39.5 ft). The 

expansion of the Panama Canal entails the construction of two new sets of locks and the widening and 

deepening of existing navigational channels to accommodate vessels with capacities of 13,000 to 

14,000 TEU and drafts up to 15 m (49.8 ft), termed Post-Panamax vessels. 

The primary modifications to these ports are deepening navigational channels to 15 m (50 ft) (or 

deeper) and raising bridges to increase air draft in an effort to allow the deep draft vessels to access 

the port facilities. The deepening projects do not provide added benefit to a port’s ability to 

accommodate vessels associated with offshore wind installation since such vessels have drafts that are 

typically between 6 and 9 m (20 and 30 ft). Raising bridges or overhead electric transmission wires 

that cross a navigational channel to increase the air draft to accommodate taller vessels (e.g., the 

ongoing project to raise the Bayonne Bridge between Bayonne, NJ and Staten Island, NY) do provide 

benefit to offshore wind installation vessels given the height of some of these vessels, but may not be 

economically feasible for the sole purpose of facilitating channel use for the offshore wind energy 

industry. The new cranes being installed at some ports (i.e., Boston) provide added capability to 

transfer containers to/from larger container ships than currently possible; however, their height 

increase will be relatively small since the crane height is typically limited by other factors, such as 

flight paths to nearby airports, as it the case in Boston, and they still may not have the lifting capacity 

required for offshore wind components. 

Table 2.6-1 summarizes the port modifications that are being implemented or planned to allow ports 

to accommodate Post-Panamax vessel. 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.6-1. Summary of Port Modifications for Panama Canal Expansion 

Port Modifications Status 

Boston 

Federal Channel Deepening Planned 

Larger Container Cranes at 

Conley Terminal Planned 

Larger Berths at Conley 

Terminal Planned 

New York/New Jersey 

Federal Channel Deepening to 

15 m (50 ft) Ongoing 

Bayonne Bridge Navigational 

Clearance Project (raise to 66 m 

(215 ft)) 

Ongoing 

Baltimore 

Container Berth Deepening to 

15 m (50 ft) Complete 

Larger Container Cranes Complete 

Hampton Roads Already Post-Panamax 

accessible N/A 

Charleston Federal Channel Deepening to 

15 to 16 m (50 or 52 ft) Planned 

Savannah Federal Channel Deepening to 

15 m (48 ft) Ongoing 

2.6.4 Port Networks 

Small to medium ports may not need to make physical modifications to their facilities to support the 

offshore wind industry. It may be possible for groups of regionally located ports to form alliances that 

allow them to service the offshore wind industry as a network of ports, with each port playing to its 

strengths and contributing its physical capabilities to benefit the network as a whole. 

Eight small to medium size ports in Northern Germany collaborated to diversify their operations to 

include logistics services for the offshore wind energy industry. This collaboration was coordinated 

by the LO-PINOD project and Brünsbuttel Ports GmbH, which operates seven ports. To address the 

challenge created by the tendency of wind energy operators to award contracts to large ports that can 

provide almost all of the port services needed, Brünsbuttel created a port network that combined each 

of the small to medium size ports’ strengths to provide the range of port services needed to meet the 

requirements of the offshore wind energy industry. In the case study, LO-PINOD reports that the 

biggest challenge encountered by the eight ports was developing a collaboration agreement that was 

acceptable to all the ports. The ports network has since collaborated with a Danish port to expand the 

port network beyond Germany’s borders. (LO-PINOD, 2014). 

This collaboration demonstrates that physical port modifications are not always necessary to diversify 

a port’s service offerings to include offshore wind industry support, and that alliances with other ports 

having similar desires to service the offshore wind industry can provide the same benefit but without 

the time and cost associated with physical port modifications. 

2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 

Section 2.0 summarizes the usages of ports during the construction of offshore wind projects and the key 

technical requirements for these ports. The following are presented as the key points from this section: 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Ports are central to the manufacturing, construction, and operations and maintenance of offshore 

wind projects. 

•	 Identifying a minimum set of criteria is a challenging exercise and there are many different ways 

to make a given port facility work for a given project. In reality, the wind project can adjust the 

logistics and equipment to adapt to the available capabilities of the port. For example, cranes can 

be rented, additional load-spreading devices can usually be utilized, and the choice of vessels can 

be adjusted to meet the capacity of the available berths. A given project may select a port with 

greater or lesser capabilities depending on the needs of the project and on a cost-benefit of 

available port facilities. 

•	 To provide some examples of the physical dimensions that represent the typical “minimum 

requirements,” the ESS Team has provided Table 2.5-1. It is important to keep in mind that this 

table is an example and may not represent the best solution for a specific project. 

•	 The primary factors that are especially important for ports supporting the staging of offshore wind 

projects are vessel access (berth capacity and depth; navigation channel depth, width, and vertical 

clearance restrictions), lifting capabilities, bearing capacity of the quayside and storage area, 

number of berths and storage area, available transportation infrastructure, and the ability to 

accommodate specialized vessels like jack-ups. 

•	 Most U.S. ports can serve as maintenance ports with their current capabilities, assuming that large 

components for major maintenance can be staged from the original staging port or the equivalent. 

•	 One path for improving port readiness is development of offshore wind component 

manufacturing facilities near a port. Such supply-chain development could produce the economic 

incentive for ports to improve their facilities to better serve the new customers seeking to use the 

port. It should be noted that the improvements required for ports supporting offshore wind 

component manufacturing will be specific to the type of component(s) manufactured and the 

manufacturer itself. 

•	 The improvements made to ports to support offshore wind projects typically do not reduce the 

port’s ability to continue to handle other types of cargo or serve other industries. Any impact to 

the port use fees and tariffs imposed on other industries based on the improvements must be 

considered before the upgrades are undertaken. 

•	 Staging ports will typically require improvements before they are capable of supporting an 

offshore wind project. A small number of ports have or are undergoing such improvements and 

these can serve as examples to other facilities. There are a number of port capabilities that are 

required for offshore wind staging ports but that are not commonly found in U.S. ports. These 

are: 

o	 Ground bearing capacity of at least 10 t/m2 (2,048 psf) at the quayside, along the haul 

route(s), and in the storage area(s) 

o	 Seabed suitable for jack-up vessels at the quayside 

o	 Lifting capabilities in the port to be able to load, unload, and transport nacelles and 

foundations weighing in excess of 300 t (331 T)
 

o	 Jacket and GBS foundations and floating turbines require unrestricted overhead clearance 

between the port and the project site 

o	 Access channel width that supports the required vessels and high vessel traffic during 

construction 

o	 Available storage area on the quayside for staging and temporary storage of components 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Finally, proximity of the staging port to the project location impacts the transit time for 

components and crew to and from site, which impacts the construction cost. Projects typically 

prefer to utilize a staging port as close to the project site as possible, however location is not 

likely to be the driving factor when selecting a staging port. A cost-benefit assessment should be 

conducted to identify the most cost-effective port for a given project. 

3.0 PORT IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION 

Using the key technical requirements for ports supporting offshore wind energy projects described in 

section 2.0, the ESS Team identified and classified Atlantic coast ports using the approach described 

below. The objective was to prepare a list of ports along the Atlantic coast (the BOEM defined study 

area) that could potentially support offshore wind energy development and classify the list using the 

characteristics identified as critical to offshore wind energy. The locational scope of this study was the six 

BOEM wind energy areas (WEAs) offshore of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, 

Maryland, and Virginia, and the BOEM call areas offshore of North Carolina and New York. 

3.1 Port Identification 

The ESS Team identified a list of ports in the study area (the “Identified Ports”) based on published 

global port databases that state they capture all commercial ports: 

•	 IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide Directory 2015-16,” published 2014. 

•	 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, “World Port Index, 24th Edition,” published 2015. 

Both of these databases provided information on location, characteristics, known facilities, and available 

services for commercial ports and terminals. The selection of ports that is included in these databases is 

based on criteria established by the publishers, and is not specific to the offshore wind industry. The list 

of ports considered did not specifically include recreational ports, also referred to as marinas. A marina 

consists of a dock or basin with moorings and supplies for personal vessels. A marina differs from a port 

in that a marina does not handle large passenger ships or cargo, and would in most cases not be capable of 

supporting offshore wind O&M activities. Identified Ports were denoted with their potential to serve as an 

offshore wind staging port or a staging and O&M port. 

3.2 Initial Port Assessment and Screening

An initial assessment and screening of the Identified Ports was conducted to identify those ports in the 

study area that warranted more detailed consideration as potential offshore wind construction and staging 

ports. For the purpose of this analysis, the focus was on ports that were suitable for construction and 

staging activities, assuming that such ports would have facilities around them that would be suitable for 

O&M activities. Although routine O&M activities may be supported by smaller, less well-equipped ports, 

location will be a key factor in the ability of smaller ports to support such activities. Major maintenance 

activities (e.g., serial blade replacements) will require more robust capabilities that are similar to those 

required for construction and staging. It was also assumed that some fabrication/supply activities will 

occur elsewhere (outside of the study area) and was not considered part of this study. 

In this initial screening, the ESS Team established a set of Minimum Criteria to identify suitable ports. 

These criteria included the following: 

•	 Port size and accessibility – The ESS Team established minimum criteria based on the least 

restrictive requirements for the various construction and staging activities; and, 

•	 Vessel transit distance from identified lease areas and call areas. 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ESS Team then evaluated the Identified Ports in terms of the screening criteria identified above. 

Information was gathered from the aforementioned databases, information that was in the online Offshore 

Wind Port Readiness tool developed for the U.S. DOE, and other online sources. The ESS Team 

compared these attributes for each of the Identified Ports to the Minimum Criteria and eliminated from 

further consideration those ports that did not meet the Minimum Criteria. The result of this initial 

assessment was a list of 50 ports for further consideration (the “Prioritized Ports”). 

3.3 Port Assessment and Characterization 

For the Prioritized Ports, the ESS Team assessed each port based on the characteristics identified in 

Section 2.0, namely the following: 

•	 Vessel access (berth capacity and depth; navigation channel depth, width, and vertical clearance 

restrictions) and ability to accommodate specialized vessels like jack-ups 

•	 Lifting capabilities given the weight and height of components 

•	 Bearing capacity of the quayside and storage area 

•	 Number of berths and storage area 

•	 Available transportation infrastructure 

The Requirements for each of the characteristics identified was detailed for each Prioritized Port and 

grouped according to the following Capability Categories in Table 3.3-1: 

Table 3.3-1. Port Requirements by Capability Category 

Capability Category Requirement 

Port access channel width 

Access Port access water depths 

Overhead draft 

Number of berths 

Quayside bearing capacity 

Quayside Quayside length 

Quayside water depths 

Quayside seabed suitable for jacking 

Haul route bearing capacity 

Storage Storage area bearing capacity 

Size of storage area 

Roll-On/Roll-Off capability 

Roll-On/ Roll-Off Width of Ro-Ro berth 

Bearing capacity of Ro-Ro berth and ramps 

Cranes On-site crane type and capabilities 

Crane height restrictions 

Transportation Transportation infrastructure 

It is important to note that information on some capability requirements was difficult or impossible to 

obtain solely from publically available information sources. For example, most ports do not know the 

bearing capacity of their quaysides or if their quayside seabed is suitable for jacking because their normal 

port operations do not require this capability. As a result, these data were generally hard to find and were 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not available. However, they may be available in the future with specific data requests or geotechnical 

studies at a given port. 

The result of this assessment was an Excel spreadsheet included in Appendix I. 

3.4 Port Evaluation 

The ESS Team established threshold values for each Requirement for 4 MW, 6 MW, and 8 MW 

scenarios, based on U.S. DOE Port Readiness Report, and the ESS Team’s experience with verification 

from publically available literature sources. Based on the assessment of each of the Prioritized Ports, the 

ESS Team compared the Capabilities for each Prioritized Port to the Requirements for offshore wind 

projects (see Table 2.5-1 in the Required Port Characteristics). Requirements for three Scenarios were 

established based on different evolutions of offshore wind technology as follows: 

•	 4 MW wind turbines 

•	 6 MW wind turbines 

•	 8 MW wind turbines 

The 4 MW turbine was included here because it represents part of the current standard practice and 

provides a benchmark against which to compare the next generation(s) of offshore turbines. Although 6 

MW is becoming the standard, some projects are still proposing to use 4 MW turbines (and will likely to 

continue to do so in the future), while 8 MW turbines are expected to become the standard in the future. 

In some cases, foundation type is the controlling factor relative to quayside bearing capacities and crane 

lifting capabilities; however, at other times, it could be the WTGs. This is largely dependent on WTG 

size, as a monopile foundation is typically unable to support an 8 MW WTG. For this study, 4 MW and 6 

MW turbines assume the use of monopole foundations, while the 8 MW turbines assume a jacket 

foundation. It is also important to note that although the project sizes currently being proposed range from 

approximately 200 to 600 MW, most developers are considering a phased approach and it is unlikely that 

all the equipment and supplies required for a complete project will need to be stored at the same time. 

For each Port and Scenario, each Requirement was evaluated, based on the following system: 

•	 Meets or exceeds most or all capability requirements (based on threshold values for 8 MW 

scenario for all requirements, except quayside bearing capacity, in which the weight of the 

monopile foundation assumed for the 6 MW scenario exceeds the weight of the 8 MW jacket 

foundation). 

•	 Meets or exceeds lowest capability requirement (threshold value is 4 MW scenario). 

•	 Does not meet capability requirements, but data is available. 

•	 Information not available. 

To the extent possible, the evaluation system was set up to minimize the effect that unavailable 

information had on assessing a port’s capability to handle offshore wind activity. The ESS Team also 

developed weighting factors for the various Port Capability Categories described above to evaluate a 

port’s readiness. 

Weighting Factors

The ESS Team developed weighting factors for the various port Capability Categories. For each 

port, the scores across Capability Categories were weighted and summed to determine a Total 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score and ordinal scores of low, medium, or high potential were assigned based on the same 

categorization that was applied to each Capability Category. The weighting of the Capability 

Categories was developed based on professional judgment of the relative importance of the 

various capabilities. This professional judgment was further guided through discussions with 

BOEM and by a number of expert discussions held with port owners or managers and industry 

experts. 

Overall, categories such as Access, Quayside, and Storage capabilities have been weighted more 

heavily than Crane, Transportation, and Roll-On/Roll-Off capabilities. A justification for each 

weighting is provided below. 

Weighting Factors for Capability Categories necessary for Port Classification 

The categories are listed below in order of importance and weighting. 

1.	 Access: Access to a port is one of the two most critical capabilities for readiness in 

accommodating an offshore wind energy project. If the accessibility of a port is limited in 

a way that ships of the size required to deliver offshore wind project components to or 

from the port cannot physically access the port, then the port cannot be ready for serving 

this industry. Thus access is one of the two most highly weighted factors for the 

classification of port readiness. 

2.	 Quayside: The quayside is the second of the two most critical capabilities for readiness 

in accommodating an offshore wind energy project. If the physical attributes at the 

quayside are not suitable to berth, load, and unload wind farm components, then the port 

cannot be considered ready for serving this industry. Quayside attributes carry the same 

weight as access, because if ships and components can access a port, but cannot utilize 

the port, that port cannot be considered as ready for supporting the offshore wind 

industry. 

3.	 Storage: Storage area and capacity within a port is a very important capability in 

accommodating an offshore energy project. While storage capability is very valuable, 

there are scheduling and delivery logistics options that can overcome a port’s storage 

limitations. Therefore, Storage has been assigned a slightly lesser weight than the two 

most critical capabilities of Access and the Quayside. 

4.	 Cranes: The availability, type, and capacity of cranes in a port are very important in 

accommodating an offshore energy project. In the event that cranes of sufficient capacity 

are not available at a port, the appropriate cranes can typically be procured for use in a 

selected port. Therefore, Cranes are weighted slightly less than Storage. 

5.	 Transportation: Onshore transportation infrastructure at a port is moderately important 

to a port’s readiness to accommodate an offshore energy project. Since most of the 

materials would be transported to and from the port by sea, only limited onshore 

transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the port is necessary. 

6.	 Roll-On/Roll-Off Capability: Ro-Ro technology is an important and valuable capability 

for ports that are required to lift and move heavy, oversized components. Nonetheless, a 

port can use other means of loading, unloading, and moving wind farm components 

within the port and still be effective. Ro-Ro capability receives a lower weighting factor 

due to the fact that it is not absolutely critical to port readiness. 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5 Summary

This study highlighted 16 ports, selected by the ESS Team and BOEM, along the Atlantic coast that 

possess much of the required infrastructure deemed necessary for successful offshore wind project 

installation. The ports selected are intended to serve as a cross-section of the existing infrastructure and 

capabilities of Atlantic coast ports. The 16 ports highlighted by this study do not necessarily represent the 

best ports for an offshore wind project, ports recommended for use by BOEM or the ESS Team, or the 

only ports capable of handling these projects. When offshore wind energy project developers identify and 

select ports for future potential offshore wind projects, other options may and should be considered, as 

necessary to support the particular project under consideration. Multiple terminals at Philadelphia and 

Hampton Roads were identified and evaluated at each of these ports. Additionally, some of the selected 

ports were identified as having the potential to support O&M activities, as well as construction and 

staging activities. The decision was made to not develop port profiles for ports that could only support 

O&M activities. The port profiles are described in Section 6.0 and provided in Appendix III. 

Table 3.5-1. Selected Ports 

Port/Terminal State 

Boston-Conley Terminal MA 

New Bedford MA 

Providence RI 

Quonset Point/Davisville RI 

New London (south of I-95) CT 

New Haven (south of I-95) CT 

Bridgeport (south of I-95) CT 

Philadelphia (Packer Avenue Marine Terminal; Tioga Marine Terminal) PA 

Paulsboro NJ 

Wilmington DE 

Baltimore MD 

Hampton Roads (Norfolk International Terminal; Portsmouth Marine 

Terminals; Newport News Marine Terminal; Peck Marine Terminal) VA 

Morehead City NC 

Wilmington NC 

Charleston SC 

Savannah GA 

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC 

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EFFORTS 

The ESS Team has summarized the broad potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts and 

mitigation efforts associated with potential port modifications, as identified in Section 2.0, Required Port 

Characteristics, necessary to support offshore wind energy development along the Atlantic coast. This 

summary was developed based on a review of the existing literature, discussions with selected experts 

(Section 5.0), and the ESS Team’s experience with environmental and socioeconomic reviews of 

construction projects and wind energy development under the NEPA. This summary is supported by a 

table (Appendix II, Table 1) summarizing the impact producing factors associated with typical port 

modifications to support offshore wind, and a table summarizing the potential environmental and 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

socioeconomic impacts and mitigation measures associated with typical port modifications to support 

offshore wind (Appendix II, Table 2). 

4.1 Scope of Activities Considered

Currently, very few ports exist on the Atlantic coast that are capable of fully supporting an offshore wind 

energy project; however, port modifications are already being implemented or planned to accommodate 

wind energy facility construction and operations. Offshore wind will require specialized equipment, 

services, and labor not currently available in most U.S. ports. Understanding what will be needed to 

support both short-term construction and long-term operational and maintenance activities involves 

learning from the recent experience of European offshore wind projects, as well as identifying similar 

services and activities already associated with existing marine industries here in the U.S. (refer to Section 

2.0 for more detailed information). 

Port facilities are anticipated to host three primary activities to support offshore wind development: 

fabrication and assembly, installation and staging, and operations and maintenance. Associated with each 

of these activities are a set of typical tasks performed at a port, including loading and unloading 

components, transporting components, storing components, maintenance of components, and fabrication 

and/or final assembly of components. A recent study by Totaro & Associates determined that significant 

quayside infrastructure exists to enable offshore wind, but the company has estimated that approximately 

$637.4 million in infrastructure improvements will be necessary for ports to be capable of supporting 

turbine production and offshore component load-out, as well as service and repair (2015). 

ISO 29400 (2015) was developed to provide comprehensive requirements and guidance for the planning, 

engineering, and safe execution of port and marine operations for all types of components of offshore 

wind farms, including WTGs, cables, and topsides. Port operations for installation of offshore wind farm 

components cover all component transport to the ports (whether by land or via waterways), any 

intermediate storage, preassembly activities at the ports, and placing the components close to any 

quayside for subsequent marine operations to start. Marine operations for offshore wind farm structures 

cover loadout from the quayside, offshore transportation, and installation phases through commissioning. 

Marine operations can also extend to decommissioning, redeployment, and removal. 

The primary activities considered for this study are associated with the modification of staging ports to 

support the staging and installation of extremely large and heavy components and facilitating the access 

and docking of vessels that transport and install them. 

4.2 Literature Review 

The ESS Team reviewed readily available literature looking not only for expected impacts of port 

modifications, but for indications of the magnitude of changes to impact producing factors and local 

conditions that influenced expected impacts. Few documents were identified that focused on 

environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with port modifications specific for offshore wind 

energy development; however, several documents were identified that illustrate potential impacts of port 

modifications similar to those expected for wind energy development. These are described below. 

4.2.1 European Perspective

Europe is currently the leader in offshore wind energy with over 8 gigawatts of installed capacity— 

1,483 MW was connected in 2014 with another 2,900 MW of capacity awaiting connection, and 

significant ongoing plans for future growth and development of the industry. Europe's established 

port facilities offer guidance, demonstrate current infrastructure requirements, and project future 

needs of the industry as U.S. ports begin to prepare for the offshore wind industry (Cooper & 

Marrone 2013; EWEA, 2015). 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on a review of the current literature, there are a number of European ports that have or are 

currently undergoing modifications to further accommodate the European offshore wind industry, 

which has been maturing over the past 20 years. Overviews of several of these European port projects 

provide a comparison and insight into the potential impacts and environmental issues that can be 

expected from similar modifications to U.S. ports. 

In general, the European port expansions shared similar issues related to the reclamation of large 

amounts of intertidal areas and coastal habitat, dredging, noise, and air quality. While dredging, noise 

and air quality impacts are frequently mitigated by the use of commonly used Best Management 

Practices, it is most notable that the loss of intertidal areas, mud flats, and important bird habitat has 

been addressed through extensive compensatory mitigation involving the development of substitute 

sites of sufficient acreage and habitat diversity to provide new or replacement habitat for affected 

resources such as birds and benthic invertebrates. 

Harwich International Port (United Kingdom)

Harwich International Port (HIP), which is located on the southeastern coast of the UK with 

direct access to the North Sea, has served as the installation base for several large offshore wind 

projects including Gun Fleet Sands, Greater Gabbard, and Thanet wind installations. HIP 

expanded its facilities with a major new port development at Bathside Bay, immediately adjacent 

to the existing facility, to support further opportunities for the offshore wind industry, including 

the proposed Round 3 projects and current and potential future sites off the coasts of Germany, 

the Netherlands, and Belgium. Bathside Bay also has the potential to be a multifunctional site for 

manufacturing and assembly. It is capable of supporting multiple large-scale facilities as well as 

being a prime installation base for offshore wind. 

The port expansion at Harwich into Bathside Bay involved the reclamation of a large amount of 

intertidal area, construction of a quay wall extension, dredging and disposal of dredge spoils 

related to the deepening and widening of the approach channel, construction of a small boat 

harbor, and land-side development involving several new cranes, rail spurs and support buildings. 

The main change involved the conversion of Bathside Bay from intertidal habitat to deepwater 

port. The EIS found that the primary environmental impacts were habitat impacts from loss of 

intertidal area, loss of mud flats, and erosion. Impacts to benthic invertebrate communities and 

feeding/roosting areas for waterfowl could not be mitigated and required obtaining/creating 

compensatory habitat. Erosion and sedimentation were mitigated through the use of erosion 

control measures (such as monitoring and adjusting dredge speed) and a sediment replacement 

program. While silt from dredging was disposed of offshore, the dredged sand and gravel from 

deeper layers were reclaimed and used as upland fill behind the retaining walls for construction of 

the quay wall extension. 

Visual impacts were mitigated by design of landscaping and lighting. During construction and 

operations (maintenance dredging), access restrictions to specific fishing grounds would affect 

commercial fisheries. These impacts were considered minor to moderate and would be minimized 

by avoiding sensitive periods and locations for fisheries. The expansion would result in the 

displacement of an existing small boat mooring field, which would be mitigated by the 

construction of a new small boat harbor. Increased traffic during operations was expected to 

exceed capacity at specific intersections. Highway improvements were proposed to accommodate 

increased traffic and a Traffic Management Plan would be developed to minimized impacts 

during both construction and operations. Socioeconomic impacts were considered beneficial 

through increased local employment (Royal Haskoning 2003). 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Port of Rotterdam (Netherlands)

Maasvlakte 2 is a new port and industrial site that will be built alongside the existing Maasvlakte 

site within the Port of Rotterdam. The Port of Rotterdam was dealing with a shortage of space for 

the steadily growing wind and industrial businesses. Maasvlakte 2 will provide space for 

companies that need large sites in the immediate vicinity of a deep sea port (Royal Haskoning 

2007). 

The primary impact producing activity associated with Maasvlakte 2 was determined to be the 

extraction of sand from the nearby North Sea to fill in the site and create the sea walls. The 

impacts associated with this sand extraction were determined to primarily be local and temporary 

impairment of seabed life. With a planned extraction depth up to 20 m below the seabed, it was 

determined there will be no obstructions for recolonization, and complete recovery has been 

estimated to take two to four years. The maximum potential effect was assessed as “not 

significant.” The maximum reduction is also substantially less than the natural fluctuations that 

occur in the size of the populations of seabed life. 

In terms of water quality, the impacts associated with extraction of sand would be release of fine 

silt, which will spread with the tidal current both to the south and north of Maasvlakte 2 and 

would join the fine silt that is naturally present, resulting in higher fine silt concentration and 

cloudier water conditions. Documentation associated with Maasvlakte 2 noted the natural 

variation in fine silt concentration is exceptionally large with typical values for the annual 

average fine silt concentration in the Voordelta of 20-30 mg/litre near the coast and 5-10 mg/litre 

farther out to sea. During stormy periods, the fine silt concentration could rise to 100 mg/litre. 

The anticipated increase in the annual average fine silt concentration in the Voordelta caused by 

sand extraction associated with Maasvlakte 2 is expected to reach at most approximately 6 

mg/litre. 

Also, assessed were impacts generated by the equipment used for sand extraction and port 

construction activities. Fuel consumed by equipment would cause emissions of substances that 

will affect air quality. For the air quality on land, it was determined the emissions near or on the 

reclaimed land will be the most significant; however, the standards will not be exceeded. The 

dredging fleet and the equipment used to reclaim land were identified as the major sources of 

noise (below and above water). The noise may temporarily cause birds and other species 

inhabiting the area to avoid the immediate vicinity of the source of the disturbance. The 

temporary effects on the living and foraging area of species (birds, mammals, and fish) were 

found to be slight. The EIS also determined that the total noise load will not exceed the standards 

stipulated in the Noise Nuisance Act at any time during construction of Maasvlakte 2. 

The space utilized by the reclaimed land has significant effects for one protected habitat type and 

three protected bird species. These effects are unavoidable because it is not possible to achieve 

any further reduction of space utilization. Construction of a new marine reserve was proposed to 

compensate for these effects. Temporary space use conflicts during construction with fisheries 

and recreational use during construction were also identified. Small fisheries would no longer be 

able to use the location of the sand extraction pits, as well as temporary closure of a beach used 

for recreation. The project would, however, generate greater recreational opportunities when 

completed due to the land reclaimed from the sea resulting in more beaches than before. Seabed 

archeological values were also identified and would be affected. Disturbance would be subject to 

additional studies and avoided to the extent possible. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During construction, usage rules for dredgers and other vessels, will be employed to ensure that 

safety is not jeopardized and that regular shipping will not be inconvenienced by the construction 

work. 

The EIS determined that significant effects require compensatory measures. The proposed 

compensation included creating a marine reserve in the Voordelta, together with a management 

plan. The sizing of the marine reserve requires it be at least 10 times as large as the ultimate loss 

of 1,110 acres. The EIS also required that the management plan be updatable, allowing for the 

possibility of modifying management activities. 

Port of Bremerhaven (Germany)

Bremerhaven is located on the northern coast of Germany, on the Weser River estuary with direct 

access to the German North Sea. The city of Bremerhaven and the region around the Weser 

estuary are already heavily involved in offshore wind with a significant cluster of wind turbine 

nacelle, blade, tower, and foundation manufacturers operating production facilities in the area. To 

complement the production capabilities, the port of Bremerhaven is expanding to include the 

Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven (OTB). The OTB will allow for more efficient transportation 

and handling from these production facilities to the loading of installation and transport vessels. 

The OTB expansion on the south of Bremerhaven involves the addition of approximately 60 acres 

of staging/storage and approximately 500 meters of new quay with 2-3 berths. These 

improvements involved the reclamation of intertidal areas, mud flats, and important habitat for 

shore birds, along with channel dredging and the associated disposition of spoils, as well as pile 

driving and land side filling required for construction of the new quay wall. 

The primary environmental impacts associated with the port expansion included the loss of 

intertidal areas and coastal habitat, changes in aquatic habitat from dredging, and noise. The loss 

of coastal habitat was addressed through the development of ecological compensation and 

substitute sites along the Weser River, which reclaimed formerly heavily farmed areas to a more 

natural, tidally influenced condition conducive to coastal birds. Impacts from dredging were 

minimized by the development of extensive upland treatment facilities for contaminated spoils 

and the reuse of clean dredge spoils as upland site fill and fill behind the sheet piles of the new 

quay wall. Noise issues were addressed both actively and passively, through planned noise 

reduction at the source as well as installation of sound proof windows, doors, and modern 

ventilation systems in nearby residences that were determined to be at risk of impact from the 

port expansion. 

Galway Harbor (Ireland)

Situated on Ireland’s west coast with open access to the Atlantic Ocean, Galway Harbor is located 

on the northern shore of Galway Bay and immediately adjacent to the inner city of Galway City. 

To address severe constraints, remain economically viable and, in part, service the offshore 

energy sector, a proposal is under review to develop a new all-tide, deep water, larger vessel 

facility by reclaiming lands seaward of the existing harbor utilizing naturally occurring deeper 

waters. 

The proposed Galway Harbor Extension will include: 

• 660 m of new quayside berth; 

• Dredging of new turning area, access channel, and berths; 

• 70 acres of land-side development; and a 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• New small boat marina, fishing pier, and rail link. 

The project involves the dredging of approximately 1.815 million cubic meters of material, and 

extensive land reclamation that will be accomplished by constructing seven discrete lagoon areas, 

each contained by robust wall systems and lined with geo-membrane. The lagoons will be filled 

with dredge materials and the lagoon walls will contain and control sediment and erosion from 

the land reclamation process. All dredged material will be reused in the land reclamation efforts 

and none will be disposed of offshore. The construction of new quay walls will involve the 

driving of sheet piles, tubular piles, and combi-walls (king piles with sheet piles between them) 

into pre-blasted rock pockets. Impacts are anticipated from construction noise and vibration, 

which will be mitigated through the employment of marine mammal observers and limitations on 

the hours of pile driving and /or blasting. 

The proposed development is located in a designated candidate special area of conservation and 

special protection area. The development will result in the loss of feeding and foraging habitat for 

seals, otters, lamprey, salmon and some species of birds, although none of the habitats are 

exclusive to the site, nor is it considered to be high quality habitat. Impacts to these species will 

be minimized primarily through time of year restrictions on construction activities and habitat 

creation in the rock walls of the lagoons and breakwaters. 

The main adverse socioeconomic impacts identified were those related to visual, cultural, and 

archeological resources. During construction, driving of steel piles and vessel movements would 

interfere with the views of nearby receptors, although the impacts would be temporary. The 

design of the harbor extension helped mitigate visual impacts with the main construction location 

largely screened from public view by existing structures. Additional mitigation measures to be 

applied included landscaping to reflect the general surrounding environment, use of color to 

reduce contrast and lighting specifications. The relocation of existing harbor operations was 

interpreted as a “cultural loss” to the public valuing proximity to large ships entering and 

departing the harbor. Archeological resources were considered to be potentially affected and 

monitoring of construction by licensed archeologists was recommended for mitigation, with the 

possibility of recovery of any detected archeological material during construction (Galway 

Harbour Company. Undated). 

4.2.2 U.S. Perspective

There are a number of marine industries currently in operation in the waters offshore of the U.S., each 

with its own specialized port requirements. These industries include, but are not limited to, petroleum 

extraction, LNG off loading or storage, commercial shipping, and commercial fishing. Each marine 

industry is specialized, requiring differing shore-side support as well as different configurations for 

the appropriate offshore environment. However, comparing and contrasting the needs of these 

industries with European experience can increase our understanding of the port-related requirements 

for offshore wind development and the potential utilization of the available marine industrial 

capabilities in the U.S. In an analysis of the port and infrastructure of the U.S., TetraTech EC (2010) 

concluded that port requirements for maintenance and support of offshore wind farms would be 

similar to those for offshore LNG ports and petroleum platforms. 

Many U.S. ports are currently making modifications to their port facilities and navigational channels 

to support the expanded Panama Canal, which will allow larger vessels to transit the Panama Canal 

and make calls at ports capable of handling these vessels. The primary modifications to these ports 

are deepening navigational channels to 15 m (50 feet) (or deeper) and raising bridges to increase air 

draft in an effort to allow the deep draft vessels to access the port facilities. Some of the activities 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(impact producing factors) and resulting impacts associated with these deepening projects are 

relatively similar to the impact producing factors identified above. 

In the early days of U.S. offshore wind development, it is expected that numerous components will be 

delivered to the staging port from Europe requiring the storage of more components at the staging 

port until a local manufacturing facility is identified. As a result, U.S. ports would need larger storage 

areas than are common in European staging ports. 

Socioeconomic impacts of port modifications depend largely on the dimensions of these 

modifications relative to the socioeconomic reality of the affected area. In a study conducted for the 

U.S. DOE, Navigant (2013) simulated investments in port infrastructure under three different 

scenarios (low - $50 million, mid - $200 million, and high - $700 million) to estimate potential labor 

and economic impacts at the state level. Port manufacturing was added as an assumption in the 

medium and high investment scenarios but not for the low investment scenario. The estimates used 

assumptions for representative states of various U.S regions. The resulting estimate of statewide 

direct employment under the low investment scenario ($50 million) for a port in the North Atlantic 

would be 600 FTE over the construction period (i.e., 300 annual jobs, if a 2 year construction period 

is assumed) with $33 million in labor earnings over the construction period (average earnings per job 

of $55,000). 

New Bedford (Massachusetts)

The Port of New Bedford is managed by the Harbor Development Commission, led by the City of 

New Bedford. It is a major commercial fishing port2 and also handles bulk cargo. The Port of 

New Bedford was identified as a capable port, given specific modifications, to support offshore 

renewable energy development. The key port modifications included the construction of a 28.45 

acre marine terminal, navigational dredging, construction of confined aquatic disposal cells, and 

the creation/modification of mitigation areas. The new terminal, called the Marine Commerce 

Terminal in New Bedford, which is located south of existing terminals within a Designated Port 

Area, was funded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is currently managed by the 

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (a publicly-funded agency). 

New Bedford is one of the largest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Superfund 

sites in the country and presented many environmental challenges related to cleanup. Because of 

the Superfund designation, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MACEC) was able to build 

under the unique State Enhanced Remedy Authority, which allowed them to accelerate the 

construction. More landside contamination than anticipated was encountered and MACEC had to 

work with U.S EPA to get sampling and removal methods approved. Large quantities of material 

had to be removed out of state to U.S. EPA approved disposal sites. 

The major potential impacts due to the activities listed above include issues related to noise, 

traffic, air quality, water quality, and habitat loss. Based on the U.S. EPA’s Final Determination 

(2012) for the port improvements, the impacts would not be detrimental to human health or the 

environment, assuming mitigation measures are followed. 

2 According to the National Ocean Economics Program, New Bedford was, in 2013, the top ranked U.S. fishing port as measured by landed value 

(14th, if measured by landing weight). The next ports on the Atlantic coast only appear in 19th and 20th in landed value (Newport, RI and Hampton 

Roads Area, VA, respectively). Measured in weight, the next ports are Gloucester, MA (22nd), Point Judith, RI (225th) and Rockland, ME (30th) 

(NOEP 2015) 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the area is industrial property owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and 

underutilized, but some was acquired from private owners and some commercial activity was 

displaced. Several alternatives were developed to avoid impacts to specific sources. For example, 

alternatives were developed to avoid adverse impacts to areas of cultural importance with the 

final design receiving no objections from State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or 

Wampanoag Tribes with whom consultations were held. The main impacts from construction on 

neighboring populations included impacts of noise, traffic, and dust (EPA 2012). Several 

mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts, including designation of access 

routes to the terminal for construction trucks, best practices in construction to reduce dust, and 

coordination with harbor officials and with the U.S. Coast Guard to reduce potential impacts from 

dredging on fishing, cargo, and recreational vessels. 

The first step in the mitigation process was a public outreach program to ensure the community 

involvement and input help move the project forward. To mitigate effects of noise, construction 

equipment was fitted with enclosures and mufflers; in-water noises were mitigated with bubble 

curtains, low impact vibratory hammers, and non-explosive rock removal techniques. To 

minimize potential traffic implications, there were specific traffic routing requirements. Air 

quality control measures included dust suppression, use of ultra-low sulfur fuel, and other best 

management practices. To minimize sedimentation and water quality impacts, standard upland 

surface water control practices were deployed, as well as bubble curtains, silt curtains, and 

absorbent booms for in-water work. To control for coastal habitat loss, new subtidal habitat was 

created, intertidal habitat will be enhanced, and shellfish seeding will be conducted. In addition, 

protective measures were employed to protect archeological resources and to prevent protected 

species from entering construction zones. 

To verify that mitigation measures and performance standards are maintained, the project has 

several approved monitoring plans in place. These monitoring plans will ensure fish deterrents are 

effective, noise levels are not detrimental, air and water quality standards are not exceeded, and 

new invasive species have not been introduced. 

Port of Los Angeles (California)

The Los Angeles Harbor Department led several environmental reviews of modifications to the 

Port of Los Angeles to expand its capacity to handle containerized cargo. From the environmental 

and socioeconomics point of view, these modifications included aspects similar to those that may 

be needed for ports to accommodate offshore wind energy development, including: dredging and 

disposing of dredged materials, new wharf and terminal building construction, installation of new 

cranes, transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the terminal and new bridges 

(The Los Angeles Harbor Department 2007; 2008; 2014). 

Because most increases in the local demand for labor and services were temporary and because of 

the large labor force and population of the surrounding area, impacts to employment, population, 

housing, local public services, fiscal revenues and stimulus to local economic growth were not 

expected to be substantial. However, the presence of minority and low-income populations 

surrounding the Port area led to an assessment of disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income populations from aesthetic, air 

quality and noise impacts during construction, cumulative impacts to transportation systems 

(traffic) during construction, as well as cumulative impacts of operational activities to health risk 

and air toxics. Other socioeconomic impacts of relevance identified included unavoidable 

aesthetic impacts related to view blockages from newly installed cranes; onshore paleontological 

resources affected by a buffer zone (park) proposed in one of the modifications; and long-term 

impacts on vehicular traffic. 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From an environmental perspective, given the existing size and operation of the Port, the 

environmental impacts were largely deemed to be less than significant as the footprint and 

functionality of the Port would not be drastically different than the existing conditions. 

Port Everglades (Florida)

The Port Everglades Harbor Navigation Study proposed to widen and deepen various channels 

and harbors for container ships and oil tankers as well as make the necessary dock and crane 

infrastructure improvements at the existing Port Everglades in Hollywood, Dania Beach, and Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida. The Project was proposed to support the expansion of international trade and 

deployment of post-Panamax vessels to U.S. ports with the impending completion of the Panama 

Canal expansion. Project components include dredging and blasting and the associated impacts of 

the dredges and/or excavators. 

While Port Everglades is located in a developed, urban area it provides a unique and diverse 

marine setting and home to variety of organisms. The Final Environmental Impact Report focused 

heavily on the environmental impacts that could potentially occur as a result of the proposed 

Project since the area is so biologically rich and diverse. The warm, tropical waters provide 

habitat to several species protected under the Endangered Species Act, including Johnson’s 

seagrass, Elkhorn and staghorn corals, manatees, sea turtles, dolphins, whales, and smalltooth 

sawfish. Impacts to certain threatened and biologically important organisms, such as corals, 

seagrass, and mangroves, are unavoidable and therefore require compensatory mitigation. 

Mitigation for reefs includes the construction of artificial reefs off-site along with some corals 

transplanted from the site. Mitigation also includes the enhancement of various reef habitats using 

coral colonies outplanted from nurseries and the associated monitoring plan to ensure survival. 

The removal of aquatic vegetation (seagrass) and coastal habitat (mangrove wetlands) requires 

mitigation in the form of mitigation credits. Many of the other associated impacts to 

environmental and biological resources are temporary in nature and occur as a result of Project 

construction. These temporary impacts are expected to last throughout the construction activities. 

After Project completion many of the impacts to resources in the area are reduced and return to 

pre-Project conditions. Temporary impacts include impacts to water quality; air quality; acoustic 

environment; marine mammals; sea turtles; sedimentation; and fish populations. In the long-term 

most of these impacts are not determined to be major. Monitoring of conditions pre- and postdredge/blast and turbidity monitoring throughout the Project will also occur to ensure impacts are 

not permanent and do not exceed certain thresholds. 

Aesthetic impacts were considered to be only temporarily affected during construction with 

mitigation measures including prompt removal of trash and debris and construction fences. 

Impacts to recreational boating were identified during dredging through closure of offshore areas, 

but considered to be temporary because the areas affected would move through time and space. 

Cultural and historic surveys identified no impacts to cultural and historic resources. Positive 

impacts were identified to economic resources (decreased costs with vessel delays and economies 

of scale) and to navigation safety (reduction in accidents, improved maneuverability and adequate 

width and depth of channel). 

4.3 Main Drivers of Impacts

The activities associated with achieving each of the capabilities identified above and described in detail in 

the Required Port Characteristics (Section 2.0), are listed in Appendix II Table 1 and include sediment 

dredging, rock blasting, land clearing, pile driving, drilling, fill placement, compaction, and paving. Each 

of these activities results in impact producing factors (stressors) that in turn have a measured impact on 

environmental and socioeconomic resources (receptors). 

58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The environmental and socioeconomic impacts of port modifications are typically location specific and 

depend on magnitude of changes to the impact producing factors relative to local conditions. As identified 

in Appendix II Table 1, and further detailed in Section 4.4, impact producing factors for environmental 

and socioeconomic impacts are expected to be the following: 

• Seafloor/land disturbance; 

• Sediment suspension/deposition; 

• Noise; 

• Lighting; 

• Discharges (dewatering, stormwater, accidental spills); 

• Trash/debris; 

• Vessel and vehicular traffic; 

• Air emissions; 

• Visible infrastructure; 

• Aquatic habitat alteration; 

• Species injury, mortality, or displacement; 

• Offshore/onshore space use conflicts; and 

• Increased demand for local labor and services. 

4.4 Overview of Impacts Anticipated from a Typical Port Modification and 

Potential Mitigation Measures

Appendix II Table 2 describes the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts and mitigation 

measures that could be associated with port modifications to support development of offshore wind farms 

along the Atlantic coast. 

These impacts may range in severity and depend upon numerous factors, including the impact producing 

factors, environmental and socioeconomic resources present, location, time of year, and presence of other 

factors not associated with the intended port modifications. 

Each port modification activity was evaluated on a resource-specific basis to determine the anticipated 

impact for each impact producing factor. These evaluations were refined in the port profiles to consider 

the unique attributes and setting of the resource being evaluated, coupled with location of the port. For 

biological resources, attributes such as distribution/range, life history, and susceptibility to impact of 

individual and populations should be considered, among other factors. For socioeconomic resources, 

attributes such as archaeological or socioeconomic characteristics and susceptibility to impact should be 

evaluated, among other factors. 

4.4.1 Environmental Impacts

Benthic. Impact to the benthic habitat and benthic community is one of the primary impacts 

identified during port modification activities, namely from the dredging of the seafloor along the port 

berth and quayside, as well as within the harbors and channels. Potential impacts include loss of 

aquatic habitat (e.g., seagrass, eelgrass, and coral communities), smothering and crushing of benthic 

organisms, increased turbidity and reduced water clarity, and release of contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. Impacts to the benthic community are temporary, lasting throughout 

59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

construction. Signs of recolonization can typically been found within 3 months of construction 

completion and recolonization to pre-construction levels typically occurs within 3 years of 

construction completion. Positive impacts to benthic communities have also been seen in marina and 

port expansion. New surfaces such as piles and wall surfaces result in increased area for coral and 

sessile organisms to colonize (Roger 1990). 

Fish and Essential Fish Habitat. Fish and essential fish habitat (EFH) may be impacted by dredging 

of the seafloor associated with port modifications, as well as by the noise associated with increased 

activity at the port. Dredging and similar seafloor disturbing activities may result in loss of habitat 

and increased turbidity and sedimentation. Increased turbidity could result in gill clogging in adult 

fish and smothering and crushing of eggs/larvae. Noise associated with vessel traffic, dredging, 

blasting, and pile driving may cause fish to leave the area but is unlikely to cause injury. Impacts and 

injury to fish with air bladders could occur as a result of blasting and drilling. In most cases, the 

impact will be minor and temporary (expected to last throughout construction activities) with 

conditions returning to pre-construction conditions and individuals returning to the area shortly after 

completion of construction. Depending on the location and species present, time of year (TOY) 

restrictions may be employed to avoid or minimize disturbance. Noise abatement or deterrent 

techniques may also be employed, as well as turbidity monitoring during dredging activities. 

Air Quality. The activities associated with the identified port modifications all involve the use of 

vehicles or vessels that would produce emissions that could impact air quality. The temporary 

increases in particulate and gaseous emissions are expected to have a minor to moderate impact on air 

quality, depending on the location. These temporary increases are expected to last throughout 

construction activities returning to pre-construction conditions after project completion. Tugboats, 

typically used to assist other vessels (including those that use the port prior to modification), would 

produce most emissions. Typically management practices include the use of vehicles and vessels that 

meet appropriate standards and monitoring for compliance. Land-side construction activities, 

including land clearing and fill placement and compaction, create dust with the potential to impact air 

quality. Site management practices typically include implementation of a dust control plan, which 

may involve watering of the site; use of soil stabilizers; covering of truck loads and disturbed areas; 

and halting activities in high winds. 

Terrestrial Biota. Terrestrial habitat and biota have the potential to be impacted by land-side 

construction activities including land clearing, drilling, fill placement and compaction, and paving. 

Potential impacts include loss of habitat and disturbance due to noise and land clearing. Noise 

associated with vessel traffic and drilling may cause biota to leave or avoid the area but is unlikely to 

cause injury. Increased noise as a result of construction will be minor and temporary with conditions 

returning to pre-construction conditions and individuals returning to the area shortly after completion 

of construction. Activities that result in land clearing and land use change from habitat to port activity 

are major and permanent activities, which would likely result in some form of mitigation. Depending 

on the location and species present, there may be restrictions placed on the construction in the form of 

TOY restrictions or work hour restrictions. Noise abatement or deterrent techniques may also be 

employed. 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Marine mammals and sea turtles are most likely to be impacted 

by the noise associated with increased activity at the port. Noise associated with vessel traffic, 

dredging, blasting, and pile driving may cause any marine mammals or sea turtles to temporarily 

leave the area, resulting in an incidental take, but is unlikely to cause injury. Incidental take 

authorizations are required for activities that produce underwater sound, including pile driving 

associated with construction projects. In most cases, the impact will be minor and temporary 

(expected to last throughout construction activities) with conditions returning to pre-construction 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conditions and individuals returning to the area shortly after completion of construction. Depending 

on the location and species present, TOY restrictions may be employed to avoid or minimize 

disturbance. Noise abatement or deterrent techniques may also be employed. An incidental take 

authorization often includes additional monitoring of the area for the presence of indicated species to 

avoid or minimize injury or death. 

Birds and Bats. Birds and bats are most likely to be impacted from noise associated with 

construction activities. Noise associated with vehicle/vessel traffic and drilling may cause birds to 

leave or avoid the area but is unlikely to cause injury; likewise any construction activities occurring at 

night may impact foraging bats. In most cases, the impact will be minor and temporary (expected to 

last throughout construction activities) with individuals returning to the area shortly after completion 

of construction. The modification of existing bridges and towers also has the potential to temporarily 

alter the migration patterns of birds and roosting locations for bats. Depending on the location and 

species present, there may be restrictions placed on the hours of construction and lighting 

requirements. Noise abatement or deterrent techniques may also be employed. Additional impacts 

related to birds may include the ingestion of contaminants and collision risks. During dredging 

operations contaminants may be suspended into the water column and ingested/filtered by animals 

preyed on by birds. Silt curtains and temporary cofferdams in conjunction with water quality 

monitoring will mitigate the potential impacts. The added risk of collision may occur due to the 

raising of utility lines and towers. Anti-perching and utility line marking measures may be utilized to 

minimize these avian interactions. 

Water Quality. Dredging and similar seafloor disturbing activities may result in increased turbidity 

and potential release of contaminants into the water column from contaminated sediments. Sediment 

testing and turbidity monitoring are often employed to minimize impacts to water quality. Impacts 

associated with increases in turbidity are temporary (expected to last throughout construction 

activities) with conditions returning to pre-construction conditions shortly after construction. Impacts 

to water quality may also result from stormwater runoff, dewatering (removal of water from a site for 

construction activities to take place below surface water and groundwater), accidental spills, and the 

unintentional release of trash and debris. These impacts are unlikely and will be controlled by the 

employment of standard site management practices. 

Currents and Tides. Currents and water movement may be impacted by the construction of a new 

berth or significant alteration of the seafloor/shoreline at an existing port. Seafloor or shoreline 

alteration could result in shoreline erosion in surrounding areas. Studies should be completed prior to 

construction to determine the likelihood and extent of impact. In some cases, ocean currents and 

movements in an area could improve as a result of dredging. Tides will not be affected by port 

modifications. 

Sediment Deposition. Dredging of the seafloor along the port berth and quayside, as well as within 

the harbors and channels will result in suspension of sediments that will redeposit in the general area. 

The spatial and temporal extent of deposition will depend on the local currents and tides. Sediment 

deposition may result in changes in the local bathymetry, as well as smothering of sessile organisms. 

Sediment deposition can be particularly problematic for coral, submerged aquatic vegetation, and 

other photosynethic organisms as it disrupts the availability of light (Rogers 1990). These impacts are 

anticipated to be minor as after project completion, sediment resuspension and deposition will 

dissipate and return to pre-construction conditions. Over time, without further disturbance, the area 

will revert back to its original bathymetry and composition. 

Acoustic Environment. Increases in noise associated with construction activities around the port will 

result in the disturbance of fish, mammals, turtles, birds, and other animals. Mobile species are 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

expected to leave the area until completion of construction. Because most ports are located in existing 

industrialized areas, impacts are anticipated to be minor. If resources are identified nearby, hours of 

construction may be restricted and noise abatement techniques may be employed. 

Coastal Habitats. Impacts to coastal habitats (which may be designated as Critical Habitats) are 

expected to be negligible, when expanding within the footprint of an existing port facility. Impacts are 

expected to be minor to major, when expanding into areas of previously undeveloped coastal habitat. 

Impacts to coastal habitat could include the reduction or loss of habitat for aquatic and terrestrial 

biota, particularly nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for birds and bats, nesting habitat for sea 

turtles, and nursery grounds for commercially and ecologically valuable fish species. Coastal habitats 

likely to be affected by port modifications are mangrove forests, wetlands, and salt marshes. 

Reduction or loss of mangrove forests and marsh areas could result in increased coastal erosion and 

reduced storm protection (USACE 2015). 

4.4.2 Socioeconomic Impacts

Military Use Areas. Impacts to military use areas from modifications to ports depend on the 

existence of space use conflicts between port modifications and military activities such as vessel 

training exercises and aviation exercises. Because military vessel operations that are not compatible 

with commercial or recreational activities are typically confined to Military Operating Areas away 

from commercially used waterways (BOEM 2015), there would be no expected conflicts with vessels 

used for port modifications. To the extent that dredging is needed in channel segments shared with 

military vessels, there would be a potential for use conflict for the channel, but this type of conflict is 

routinely managed through coordination. Because no aircraft are expected to be needed for port 

modifications, no expected space use conflicts would be expected with the military use of airspace. 

Air draft improvements to bridges or utility towers would occur within heights common to urban 

development and commercial use. 

Land Use and Existing Infrastructure. Expansion of port infrastructure could generate space use 

conflicts with current or planned uses of the affected areas. Space use conflicts are more likely in 

ports requiring construction modifications beyond their current property. Because expansion would 

likely occur to adjacent areas of the port, potential conflicts with coastal zone management plans are 

not likely. Activities that require dredging, pile driving and fill placement may generate space use 

conflicts with other uses of port waterways, particularly channel widening or deepening, because 

dredging may occur over a larger area. 

Transportation (terrestrial). Vehicle traffic may be impacted by the transportation of construction 

materials and workers during port modification whether directly, if construction materials are 

transported by truck, or indirectly, through traffic delays at crossings with rail lines, if materials are 

transported by rail. Transportation on land may also be affected if port expansions occupy areas 

currently in use by vehicle or rail traffic. At Harwich, increased traffic on the local road network was 

identified as a potential adverse effect during construction (Royal Haskoning 2003). Port modification 

may also positively impact traffic on land in the surrounding area. The demand for larger and 

increased vehicles to the port may require road widening, improvement/reconstruction, or added 

traffic lights. Traffic in the area could become more efficient as a result of these modifications. At the 

Port of Los Angeles, projects typically included widening of roads and other infrastructure 

improvements to accommodate expected increases in traffic. 

Cultural and Historical Resources. The two most likely types of impact producing factors that 

could lead to adverse impacts to cultural and historical resources are seafloor disturbance and visible 

infrastructure. Seafloor disturbance could affect shipwrecks or archeological sites and could occur 

with dredging, pile driving or fill placement activities. Visible infrastructure could affect cultural and 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

historical resources if they disrupt the visual landscape of a culturally or historically important place 

or building. Disturbance of offshore buried artifacts and sites could be permanent. At New Bedford, 

archeological surveys identified sensitive “paleosols” and a shipwreck (EPA 2012). At Harwich, 

potential effects on archeological sites from silt removal and dredging activities were also identified 

(Royal Haskoning 2003). At Galway, the relocation of existing harbor operations was interpreted as a 

“cultural loss” to the public valuing close proximity to large ships entering and departing the harbor 

and archeological resources were considered to be potentially affected (Galway Harbour Company. 

Undated). 

Visual Resources. Impacts to visual resources depend mostly on the existing visual setting and the 

contrast with the perceived quality of a landscape or seascape. Adverse impacts are considered to 

increase with perceived contrast and with the number of those exposed to such contrast. Most port 

modifications would likely not contrast greatly with the surrounding environment, given they would 

be expected to be expanding, building or reinforcing structures and facilities of the same type as those 

already present at ports. Effects during construction would be temporary. Installation of taller cranes, 

as well as modification to bridges and power lines to improve air draft have the most potential for 

lasting visual impacts. In the case of New Bedford, long-term run visual impacts involved changing 

the site from a demolished mill property to an active marine terminal, with the impacts being 

considered positive or negative depending on subjective judgement. However, the resulting visual 

effect would have little contrast with adjacent waterfront properties (EPA 2012). At Harwich, visual 

effects of construction would derive from the contrast of construction activities with the currently 

tranquil view of the site both from land and from open water (Royal Haskoning 2003). At Galway, 

driving of steel piles and vessel movements would interfere with the views of nearby receptors 

(Galway Harbour Company. Undated). 

Environmental Justice. Although port modifications have the potential to generate high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects in the area of the planned work, as do most construction 

projects, effects are likely temporary and often can be mitigated through best practices in construction 

or other measures. If after mitigation, effects are still considered high and adverse, the presence of 

environmental justice impacts depends on the population characteristics of the area affected by those 

high and adverse effects and treatment and involvement of those populations. Minority or low-income 

populations would need to be present and disproportionately impacted by the high and adverse human 

health effects. One potential impact to surrounding minority or low-income populations is degraded 

air quality as a result of vehicle and vessel emissions or earth moving activities throughout 

construction and after project completion. Additionally, noise associated with construction activities 

and traffic may also disproportionately impact communities surrounding the port facility. An increase 

in vehicle traffic to and from the port for both construction and day-to-day port activity may also 

impact these populations. In the case of New Bedford, census block groups were identified as 

“environmental justice areas” within the study area. However, no disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts were identified, because traffic, noise, and air impacts analyzed in the study area were found 

to be minimal (EPA 2012). The Port Everglades Harbor Navigation Study found that the Port is 

located in a highly urbanized area close to an International Airport and several Interstates. Impacts to 

air quality, noise, and traffic were not found to be significant in this area. Also, low-income and 

minority populations were not found to be disproportionately located within the region of influence. 

Surrounding communities to the Port and throughout the waterways were characterized by high-value 

condominiums and single-family homes. The U.S. EPA threshold of “disproportionately high and 

adverse” would not be met (USACE 2015). 

Commercial Fishing. Because offshore activities for port modifications would be limited to the 

immediate vicinity of the port, and potentially the port channel (if widening or deepening is 

necessary), impacts on fisheries are expected to be mostly limited to space use conflicts in the use of 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

port facilities and access channel. Potential impacts within the vicinity of the port could be 

navigational limitations or vessel restrictions during construction activities (e.g., channel deepening, 

improvements to quayside), the need for new or additional navigational markers, and the potential for 

collisions or allisions (BOEM 2012). At New Bedford, despite the high value of landings, conflicts 

were not expected and so far have not occurred. The new terminal was expected to be fully rented out 

to a wind project developer and any conflicts to be managed through a fisheries working group 

(MACEC 2015). At Rotterdam and Harwich, fisheries faced some restrictions at the location of the 

sand extraction pits or during dredging (Royal Haskoning 2003; Royal Haskoning 2007). 

Tourism and Recreation. Impacts of port modifications on tourism and recreation depend on the 

location of tourist and recreational areas relative to ports. Temporary effects could occur through 

construction related onshore traffic as well as recreational boating space use conflicts. Permanent 

effects could occur through visual effects if taller cranes are installed at ports or if bridges or utility 

towers are modified to improve air draft. Impacts from offshore activities are unlikely because of the 

proximity of these activities to the port or port channel, with the exception of trash and debris or 

accidental fuel spills from construction vessels. Positive impacts in the form of increased accessibility 

and port calls by cruise ships could result from channel deepening, air draft improvements, and 

creation of additional berthing space. At New Bedford, construction of the new terminal was to 

impact an existing boat ramps and required relocation of existing recreational boat moorings requiring 

revisions in project design (EPA 2012). At Rotterdam, land reclamation works involved closing off a 

recreational beach. In the long run, more beaches would be present than before and the adverse 

impact on recreation would be temporary (Royal Haskoning 2007). At Port Everglades, impacts from 

closures to recreational boating were identified during dredging but considered temporary (USACE 

2015). However, port modifications could also improve air draft, channel depths, and berth size to 

allow for cruise ships to access ports previously inaccessible or with inadequate equipment to handle 

such large vessels. Tourism could be positively impacted by these improvements. 

Navigation. Vessel traffic in the proximity of the port may be temporarily and adversely impacted by 

some activities such as dredging (e.g., vessel transit delays of hours or days to accommodate dredging 

operations). In the long run, however, impacts from port modifications could be positive. At New 

Bedford, the additional maintenance dredging expected was considered a potential positive impact on 

navigation for maritime properties along the New Bedford shoreline (EPA 2012). At Harwich, a 

potential for disruption of commercial navigation during construction was identified (Royal 

Haskoning 2003). 

Socioeconomic Resources. Socioeconomic impacts will be both positive and negative. Impacts may 

include those to the local population and labor force, derived effects on the demand for housing and 

local public services, changes in livelihoods, social cohesion, and changes in fiscal resources 

available to local governments. These impacts stem from two main impact producing factors: changes 

in demand for local labor, goods and services; and space use conflicts. Port modifications would be 

expected to bring a temporary increase in demand for local labor, goods and services during 

construction, followed by a second phase increase in demand for local labor, goods, and services, if 

the modifications are followed by the staging of offshore wind projects, and a third phase (likely 

smaller) permanent increase in demand for local labor, goods and services during maintenance and 

operations of the offshore wind projects. However, other sectors may reduce their demand for local 

labor, goods, and services during the various phases of project development, if space use conflicts 

exist. The resulting socioeconomic impacts depend largely on the magnitude of demand increased 

relative to the size and characteristics of the local labor force, economic sectors, and tax base. These 

relative magnitudes will vary from project to project and port to port. Affected parties and user groups 

will need to be identified in the future relative to both positive and negative impacts. As a reference, 

upgrades to the New Bedford Port to support offshore wind farm construction seem to have cost over 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$100 million (Navigant 2014). German ports are said to have invested between $100 million and 

$250 million in upgrades and infrastructure to support offshore wind energy (Navigant 2013). 

Job Creation. As described in Section 4.2.2, the number of construction jobs supported by these 

estimates would depend on location and the geographic extent for which jobs are being estimated. A 

Navigant (2013) study estimated 300 annual statewide jobs over a 2 year construction period would 

correspond to a $50 million investment for a U.S. North Atlantic port. At New Bedford, local jobs 

were estimated at 150 short-term construction jobs, with larger numbers during staging and 

operations (South Coast Today 2013). 

4.5 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures for port modifications require the consideration of whether project design can be 

modified in any way to reduce the quantity and duration of disturbances from impact producing factors 

such as land clearing, dredging, or filling. There are three commonly used types of mitigation. These are 

compensatory mitigation, operational controls, and regulations and BMPs. They are described in further 

detail below and can be found in Appendix II Table 2 for each activity and resource area. 

4.5.1 Compensatory Mitigation

For unavoidable impacts to resources, compensatory mitigation is often used. Compensatory 

mitigation may be required in the form of on- or off-site enhancement, restoration, and preservation 

or mitigation credits to address unavoidable impacts or impacts that will remain, even after project 

completion. For example, as part of the 2015 Port Everglades Harbor Navigation Study, it was 

determined that there would be several acres of unavoidable impacts to mangrove wetlands and 

seagrass habitats as a result of dredging and associated activities. To mitigate for this impact, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposed compensatory use of an on-going habitat enhancement 

and restoration project at West Lake Park. The West Lake Park project includes previously permitted 

restoration, enhancement, and preservation of like habitats in this county-operated, state-owned 

natural area located to the south of the project area. Credits are purchased at a pre-determined ratio 

equal to the value of the impacted resource. They are purchased through Broward County, which is 

responsible for overall construction, monitoring, and success of the mitigation at the Park. In some 

locations, this type of mitigation could be used for unavoidable impacts to benthic communities 

(seagrass, coral), coastal communities (wetlands, mangrove forests), or terrestrial communities 

(forests) associated with port modifications. Refer to Port Everglades in Section 4.2.2 for further 

mitigation techniques planned for Port Everglades with regards to unavoidable impacts to corals. 

These forms of ecological compensation also appear to be commonly utilized in European port 

expansion projects. The expansion of the ports of Harwich (UK), Rotterdam (Netherlands) and 

Bremerhaven (Germany) all involved the development of replacement or compensatory habitat 

(offsite as well as onsite) as mitigation for unavoidable loss of benthic, fish or avian habitat. 

Socioeconomic compensatory mitigation may take the form of a contingency fund that is set up to 

compensate for losses. For example, contingency funds could be established to provide compensation 

to fisherman where port expansions cover fishing grounds. Other forms of socioeconomic 

compensatory mitigation may include the improvement of infrastructure for specific industries. To 

mitigate for port modifications affecting commercial fishermen, a port may include improved docks, 

off-loading ramps, and/or fueling stations. For ports with tourism and recreational activities, 

mitigation may include improved or new tourist facilities (i.e., cruise terminals) or transportation 

facilities between the port and tourist attractions. Dredging, channel widening, air draft 

improvements, and improved bearing capacity of quayside may allow for ports to harbor cruise ships 

or boat tours where previously inaccessible. 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5.2 Regulations and Best Management Practices

In general, many of the impacts to environmental resources are temporary in nature and occur as a 

result of construction activities associated with proposed port modifications. Impacts are expected to 

be temporary, limited to the construction period and, returning to pre-construction conditions after a 

period of time. Such temporary impacts can also be mitigated through regulations and BMPs. These 

can be effective forms of mitigation that reduce the impacts to resources and prevent further or more 

significant impacts from occurring. A successful example of using regulations to mitigate impacts are 

the time of year restrictions that state and federal agencies place on marine construction activities to 

avoid having these activities take place during sensitive spawning periods or life stages for aquatic 

species. BMPs can be those used for specific port modification activities (dredging, pile driving, land 

clearing, etc.) or regulations imposed through permits and authorizations by regulatory bodies on a 

specific area (port authorities, municipalities, states, etc.) or resource (National Marine Fisheries 

Service [NMFS], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], SHPO, etc.). 

As an example, BMPs can be implemented during blasting and pile driving activities, which can have 

various impacts on resources in the immediate project vicinity and the surrounding area. Sound 

pressure waves associated with these activities can impact fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and 

other aquatic biota. Fish with air bladders are particularly vulnerable to air and sound wave pressure. 

To minimize impacts to these organisms, bubble curtains or air curtains can be used. Bubble curtains 

and air curtains minimize pressure wave impacts to fish by absorbing and lessening the shockwaves 

as they move outward from the site (Johnson et al. 2008). As part of the New Bedford port 

modification mitigation plan (see Section 4.2.2, New Bedford), this type of mitigation was proposed. 

Other BMPs that can reduce impacts associated with dredging and pile driving to aquatic biota 

include using a soft start or ramp up technique as typically recommended by NMFS under incidental 

harassment authorizations for marine mammals. This practice involves starting the vibratory hammer 

used in pile driving at the lowest power setting and gradually ramping up the power over a prolonged 

period of time until it reaches full power. Other ways to alert biota in the area before the 

commencement of work include sending out low-velocity pulses through the water or noise 

abatement techniques on land for birds, bats, and other terrestrial fauna. This allows organisms to 

move out of the area prior to construction activity and prevent injury or harm. Site-specific BMPs or 

regulations may govern how to mitigate for certain species known to inhabit or traverse the project 

area such as TOY restrictions, construction hour restrictions, and on-site monitoring. 

In terms of navigational impacts, the U.S. Coast Guard routinely works with local waterway uses and 

marine construction operations to establish regulations and procedures to deconflict the waterway to 

allow normal waterborne commerce to coexist with marine construction activities and minimize 

delays and other impacts to both. 

Socioeconomic impacts can also be mitigated through regulations and BMPs. Transportation both 

during and after construction can be a major impact to surrounding communities and industries that 

requires mitigation. Construction-related vehicle traffic on land can be regulated and restricted to offpeak, non-rush hour times through coordination with local authorities. Traffic mitigation on land may 

also include road improvements such as widening heavily traversed roads and adding traffic lights if 

increased vehicle traffic is expected as a result of port modifications. Construction-related vessel 

traffic can also be regulated and restricted to non-peak hours of waterway traffic (shipping, fishing, 

and recreational) through coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, port operators, and local 

authorities. 

Other socioeconomic impacts such as space use conflicts with commercial fishing, shipping, and 

navigation can be mitigated through BMPs. Construction activities associated with channel widening 

66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or deepening as well as improvements to quayside bearing capacity may impact fishermen, the 

shipping industry, and other commercial or recreational industry that utilize a port. BMPs may 

include timing construction to avoid peak hours or seasons for these industries. BMPs may vary 

across ports and be location specific, so it is critical to communicate early and often with these 

community user groups (BOEM 2012). 

4.5.3 Operational Controls

The third type of mitigation commonly used is operational controls, which includes mitigation that 

occurs after project completion during the day-to-day operations of the port. These are ways in which 

the port can reduce its impact to surrounding environmental and socioeconomic resources while coexisting with them. For example, utility towers and lines pose collision risks to birds and bats. By 

using utility line marking measures, ports can reduce this risk and their impact on local bird and bat 

populations. Mitigation used during construction for traffic impacts can be extended to postconstruction and implemented on a permanent basis. This includes restricting port vehicle traffic to 

off-peak hours when possible, modifying roads to accommodate an increase in vehicles and 

improving safety features such as traffic lights and turning lanes. Impacts caused by noise and light 

can also be mitigated by restricting port hours of operation or shielding lights that may be on 

throughout the night. Ports located near sea turtle nesting beaches can use red lights to reduce impacts 

on sea turtles. Other operational controls may include additional navigation markers and channel 

route adjustments to avoid space use conflicts of ports that are also utilized for shipping, fishing, or 

recreational and tourism activities (BOEM 2012). Operational controls are determined on a sitespecific basis as each port has unique environmental and socioeconomic impacts and concerns. 

4.5.4 Mitigation Effectiveness

Impacts and mitigation vary from port to port. Effective mitigation for each impacted resource may 

employ one of the three methods described above, some combination of the three or an entirely new 

type of mitigation. For socioeconomic resources, space use conflicts are often mitigated through 

coordination with the affected parties to seek measures such as proper scheduling of construction 

activities. When adverse impacts cannot be properly mitigated, compensation may be used as the 

mitigation measure. For example, in New Bedford, the dredging schedule was to be coordinated 

between the USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the State 

Division of Marine Fisheries DMF to minimize impacts on shellfish. Division of Marine Fisheries 

required compensatory replacement of lost shellfish for any remaining adverse impacts (EPA 2012). 

Impacts that may disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations are often mitigated 

through measures aimed at the source of high and adverse impacts (e.g. noise, air quality). If 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts remain, recommendations typically include that an effort 

be employed, starting as early as possible, and throughout project implementation, to engage affected 

communities in project development such as to communicate and seek input into potential measures 

to minimize impacts (EPA 2012, FHWA 2013). The goal of mitigation is to reduce the impacts to 

both environment and people through coordination and planning. 

The readily available literature on the effectiveness of mitigation measures is limited. In 2011, the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released guidance on establishing, implementing, and 

monitoring mitigation commitments identified and analyzed during the NEPA process. The new 

guidance followed concerns that a lack of monitoring of mitigation commitments could contribute to 

a “fail to advance NEPA’s purpose of ensuring informed and transparent decision making” (CEQ 

2011). It then provided recommendations to agencies to strengthen monitoring of mitigation 

measures, use lessons learned on mitigation effectiveness, and engage the public in mitigation 

planning and monitoring. 

67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While there is not a significant amount of literature documenting post-construction monitoring of port 

modification impacts in the U.S., there are some instances from elsewhere, including in Australia, 

where post-construction monitoring one-year after completion of port development examined 

physical conditions for shorebird roosting and feeding habitat, as well as seagrass creation. Indicators, 

such as water quality and biomass of invertebrates, used to monitor the health of wildlife and these 

important habitats have been seen to meet or exceed targets for rehabilitation or were on positive 

trajectories to do so (Cardno 2013). 

5.0 EXPERT DISCUSSIONS 

5.1 Methodology

Exploratory discussions were conducted with a variety of industry experts over the course of the project, 

as needed, to supplement the knowledge and experiences of the ESS Team, to explore potential new 

information/topics identified throughout the various phases of the study, and to confirm the findings 

obtained from the literature regarding necessary port modifications, the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of such actions, and the mitigation measures that could be employed. The timing 

of discussions was opportunistic and flexible, in response to information obtained throughout the study, 

as follow-up to particularly relevant and pertinent information. 

The initial discussions were held with port managers that have already been involved in the construction 

of an offshore wind project, as well as, port managers in the states that are most likely to advance an 

offshore wind project on the Atlantic coast (MA, RI, MD, NJ, and VA). Topics of particular interest, 

when speaking to port managers, included important “lessons learned” from those who have already made 

modifications to support an offshore wind project, as well as identification of major information gaps that 

exist or particular hurdles that need to be addressed prior to modification. 

The topics of discussion included: 

•	 Port characteristics that are considered “mission critical” for facilitating offshore wind
 

construction and operation;
 

•	 Insights on the desired port characteristics and how existing ports may have been, or could be, 

altered to accommodate offshore wind energy development; 

•	 Key factors that influence a port’s decision to initiate upgrades, and how do environmental 

impacts/mitigation and permitting timeframes affect that decision; 

•	 Environmental and socioeconomic impacts resulting from the analysis of similar port 

improvement and expansion modifications;
 

•	 Mitigation experiences, particularly the identification of useful mitigation measures; 

•	 Most common public concerns with respect to construction activities at ports and whether these 

concerns have typically influenced the design/permitting of port modifications or choice of 

alternatives; and 

•	 Potential conflicts with current port users. 

The ESS Team conducted seven exploratory discussions with select experts in the U.S. and Europe to 

provide further insight into the expansion and modification of existing ports to accommodate proposed 

offshore wind projects on the Atlantic OCS. The ESS Team spoke with individuals from the following 

entities: 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Quonset Development Corporation; 

•	 MACEC; 

•	 USACE Baltimore District; 

•	 USACE New England District; 

•	 UK Crown Estate; 

•	 USACE Wilmington District; and 

•	 Blue Water Shipping Company. 

5.2 Key Themes and Concerns

The seven individuals/entities that the ESS Team spoke with came from different backgrounds and had 

varying levels of engagement in offshore wind energy development. Despite their different roles in the 

offshore wind energy sector there were some common themes and comments that they shared. 

•	 Financial commitment. A major theme echoed throughout the discussions was that of the 

financial investment involved from the planning process through construction. The financial 

commitment necessary to permit, design, and prepare to modify a port for offshore wind 

component readiness can be incredibly large and take place over a long period of time. The 

individuals contacted emphasized the importance of obtaining the proper funding and 

understanding the magnitude of the investment needed to fully support a port modification project 

from start to finish. 

•	 Length of project. In addition to the financial investment, there is also the investment of time. 

There is often a long lead time involved in developing and permitting these projects prior to 

construction. Furthermore, everyone is looking for a long term commitment to justify the 

financial investment. Because of the long lead time and expense of port modification projects, the 

need for long term contracts and more certainty in the supply chain is critical. 

•	 Evolving needs and technology. The offshore wind energy industry is still in its infancy, 

especially in the U.S. The technology is constantly evolving and the needs and requirements for 

offshore wind components may quickly become outdated over the course of a project. When 

seeking permits and obtaining funding, flexibility and scalability are important. Similar to the 

importance of money and time involved in the process, there is the concern that unforeseen 

issues, technological advancements, or siting requirements that may not be known at the onset of 

an offshore wind energy project may have a material effect on the project during the development 

and permitting stage, with could affect the decision about which port to use or change the types of 

port modifications necessary to support the offshore wind project. The USACE Districts that were 

contacted have said they plan to follow the regulatory program that is in place when evaluating 

and permitting both offshore wind energy and port modification projects, however, they have also 

mentioned that this is an evolving process. As the industry continues to change and advance, so 

too could the regulatory and permitting process. 

•	 Each project is unique. Despite common technology and the intended outcome of these offshore 

wind energy projects, they vary in many aspects. As a result, the types of port characteristics that 

are needed to support construction staging and operations and maintenance activities will vary 

from project to project. As with most any project, the location is primarily what defines the 

project impacts for a port modification project. The socioeconomic and environmental impacts 

vary from place to place depending on what infrastructure already exists, who or what surrounds 

a port, and the politics or stakeholders involved. 

69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Stakeholder involvement. It is critical for offshore wind energy project developers to be 

communicating early and often with the port authority; federal, state, and local authorities; and 

other key stakeholders, such as fisherman, harbormasters, and other port users in the area of the 

port(s) they intend to use for their project. It is imperative that these agencies and stakeholders be 

involved early and often throughout the planning, design and ultimately construction of any 

project. 

Overall, the general consensus of being able to expand and modify existing ports to accommodate 

proposed offshore wind energy projects was positive and viewed as feasible across the various sectors 

interviewed. These discussions further confirmed the complexity of these projects and emphasized the 

need for early coordination between various stakeholders, as some of the many components that go into 

successfully siting, permitting, and preparing a port for an offshore wind energy project. 

6.0 ENIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC PORT PROFILES 

6.1 Introduction to Port Profiles 

Sixteen ports were selected, as described in Section 3.2, for further evaluation in the form of a port profile 

to provide an overview of each port’s capacity to accommodate offshore wind energy development. The 

port profiles provide a general overview of the port, a classification of its existing capabilities and 

potential modifications to support offshore wind, a summary of the existing environmental and 

socioeconomic conditions, and anticipated impacts of potential modifications. Should port modifications 

at a specific port included in this study be proposed, a more thorough and detailed environmental 

assessment should be conducted. However, if a port was not selected for profiling, this does not mean that 

it is not a candidate to support offshore wind activity. This selection of ports is intended to serve as a 

sampling of the ports along the Atlantic coast that could function as staging and potentially O&M ports 

for future offshore wind projects. 

Due to the limited scope of this study, the description of the existing environmental and socioeconomic 

conditions at each port is intended to provide a general indication of areas potentially impacted. The 

geographic area of interest around each port is not necessarily the same for each environmental and 

socioeconomic aspect of the port described. In general, the geographic area of interest described was the 

following: 

•	 Immediate vicinity of the port and access channel for most environmental resources, land use, 

transportation, cultural and historic resources, and visual resources;
 

•	 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, County or City for socioeconomic and environmental justice
 

resources, recreational fishing communities, and tourism and recreation;
 

•	 Port area and surrounding fishing communities for commercial fishing; and 

•	 Vessel traffic to and from the port for navigation. 

The information gathered for each of the port profiles was drawn from publically available information. 

The data sources used in the description of the current characteristics were selected to provide a brief 

overview of current conditions and often of selected aspects, but greater detail should be considered in 

programmatic or project specific environmental review documents. In some cases the available 

information was limited or conflicted with other data sources. Where they existed, data gaps were 

identified. For example, most ports do not know the bearing capacity of their quaysides or if their 

quayside seabed is suitable for jacking because their normal port operations do not require this capability. 

As a result, these data were generally hard to find and were not always available. This information may be 

acquired in the future with specific data requests or geotechnical studies at a port. It is important to note 

70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that the information contained in each profile was obtained in the second half of 2015 and may change 

with the passage of time. Each port profile includes a date in the footer to provide future readers with the 

context of when the profile was prepared. Port operators and owners are encouraged to provide updated 

information about their capabilities via the U.S. DOE Port Readiness Assessment Tool, available at 

www.offshorewindportreadiness.com. 

The profiles were developed using a standardized template containing the following sections: 

• Port Overview 

• Port Classifications – Existing Capabilities 

• Potential Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

• Impact Producing Factors 

• Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions 

• Anticipated Impacts 

• Data Sources & Additional Information 

A brief description of each section is provided below, as well as the methodology used to gather the 

pertinent information. Further clarifications on specific sections are also included. 

6.2 Port Overview 

This section provides a general description of the port, including the geographic location, identification of 

available terminals, port governance, primary uses, land area, port employment (where available), and 

distance to closest wind energy area. In instances where there are multiple terminals identified within a 

port, the terminal with the greatest potential to support offshore wind is identified and described. 

6.3 Port Classifications - Existing Capabilities

This section summarizes key criteria determined to be important in characterizing ports for their readiness 

(at present) in supporting activities associated with offshore wind energy facility construction. This 

information was not readily or publically available for every criterion or for every port. A “U” was used 

to indicate that the information was either unknown or unavailable. “N/A” was used to indicate that a 

criterion was not applicable. A threshold was determined for each category based on the requirements to 

support staging of a project utilizing 8 MW wind turbines (e.g., Port Access Channel Width threshold of 

30 m) (Table 6.3-1). The 8 MW wind turbine scenario was chosen because it is expected to become the 

standard in the future. It is important to note that each requirement may not represent the best solution for 

a specific project; it is intended to provide guidance in the planning process. 

Table 6.3-1. Port Classification Key Criteria and Thresholds for 8 MW Projects 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port X 

O&M Port X 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 30 

Access Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 8.1 

Overhead Draft (m) 75 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 10 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 10 

Size of Storage Area (m2) 25,000 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) 8 

71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Number of Berths 1 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) 17 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Length (m) 170 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking Yes 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro 

Berth & Ramps (t/m2) 10 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 600 

Crane Height Restrictions (m) 50 

Transportation 

Onshore Transportation 

Infrastructure (rail, highway, 

etc.) 

No 

U = Unknown 

Ports were classified as construction and staging ports (“Staging Port”) or as both construction and 

staging ports and operation and maintenance ports (“O&M Port”). For the port profiles, the focus was 

primarily on ports that were suitable for construction and staging activities, assuming that such ports 

would have marine facilities around them suitable for some O&M activities. However, routine O&M 

activities may be supported by smaller, less well-equipped ports and would likely require fewer potential 

port modifications. Location relative to the nearest wind energy area will likely be the key factor in the 

ability of smaller ports to support O&M activities. Distance would likely preclude ports from efficiently 

supporting routine O&M activities given the amount of time it would take for a vessel to transit between 

the port and the wind energy area. 

Overhead draft was determined by identifying the lowest height of an overhead structure, such as a bridge 

or overhead power cables, which could limit the passage of a vessel with turbine components traveling 

between the open ocean and the port. The overhead draft restriction determined for an 8 MW wind turbine 

scenario is 75 m. This height is based on the size of the jacket structure used in the 8 MW scenario. While 

it may not always be realistic or feasible (technically or economically) to raise a highway, railroad bridge, 

or power lines, “improve overhead draft to 75 m” was included as a potential port modification since 

there is precedent for raising a bridge to accommodate expected larger vessels size at port (i.e., the 

ongoing project to raise the Bayonne Bridge from 151 feet of clearance to 215 of clearance to 

accommodate post-Panamax vessels). This is more likely to be considered an option, if coupled with a 

bigger project. Modifying a highway or railroad bridge would have additional financial, environmental, 

and socioeconomic benefits and impacts associated with it that would need to be studied and assessed if 

that modification was deemed to be necessary for a specific port either to support the offshore wind 

energy industry or for some other purpose. 

The crane capability of a port was evaluated with two criteria: on-site crane capability, which identifies 

whether the port has existing on-site crane capabilities and is expressed as the lifting capacity (in tons) 

that the crane(s) can handle at a port, and as crane height restrictions, which defines any height 

restrictions, if present. If on-site cranes are not present at a port, the value of the on-site crane capability 

criteria was “No.” Crane height restrictions (due to nearby aviation activity, bridges, etc.) were identified 

regardless of whether the port had an on-site crane due to the fact that a port could utilize mobile cranes 

on a project-specific, as-needed basis. 

The transportation capability of a port was determined based on the presence of on-site transportation 

facilities. For the purposes of the port profiles, rail transportation means rail service that is capable of 

transporting goods, including offshore wind energy project components. It does not include commuter 

rails and subways used for transporting people. For a port to be classified as having rail transportation, the 

rail has to be located within the port and accessible to vessels without the use of a truck or additional 

transportation. Ports with railroad transportation have direct rail access or on-dock rails typically 

supported by cranes. If the port does not have direct rail access at the port, it is not considered to have rail 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

access or rail transportation. Highway access was determined if a port was within a couple miles of a 

major highway via major roads and not residential, small streets. 

6.4 Potential Port Modifications 

For each port, the existing capabilities for each criteria were compared to the criteria thresholds identified 

in Table 6.3-1. If the port did not meet or exceed the threshold for a category, it was included in the 

potential port modification table (refer to Table 6.4-1 for an example). Where information was unknown, 

it was included as a potential port modification in the profile as well. To differentiate between known 

potential port modifications and assumed potential port modifications, the assumed construction activities 

were shown as italicized. This is denoted in the profile with “Modifications shown in italics are assumed 

to be required based on port classifications.” The specific criteria needed to reach the threshold within 

each capability area are identified beneath the table as well. 

It is also important to note, when assessing Ports, it may be the case that a port that does not meet the 

minimum criteria established in Section 2, may prove to be the preferred option for a given project. As 

has been the case in Europe, if reasonable alternatives are incorporated into the engineering design phase, 

a port with some capabilities below the minimum required, can be viable. Cost-benefit analyses should be 

carried out between utilizing alternative means and methods in existing infrastructure, versus adopting 

“non-transferrable” construction strategies that require capital investment in enhancing port infrastructure 

up to what may be considered to be ”ideal”. 

Table 6.4-1. Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind and Associated Impact 

Producing Factors 

Potential Port 

Modifications 

Construction Activity 

Dredging Pile Driving/

Drilling 

Land 

Clearing Fill Placement Fill Compaction Paving 

Channel Access  

Quayside Improvements    

Storage Capacity    

Ro-Ro Capabilitya     

Cranesb    

Modifications shown in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications a Provide Ro-Ro Capability; improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability 

The Port Modifications table in each profile also identifies the construction activities likely to be 

necessary to achieve the threshold indicated for a specific port. This table is based off of the port-specific 

Existing Capabilities table in the profile. The activities associated with achieving each of the threshold 

capabilities identified in Table 6.3-1, and described in detail in the Port Characteristics, include sediment 

dredging, rock blasting, land clearing, pile driving, drilling, fill placement, compaction, and paving. 

6.5 Impact Producing Factors

The activities identified as necessary to achieve the criteria threshold will generate impact producing 

factors (stressors) that in turn have a measured impact on environmental and socioeconomic resources 

73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(receptors) in the area of the port as previously described in Section 4.0. Impact producing factors 

associated with the activities identified in Table 6.4-1 are expected to include the following: 

• Seafloor/land disturbance; 

• Sediment suspension/deposition; 

• Noise; 

• Lighting; 

• Discharges (dewatering, stormwater, accidental spills); 

• Trash/debris; 

• Vessel and vehicular traffic; 

• Air emissions; 

• Visible infrastructure; 

• Species injury, mortality, or displacement; 

• Offshore/onshore space use conflicts; and 

• Increased demand for local labor and services. 

6.6 Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions

The existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions for each port are described in this section of 

the port profile. To provide consistency, where possible, sources were identified that provided consistent 

information on a specific resource for each of the ports. Additionally, port-specific sources were used to 

provide further description and detail. For more detailed information on references, see citations 

throughout the tables and the list of the data sources found at the end of each profile. Table 6.6-1 provides 

the source of the data for each environmental and socioeconomic resource category, as well as a brief 

description of how and/or where the information was gathered for each resource. Where a consistent 

source(s) was unavailable for a resource, or special considerations were made, it is noted in the table 

below. All sources used and obtained are publically available. 

The geographic area of interest around each port is not necessarily the same for each environmental and 

socioeconomic resource described. While the geographic extent of the environmental resources is often 

more easily defined by the physical land and water resources surrounding the port, the geographic extent 

of the socioeconomic resources can be more complicated and is described in the following table. 

Table 6.6-1. Description and Source of Environmental and Socioeconomic Resource Data Gathered 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic 

Consistent source unavailable or unknown. Port- and location-specific sources used where available. 

Information on benthic communities typically found in Environmental Assessments/EIS/Environmental 

Impact Reports for projects (typically dredging projects) proposed or done within the vicinity of the port. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

74 
 

 

 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Fish & EFH 

NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper was used identify EFH in waters surrounding the ports: 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

Port- and location-specific sources were also used to provide further detailed information on fish and 

EFH habitat. If applicable, anadromous species were identified for ports along rivers. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

Air Quality 

Air quality classifications were identified using U.S. EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) (http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html). Identified whether an Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) was in attainment or non-attainment of the NAAQS for any or all of the criteria pollutants. 

Geographic region: air quality control region, which includes several towns/cities/counties in an area. 

Terrestrial Biota 

Terrestrial biota information for ports in Massachusetts through Virginia was gathered using The Nature 

Conservancy’s Northeast Habitat Map 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8 

A consistent source for ports located south of Virginia was not available or known. Port- and locationspecific sources were used, where available. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and adjacent properties and communities and/or 

habitats. 

Marine 

Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) was consulted to identify sea turtles in the area and NOAA 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals) was consulted to identify marine 

mammals in the area. 

Geographic region: surrounding waterbodies and extending to larger geographic areas of the Atlantic 

Ocean given transient lifestyle of these animals. 

Birds & Bats 

USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) was consulted to identify birds and bats in the area. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and extending to larger geographic areas such as 

surrounding water bodies and the port’s county given the transient lifestyle of these animals. 

Water Quality 

Water quality was addressed by identifying impaired waters. Impaired waters were identified using U.S. 

EPA’s National Summary of Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Information 

(http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state). If a 

waterbody was designated as impaired, the state’s most current integrated water quality report was 

consulted for further information. An explanation of the water quality classification was provided for 

impaired waters as well. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

Currents & 

Tides 

Tidal range and currents identified using NOAA Tidal Bench Mark Data Sheets 

(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

Sediment 

Deposition 

Consistent source unavailable or unknown. Port- and location-specific sources used, where available. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

Acoustic 

Environment 

Consistent source unavailable or unknown. Port- and location-specific sources, where available. 

Geographic region: town, city, or county where the port is located. 

75 
 

 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat designations around the port identified using USFWS’ Critical Habitat Mapper 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

Military Use 

Areas 

Used MilitaryBases.com and local knowledge of the ESS Team to identify military bases within and 

surrounding the ports. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the port. 

Land Use & 

Existing 

Infrastructure 

To identify land use and existing infrastructure around a port, Google Earth and Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium’s National Land Cover Database Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis Tool 

were used (http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Transportation 

Transportation within and surrounding the ports was identified using Google Earth and supporting port 

websites. Where possible, distances to highways were provided and for rail service, it was noted if 

service was direct to dockside or within port. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Cultural & 

Historical 

Nearby historical places and buildings were identified using the National Register of Historic Places 

Database (http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm). 

Shipwrecks within the port vicinity were identified using NOAA’s Wrecks and Obstructions Database 

(http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Visual 

Google Earth was used to identify the viewscapes around the ports and identify urbanized/developed or 

undeveloped land. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Environmental 

Justice 

The percentage of total minorities in the county and state were identified using U.S. Census Bureau’s 

(USCB) American Community Survey (ACS), 5-Year Estimates (2009-2013): 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

The percentage of low-income in the county and state were identified using USCB’s American 

Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2009-2013): 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

The percentage of total minority populations and individuals below the poverty level in the area 

surrounding the port was identified using U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping 

(EJSCREEN) Tool: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (see additional discussion below), county, or city. 

Commercial 

Fishing 

Commercial landings for the port and state as well as rank in the U.S. identified using NMFS’ 

Commercial Fisheries Statistics: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index 

Commercial fishing engagement in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using 

NMFS’ Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/socialindicators/map 

Commercial fishing reliance in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using NMFS’ 

Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map 

Geographic region: surrounding fishing communities. 

76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Tourism & 

Recreation 

The percentage of employment in tourism-related industries in the county identified using Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

Recreational fishing engagement in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using 

NMFS’ Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/socialindicators/map 

Recreational fishing reliance in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using NMFS’ 

Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas or county. 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port and main vessel types to and from port identified 

using Marine Traffic’s Automatic Identification System: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/ports/all 

Vessel types include: cargo, tanker, passenger, high speed craft, tug, fishing, and pleasure 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas or county. 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Population of County or City identified using USCB ACS: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

Labor Force identified using Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues identified using U.S. Census Bureau’s State Finances, 2012 Census of 

Governments: http://census.gov/govs/local/ 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas, county, or city. 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas are usually adequate geographic areas for the description of socioeconomic 

characteristics of port areas because the affected area must consider the community in which ports are 

located, as well as surrounding communities that may be impacted by activities at the port through 

commercial or fiscal ties or through movements of people for work, recreation or other activities. 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas consist of one or more counties with a high degree of social and economic 

integration, as measured by commuter ties and with a core urban area. They are defined and revised with 

some regularity by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB 2015). Additional information on 

commuter data is available through the following USCB online tool and can also be a useful alternative in 

defining the study area for socioeconomics (USCB 2015a; USCB 2015b). However, for populous and 

economically large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, impacts of construction and operation of projects will 

very often be negligible in magnitude, and stakeholders often would like to know how they compare to 

smaller economic areas, such as their city or county. In addition, for some aspects analyzed (e.g. fiscal 

impacts) impacts may occur within sub-areas of the geographic area of interest, so these need to be 

described as well. 

Existing conditions of port areas for environmental justice considerations are typically described for the 

same geographic area used for the socioeconomic analysis. The reason is that environmental justice 

assessments should consider all areas where potentially high and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts may occur. In the case of modifications to ports to accommodate wind energy 

development, this area is expected to be the same as the area for socioeconomic impacts. However, 

impacts often occur within a sub-area of the geographic area of interest, such as the immediate vicinity of 

the port or transportation routes. Therefore, these sub-areas often need to be described as well. 

The data sources used in the description of the current characteristics were selected to provide a quick 

overview of current conditions and often of selected aspects, but greater detail should be considered in 

programmatic or project specific environmental review documents. A few notes on the data sources used 

follow. 

77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 The main source of readily available data for identifying minority and low-income populations is 

the USCB ACS 5-Year Estimates (USCB 2015c). A quick overview at the census block group level 

is available through U.S. EPA’s EJSCREEN tool (EPA 2015). The data currently available through 

this tool is from the ACS 2008-2012 5-Year Estimates. 

•	 NOAA’s community social indicators were developed to characterize communities engaged in 

fishing activities and their vulnerability to change. The indicators were developed for Census 

Designated Places based largely on data from the USCB ACS 5-Year Estimates. The latest data 

available used is for the 2005-2009 period. Each indicator combines several sources to reach a 

qualitative measure of how vulnerable communities are to change. Each indicator received a high, 

medium or low qualitative measure in each community, based on the community’s position relative 

to the standard deviation of that indicator among the communities analyzed (NOAA Undated). The 

use of these indicators must be with careful consideration of the geographic area of analysis they 

describe and their interpretation. For the purposes of the community profiles, selected indicators 

from this source were used to characterize communities engaged in commercial and recreational 

fishing. 

•	 Tourism-related employment is not well defined in data based on the NAICS classification of 

industries. Estimates typically require making assumptions regarding the share of certain codes that 

actually reflect tourism (e.g. restaurants). 

6.7 Anticipated Impacts

The information gathered for these port profiles is intended to summarize what exists at the time of 

writing and includes general impacts that have been associated with similar construction activities at ports 

across the U.S. and Europe. However, offshore wind energy development is constantly evolving and 

needs and impacts may change in the future. There may be impacts associated with offshore wind not 

included in these profiles. These profiles should serve as a guide to evaluate the potential readiness and 

construction necessary to accommodate such activity. A more comprehensive, site-specific assessment 

should be conducted should a port be considered for supporting offshore activities. 

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 

The need for expansion and modification of existing ports to accommodate proposed offshore wind 

energy development on the Atlantic OCS was the primary focus of this study. Information gathered 

through existing experiences, a review of the available literature, and input from industry experts, served 

as the basis for this study. This study was conducted to provide BOEM with an understanding of the 

existing status of Atlantic coast port facilities as well as activities required for port expansion and 

modification to support proposed Atlantic OCS offshore wind energy development projects. The 

deliverables were developed to provide documentation to support future National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) reviews of offshore renewable energy actions and aid in the project specific assessment of 

potential environmental and socioeconomically impacts associated with the expansion and use of port 

facilities to support proposed Atlantic OCS offshore wind energy development projects 

The primary activities considered for this study were associated with the modification of ports to support 

the staging and installation of extremely large and heavy components associated with offshore wind 

energy projects and facilitating access and docking of vessels that transport and install them. Offshore 

wind staging ports are anticipated to require significant storage and lay-down space, equipment to 

transport large cargo within the port, cranes with heavy lift capacity to load and unload components from 

the vessels, sufficient quayside space to accommodate transportation and installation vessels, and 

sufficient overhead clearance along waterbodies leading to ports to allow these vessels to reach the port. 

While many of these capabilities are available today in ports along the U.S. coastlines, the primary 

78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

exception is the capability of the typical U.S. cargo port to handle the weight of the heaviest offshore 

wind turbine components since they are configured for lighter load cargo. 

Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of port modifications are typically location specific and 

depend on magnitude of changes to the impact producing factors relative to local conditions. These 

impacts may range in severity and depend upon numerous factors, including the impact producing factors, 

environmental and socioeconomic resources present, location (a primary determinant), time of year, and 

presence of other factors not associated with the intended port modifications. 

The study found that information about the characteristics of various ports is inconsistent across data 

sources, often out-of-date, and for some characteristics, information is nonexistent in the public domain. 

While the study found that some ports along the Atlantic coast already possess many of the necessary 

capabilities and infrastructure needed to support offshore wind projects, the offshore wind industry is still 

evolving and there are unforeseen issues, technological advancements, and changing regulatory 

environments that could affect the decision about which port to use or change the types of port 

modifications necessary to support the offshore wind project. Therefore, flexibility and scalability are 

important. 

Communication is also critical to the successful implementation of port modifications. Offshore wind 

energy project developers should be communicating early and often with the port authority; federal, state 

and local authorities; and other key stakeholders, such as fisherman, harbormasters, and other port users 

in the area of the port(s) they intend to use for their project. It is imperative that these agencies and 

stakeholders be involved early and often throughout the planning, design and ultimately construction of 

any project. 

The results of this study further confirmed the complexity of these projects, the need for more consistent 

information about U.S. port characteristics, and emphasized the need for site-specific information and 

early coordination between various stakeholders, as some of the many components that go into 

successfully siting, permitting, and preparing a port for an offshore wind energy project. 

7.1 Further Research Needs 

This study developed a set of criteria defining the port requirements (e.g. vessel access, lifting 

capabilities, transportation infrastructure, etc.) necessary to support offshore wind construction; identified 

and classified Atlantic coast ports that could potentially service proposed areas for the offshore wind 

energy industry; identified potential modifications needed to support the industry at these ports; and 

summarized potential impact producing factors, potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and 

potential mitigations measures associated with the port modification activities. 

The U.S. DOE Port Readiness Assessment Tool is a good source of information about port 

characteristics, but the data does not appear to be regularly updated by port facilities, is not always 

consistent with data reported by the port’s website or other data sources, and can be a combination of data 

from multiple ports terminals in a geographic port area. A means to promote a consistent set of data that is 

updated on a regular basis would be a worthy topic for additional research. 

Identifying a minimum set of criteria for selecting a port to support an offshore wind project is a 

challenging exercise and there are many different ways to make a given port facility work for a given 

project. In reality, the wind project can adjust the logistics and equipment to adapt to the available 

capabilities of the port. A given project may select a port with greater or lesser capabilities depending on 

the needs of the project, on a cost-benefit of available port facilities, and the costs and impacts associated 

with making necessary modifications to the port’s facilities. 

79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite common technology and the intended outcome of these offshore wind energy projects, they vary 

in many aspects. As a result, the types of port characteristics that are needed to support construction 

staging and operations and maintenance activities will vary from project to project. As with most any 

project, the location is primarily what defines the project impacts for a port modification project. The 

socioeconomic and environmental impacts vary from place to place depending on what infrastructure 

already exists, who or what surrounds a port, and the politics or stakeholders involved. As a port is 

identified as a potential staging port for offshore wind activities, further studies and investigations should 

be done. More information should be gathered through further discussions with or surveys of port 

operators and by making specific data requests. To provide information on quayside and seabed bearing 

capacity, which is not known by most ports, geotechnical studies could be performed. 

One other area that is seemingly lacking in available literature is mitigation. The impacts associated with 

anticipated port modifications vary in scale from minor and temporary (e.g. noise during construction; 

displacement of marine mammals and sea turtles during in-water work; increase in vessel traffic 

associated with construction vehicles) to major and permanent (e.g. removal of wetlands and coastal 

habitat; land use changes from natural habitats or open space to industrial use; habitat loss) and differ 

across ports. Mitigation may take a variety of forms such as compensatory mitigation, regulations and 

BMPs, and operational controls. There is information available regarding the types of mitigation and 

potential mitigation strategies throughout EISs and other project documents; however, there is a lack of 

information with regards to the mitigation that was employed, its effectiveness, and how it is monitored 

over time. 

Mitigation such as habitat creation or restoration is often proposed when a project removes or changes a 

natural habitat, but follow-up monitoring documentation or studies several months to years after the work 

is completed is often missing, not conducted, or made publically available. Therefore, the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures associated with port modification and expansion needs further investigation to 

determine the best form of mitigation for a specific project, impact, and port. 

The information provided in terms of potential impacts and mitigation measures, as well as that provided 

in the port profiles, is relatively general in nature and relies on publically available information. When 

BOEM or any other federal agencies are conducting NEPA reviews, they should use this information as a 

guide to potentially relevant issues and require the project proponent to provide location and projectspecific research and impact evaluations for agency review and decision-making. 

7.2 Recommendations 

While the study identified typical “minimum requirements” for physical dimensions and capabilities of 

ports, these “requirements” should primarily serve as initial recommendations when determining a port’s 

readiness. For a port to be suitable to handle offshore wind components, all of the criteria identified may 

not need to be present. Having all of the “requirements” may be ideal on paper or nice to have, but may 

not be necessary in practice. By involving port operators, port authorities, and other key stakeholders 

from the beginning, minimum requirements and potential obstacles may be addressed and solved. Several 

port operators and ports (via phone discussions or port websites) indicated that they are willing to work 

with interested parties to accommodate their projects (e.g., purchasing or renting additional equipment). 

Although the requirements or characteristics identified as necessary for a port to support offshore wind 

may play a large role in determining which port may be used for a project, the most influential factor may 

be the location or site of a port. The location is critical and plays a role in the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts. It is important to fully understand the distance and proximity to various places 

and populations surrounding a port. A port’s distance to a wind energy area is important as is a port’s 

proximity to highways, airports, and trains; terrestrial biota, critical habitats, and coastal wetlands; and 

cities, cultural or historical sites, and minority or low-income populations. While a port may have many 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the minimum requirements, necessary modifications may have major or permanent impacts that make a 

project impracticable or infeasible. 

At present, the European offshore wind energy industry is more experienced and advanced than the U.S. 

industry. European ports have conducted similar modifications and experienced similar challenges 

associated with offshore wind activity resulting in comparable environmental and socioeconomic impacts. 

The U.S. should use Europe’s experiences, as well as lessons learned from U.S. ports that have already 

supported onshore and offshore wind projects (e.g., New Bedford, MA; Quonset/Davisville, RI; 

Searsport, ME) to plan and model the growing industry. The U.S. can learn from what has worked and 

what has not worked in Europe and these U.S. ports and try to implement procedures, modifications, and 

mitigation that have been successful. 

There are 360 commercial ports throughout the U.S. today handling various types of cargo (American 

Association of Port Authorities, 2013). This study highlighted 16 ports, selected by the ESS Team and 

BOEM, along the Atlantic coast that possess much of the required infrastructure deemed necessary for 

successful offshore wind project installation. The 16 ports highlighted by this study do not necessarily 

represent the best ports for an offshore wind project, ports recommended for use by BOEM or the ESS 

Team, or the only ports capable of handling these projects. The ports selected are intended to serve as a 

cross-section of the existing infrastructure and capabilities of Atlantic coast ports. When offshore wind 

energy project developers identify and select ports for future potential offshore wind projects, other 

options may and should be considered, as necessary to support the particular project under consideration. 

Fully understanding the complexity of these projects is the key to successfully seeing a project from 

permitting and design to implementation and completion. It is important to understand the financial and 

time commitment needed to prepare a port for offshore wind energy project readiness. There may be 

unforeseen technological, permitting, and siting issues encountered. This industry is constantly evolving 

with technological changes and advancements. Port expansion and modification should be viewed and 

understood from all levels – port authorities, permitting agencies, port user groups, and surrounding 

communities. It is critical to be flexible and coordinate with all parties involved to reduce impacts and 

successfully complete the project. 

8.0 REFERENCES 

8.1 Required Port Characteristics References

American Association of Port Authorities. U.S. Public Port Facts. 2013. http://www.aapaports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1032 (accessed April 10, 2015). 

Business Research & Economic Advisors. The Contribution of the North American Cruise Industry to the 

U.S. Economy in 2013. Prepared for Cruise Lines International Association. 2013. 

http://www.cruising.org/sites/default/files/pressroom/US-Economic-Impact-Study2013Final_20140909.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015). 

BVG Associates. UK Ports for the Offshore Wind Industry: Time to Act. Prepared for the Department for 

Energy and Climate Change. 2009. 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file49871.pdf (accessed 

March 1, 2015). 

Cicin-Sain, B and Knecht, R. The Future of U.S. Ocean Policy: Choices for the New Century. Island 

Press, 2000. 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Cooper, B. and Marrone, J. Port Requirements to Support Offshore Wind Development in North America. 

2013. Proceedings Ports 2013. 

DNV GL. Offshore Wind Port Readiness Tool. 2015. http://www.offshorewindportreadiness.com/. 

DNV GL. Assessment of Ports for Offshore Wind Development in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. 

Dept. of Energy. 2014. 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f14/Assessment%20of%20Ports%20for%20Offshore% 

20Wind%20Development%20in%20the%20United%20States_1.pdf (accessed March 3, 2015). 

DNV GL. Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures. Offshore Standard Det Norske Veritas DNV-OSJ101. October 2010. https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/codes/docs/2010-10/Os-J101.pdf 

(accessed March 14, 2016) 

GL Noble Denton and DNV. Guidelines for Offshore Wind Farm Infrastructure Installation. Authorized 

by the Technical Standards Committee. 2015. 

http://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/GL/NobleDenton/0035_ND%20%20Rev_1%20%2014-Dec15%20%20Guidelines%20for%20offshore%20wind%20farm%20infrastructure%20installation.p 

df?utm_source=oilgas&utm_medium=website&utm_content=http%3A%2F%2Frules.dnvgl.com 

%2Fdocs%2Fpdf%2FGL%2FNobleDenton%2F0035_ND%2520%2520Rev_1%2520%252014­

Dec-15%2520%2520Guidelines%2520for%2520offshore%2520wind%2520farm%2520 

infrastructure%2520installation.pdf (accessed March 3, 2016). 

ICF Incorporated, Inc. Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism Economic 

Baseline Development. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon, VA. OCS Study. 2012. 

www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5228.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015). 

Kinetik Partners. Analysis of Maryland Port Facilities for Offshore Wind Energy Services. Prepared for 

State of Maryland, Maryland Energy Administration. 2011. 

http://energy.maryland.gov/documents/AnalysisofMarylandPortFacilitiesforOffshoreWindEnergy 

Services.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015). 

Logistics Optimisation for Ports Intermodality: Network, Opportunities, Development (LO-PINOD). 

Case Study 03: Offshore wind-energy markets-Regional ports combine their offerings. July 10, 

2014. 

http://www.northsearegion.eu/files/repository/20141201191841_LOPINODCASESTUDY03­

PortdiversificationstrategiesAW(2).pdf (accessed March 5, 2015). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s State of the Coast. 2010 

http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/ (accessed March 31, 2015). 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis, Annual Market Assessment. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2013. 

82 
 

 

 

 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf 

(accessed March 3, 2015). 

North Carolina State University. North Carolina Port Capabilities for Offshore Wind Farms. Undated. 

Offshore: Risk & Technology Consulting Inc. (ORTC). Offshore Electrical Cable Burial for Wind 

Farms: State of the Art; Standards and Guidance; Acceptable Burial Depths and Separation 

Distances; and Sand Wave Effects. Prepared for Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 2011. 

http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/BSEE/Technology_and_Research/Technology_Assessment_ 

Programs/Reports/600­

699/Final%20Report%20Offshore%20Electrical%20Cable%20Burial%20for%20Wind%20Farm 

s.pdf (accessed April 7, 2015). 

PMSS America, Inc. Offshore Wind Submarine Cable Spacing Guidance. Prepared for Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental Enforcement. 2014. 

http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/BSEE/Technology_and_Research/Technology_Assessment_ 

Programs/Reports/700-799/722AA.pdf (accessed April 7, 2015). 

SAIC/VCERC. Hampton Roads Maritime and Port Capacity Report. 2009. 

http://www.vcerc.org/FINAL%20HRMARITIME.pdf (accessed March 3, 2015). 

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile 

Jack-Up Units T&R Bulletin 5-5 and 5-5A. PANEL OC-7 SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP 

RIGS, 2008. 

TetraTech EC. Port and Infrastructure Analysis for Offshore Wind Energy Development. Prepared for 

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. 2010. 

http://files.masscec.com/research/OffshoreWindPortInfrastructureAnalysis.pdf (accessed March 

4, 2015). 

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. Marine Transportation System. 2015. 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/marine_transportation_system/MTS.htm 

(accessed April 1, 2015). 

8.2 Identification of Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts and 

Mitigation Efforts References

BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2012. Identification of Outer Continental Shelf 

Renewable Energy Space-Use Conflicts and Analysis of Potential Mitigation Measures. 

www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5203.pdf. (accessed March 7, 2016). 

BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2015. Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site 

Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina. 

Environmental Assessment. http://www.boem.gov/BOEM_NC_EA_For_Publication/. (accessed 

July 6, 2015). 

83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cardno. Port Botany Post Construction Monitoring Annual Report. Prepared for Sydney Ports 

Corporation, September 2013. 2013. 

http://www.sydneyports.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/29681/Pt_Botany_Expansion_Annua 

l_Post_Construction_Monitoring_Report_September_2013-Final_V10_17_September_2013.pdf 

(accessed July 13, 2015). 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying 

the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact. Memorandum for Heads of 

Federal Departments and Agencies. 2011. January 14. 

Cooper, B. and Marrone, J. Port Requirements to Support Offshore Wind Development in North America. 

Proceedings Ports, 2013. 

DNV GL. Assessment of Ports for Offshore Wind Development in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. 

Dept. of Energy. 2014. 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f14/Assessment%20of%20Ports%20for%20Offshore% 

20Wind%20Development%20in%20the%20United%20States_1.pdf (accessed March 3, 2015). 

EWEA (European Wind Energy Association). Offshore Wind. 2015. http://www.ewea.org/policyissues/offshore/ (accessed July 13, 2015). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Final Determination for the South Terminal Project. 2012. 

www3.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/newbedford/525556.pdf (accessed July 9, 2015). 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). Environmental Justice and NEPA in the Transportation 

Arena: Project Highlights. 2013. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_and_nepa/highlights/ (accessed 

July 10, 2015). 

Galway Harbour Company. Galway Harbour Extension Environmental Impact Statement. Undated. 

http://www.galwayharbourextension.com/environmental-impact-statement-eis/ (accessed August 

17, 2015). 

ISO 29400. Ships and marine technology — Offshore wind energy — Port and marine operations. First 

edition 2015-05-01, 2015. 

Johnson MR, Boelke C, Chiarella LA, Colosi PD, Greene K, Lellis K, Ludemann H, Ludwig M, 

McDermott S, Ortiz J, Rusanowsky D, Scott M, Smith J. Impacts to marine fisheries habitat from 

nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. 2008. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm209/tm209.pdf (accessed August 7, 2015). 

MA Clean Energy Center. 2015. Personal communication. 08/15/2015. 

NOAA. Fisherman’s Contingency Fund. Undated. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/fcf.htm 

NOEP (National Ocean Economics Program). Living Marine Resources. Top Commercial Fishing Ports. 

2015. http://www.oceaneconomics.org/LMR/topPorts.asp (accessed August 14, 2015). 

84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. U.S. Offshore Wind Manufacturing and Supply Chain Development. Prepared 

for the Department of Energy. February 2013. Available: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/us_offshore_wind_supply_chain_and_manufacturin 

g_development.pdf (accessed July 9, 2015). 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis. 2014 Annual Market 

Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. September 2014. 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/2014%20Navigant%20Offshore%20Wind%20Mar 

ket%20%26%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf (accessed July 9, 2015). 

Rogers, Caroline S. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series. Vol. 62: 185-202. April 1990. 

Royal Haskoning. Bathside Bay Container Port: Planning Applications. Environmental Statement. 

Prepared for Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd. April 2003. 2003. 

http://www.hict.co.uk/data/downloads/nts-01-06.pdf (accessed June 24, 2015). 

Royal Haskoning. Environmental Impact Assessment for Construction of Maasvlakte 2 Summary. 

Prepared for Port of Rotterdam Authority, April 2007. 2007. 

https://www.maasvlakte2.com/uploads/summary_eia_contruction_maasvlakte_2.pdf (accessed 

June 24, 2015). 

South Coast Today. Officials Break Ground on New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. 2013. 

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20130507/NEWS/305070320 (accessed August 19, 

2015). 

TetraTech EC. Port and Infrastructure Analysis for Offshore Wind Energy Development. Prepared for 

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. 2010. http://www.masscec.com/content/port-andinfrastructure-analysis-offshore-wind-energy-development (accessed March 4, 2015). 

The Los Angeles Harbor Department. Berths 97-109 [China Shipping] Container Terminal Project. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. 2008. 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/ChinaShipping/DEIR/deir_china_shipping.asp (accessed 

June 24, 2015). 

The Los Angeles Harbor Department. Berths 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 2007. 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/TraPac/FEIR/feir_trapac.asp (accessed June 24, 2015). 

The Los Angeles Harbor Department. Berths 212-224 [YTI] Container Terminal Improvement Project. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2014. 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/YTI/DEIR/deir_yti.asp (accessed June 24, 2015). 

Totaro & Associates. US Offshore Wind Could Flourish with More JVs and Technology Transfer. 2015. 

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2015/07/08/us-offshore-wind-could-flourish-with-more-jvs-andtechnologytransfer/?utm_source=emark&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+update+Offshore+Wi 

nd%2C+2015-07-09&uid=35213 (accessed July 9, 2015). 

85 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service. Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on 

the Outer Continental Shelf. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2007. 

http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/Guide-To-EIS.aspx 

(accessed August 12, 2015). 

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) Jacksonville District. Port Everglades Harbor 

Navigation Study. Broward County, Florida. Final Environmental Impact Statement. March 2015. 

8.3 Environmental and Socioeconomic Port Profiles 

BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2012. Ideentification of Outer Continental Shelf 

Renewable Energy Space-Use Conflicts and Analysis of Potential Mitigiation Measures. 

www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5203.pdf. (accessed March 7, 2016). 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Undated. http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

(accessed September 10, 2015). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). EJSCREEN. Environmental Justice Screening and 

Mapping Tool. 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen (accessed September 10, 2015). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Undated. http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html (accessed October 25, 2015). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL 

Information. 2015. 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state 

(accessed October 21, 2015). 

Marine Traffic. Automatic Identification System. Undated. 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/ports/all (accessed September 10, 2015). 

Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. 2015. http://militarybases.com/ (accessed October 28, 2015). 

MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and 

Analysis (EVA) Tool. 2014. http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. (accessed October 28, 2015). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' 

Jurisdiction. 2015. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals (accessed 

December 7, 2015). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. 2013. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index (accessed September 10, 2015). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. 2009. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map (accessed September 10, 

2015). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Undated. 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/ (accessed September 29, 2015). 

86 
 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. 

2013. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.html?type=Bench+Mark+Data+Sheets (accessed 

September 9, 2015). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and 

Obstructions Database. Undated. 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html (acessed October 28, 

2015). 

NPS (National Park Service). National Register of Historic Places. Undated. 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm (accessed September 10, 2015). 

OMB (Office of Management and Budget). Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the 

Delineations of These Areas. OMB Bulletin N. 15-01. 2015. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins_default (accessed September 10, 2015). 

The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. Undated. 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df 

6d8 (accessed October 28, 2015). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. 2015c. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (accessed September 10, 2015). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. 2015a. 

http://lehd.ces.census.gov/ (accessed September 10, 2015). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). OnTheMap. 2015b. http://onthemap.ces.census.gov (accessed September 

10, 2015). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. 2015. 

http://www.census.gov/govs/local/ (accessed September 10, 2015). 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat 

Report. Undated. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html (accessed December 1, 

2015). 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. 2015. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 

(accessed December 9, 2015). 

87 
Appendix I
 

Port Classification Matrix
 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix I Final - March 18, 2016
 

Port Classification Matrix
 

Capability Area Potential Use Access Quayside Capabilities Storage Capabilities Roll On/Roll Off Cranes Transportation 

Criteria Staging Port O&M Port 

Port Access 

Channel 

Width 

Port Access 

Water 

Depths 

Overhead 

Draft 

Number of 

Berths 

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Quayside 

Length 

Quayside 

Seabed 

Suitable for 

Jacking 

Haul Route 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Storage Area 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Size of 

Storage Area 

Roll On/Roll 

Off 

Capability 

Width of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

Bearing 

Capacity of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

and Ramps 

On-site 

Cranes' 

Capabilities 

Crane Height 

Restrictions 

Onshore 

Transportation 

Infrastructure 

(e.g. rail access) 

Units - - m m m - t/m2 m binary t/m2 t/m2 m2 binary m t/m2 t m binary 

Threshold Value, 4 MW 30 8.1 75 1 10 100 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 6 MW 30 8.1 75 1 27 130 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 8 MW 30 8.1 75 1 17 170 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Jacket Nacelle Nacelle SPMTs Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Weighting Factor - 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.5 

EXAMPLE 

Port/Terminal Staging Port O&M Port 

Port Access 

Channel 

Width 

Port Access 

Water 

Depths 

Overhead 

Draft 

Number of 

Berths 

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Quayside 

Length 

Quayside 

Seabed 

Suitable for 

Jacking 

Haul Route 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Storage Area 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Size of 

Storage Area 

Roll On/Roll 

Off 

Capability 

Width of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

Bearing 

Capacity of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

and Ramps 

On-site 

Cranes' 

Capabilities 

Crane Height 

Restrictions 

Onshore 

Transportation 

Infrastructure 

(e.g. rail access) 

Massachusetts 

Boston-Conley Terminal x 182.9 12.2 Unlimited 5 304 404,700 FALSE 0 0 51 61 TRUE 

Boston-Autoport x 182.9 12.2 41.1 1 335 FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

Nantucket Harbor x 91.4 4.6 Unlimited 9.1 FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

Hyannis Inner Harbor x 30.5 4.0 Unlimited FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

Falmouth Harbor x 30.5 3.0 Unlimited TRUE 

Edgartown Harbor x 45.7 5.2 Unlimited TRUE 

Vineyard Haven Harbor x 83.3 3.7 Unlimited 24 FALSE 

New Bedford x x 36.6 9.1 Unlimited 1 20 305 TRUE 20 20 114,323 FALSE 0 0 0 51.8 TRUE 

Fall River x 121.9 10.7 41.1 175 27,520 TRUE TRUE 

Rhode Island 

Providence x x 182.9 12.2 59.1 27 42,000 TRUE 144 TRUE 

Newport x 30.5 5.5 Unlimited FALSE 0 0 30 TRUE 

Melville x 457.2 10.1 59.1 FALSE 0 0 FALSE 

Quonset Point/Davisville x x 152.4 9.8 59.1 2 366 450,000 TRUE 150 TRUE 

Bristol Harbor x 2,092 4.6 59.1 FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

Point Judith x 45.7 4.6 Unlimited 

Connecticut 

Stonington Harbor x 381 4.0 Unlimited 188 FALSE 0 0 40 FALSE 

New London (south of I-95) x x 152.4 10.6 Unlimited 2 4.8 305 141,600 FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

New Haven (south of I-95) x x 121.9 10.7 Unlimited 12 228 37,200 FALSE 0 0 100 TRUE 

Bridgeport (south of I-95) x x 121.9 10.7 Unlimited 4 105 19,788 FALSE 0 0 100 TRUE 

New York 

Montauk x 45.7 3.7 Unlimited 

Greenport (Long Island) x 30.5 2.4 Unlimited 3 97.5 FALSE 0 0 50 TRUE 

New York-Staten Island x x 609.6 16.2 60.4 

New York-Erie Basin x 63.6 12.2 60.4 

New York-Brooklyn (south of Brooklyn Bridge) x 152.4 10.7 60.4 

Kismet Harbor x 137.2 3.7 19.8 

Ocean Beach Harbor x 137.2 4.0 19.8 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia (Packer Avenue Marine Terminal) x 121.9 12.2 50.6 6 1158 TRUE 340 TRUE 

Philadelphia (Tioga Marine Terminal) x 121.9 10.8 42.4 6 1164 TRUE 104 TRUE 

New Jersey 

Bayonne x 91.4 13.7 60.1 TRUE 

Newark x 246.9 15.2 46.0 7 1,480,000 TRUE TRUE 

Elizabeth x 152.4 15.2 46.0 TRUE 

Perth Amboy x x 182.9 10.7 Unlimited TRUE 

Shark River x 15.2 3.7 15.2 

Manasquan x 45.7 2.3 Unlimited 

Page 1 of 9
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix I Final - March 18, 2016
 

Port Classification Matrix
 

Capability Area Potential Use Access Quayside Capabilities Storage Capabilities Roll On/Roll Off Cranes Transportation 

Criteria Staging Port O&M Port 

Port Access 

Channel 

Width 

Port Access 

Water 

Depths 

Overhead 

Draft 

Number of 

Berths 

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Quayside 

Length 

Quayside 

Seabed 

Suitable for 

Jacking 

Haul Route 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Storage Area 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Size of 

Storage Area 

Roll On/Roll 

Off 

Capability 

Width of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

Bearing 

Capacity of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

and Ramps 

On-site 

Cranes' 

Capabilities 

Crane Height 

Restrictions 

Onshore 

Transportation 

Infrastructure 

(e.g. rail access) 

Units - - m m m - t/m2 m binary t/m2 t/m2 m2 binary m t/m2 t m binary 

Threshold Value, 4 MW 30 8.1 75 1 10 100 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 6 MW 30 8.1 75 1 27 130 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 8 MW 30 8.1 75 1 17 170 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Jacket Nacelle Nacelle SPMTs Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Weighting Factor - 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.5 

Paulsboro x 243.8 12.2 15.2 3 7.3 330 TRUE 24 24 400,000 FALSE 0 0 180 TRUE 

Cape May x 91.4 3.7 Unlimited FALSE 

Delaware 

Wilmington x x 61 11.6 11.5 7 935 88,000 TRUE 100 TRUE 

Lewes x 25 TRUE 

Breakwater Harbor x 

Maryland 

Baltimore x 213 15.2 12.8 13 505 5,000,000 TRUE 86.4 TRUE 

Ocean City x 61 3 

Solomons Island x 9.1 3 75 7.7 FALSE 

Virginia 

Cape Charles x x 152 5.5 4.6 3 152 FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

Hampton Roads-APM Terminal x 304.8 16.7 15.2 1 

Hampton Roads-Norfolk International Terminal x 304.8 11 12.2 5 305 217,000 TRUE 72 40 TRUE 

Hampton Roads-Portsmouth Marine Terminals x 304.8 13.1 12.2 3 360 30,000 TRUE 44 TRUE 

Hampton Roads-Newport News Marine Terminal x 304.8 10.7 12.2 9 285 61,000 TRUE 162 TRUE 

Hampton Roads-Peck Marine Terminal x 304.8 8.8 15.2 1 126.5 80,937 FALSE 0 0 TRUE 

North Carolina 

Morehead City x 244 14.3 Unlimited 15 12.7 1188 TRUE 3.9 17 225,000 TRUE 76 3.9 113 TRUE 

Wilmington x x 152 13.4 12.8 9 308 305,000 TRUE 225 TRUE 

South Carolina 

Charleston x 305 14.3 Unlimited 32 452,842 TRUE 381 500 TRUE 

Georgia 

Savannah x 152.4 13.4 12.8 34 515 248,920 TRUE 297 156.3 13.7 TRUE 

Page 2 of 9
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix I Final - March 18, 2016
 

Port Classification Matrix Data Sources
 

Capability Area Potential Use Access Quayside Capabilities Storage Capabilities Roll On/Roll Off Cranes Transportation 

Data Sources 

Criteria Staging 

Port O&M Port Port Access Channel Width Port Access Water Depths Overhead Draft Number of Berths 

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Quayside Length 

Quayside 

Seabed 

Suitable for 

Jacking 

Haul Route 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Storage Area 

Bearing Capacity Size of Storage Area Roll On/Roll Off Capability Width of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

Bearing 

Capacity of RoRo Berth and 

Ramps 

On-site Cranes' Capabilities Crane Height 

Restrictions 

Onshore 

Transportation 

Infrastructure (e.g. 

rail access) 

Units - - m m m - t/m2 m - t/m2 t/m2 m2 - m t/m2 t m -

Threshold Value, 4 MW 30 9.5 75 1 13 100 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 6 MW 30 9.5 75 1 27 130 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 8 MW 30 9.5 75 1 17 170 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Jacket Nacelle Nacelle SPMTS Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Weighting Factor - 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.5 

Boston-Conley Terminal x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Conley) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Conley) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Conley) 

Massachusetts 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Conley) Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Boston) FAA Determination Boston MSI Portal IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide Directory 2015-16" 

Boston-Autoport x NE District USACE Report; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (Boston) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Main 

Channel) 

NOAA Chart 13272; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (Boston) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Boston) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Boston) Ports & Terminals Guide (Boston) Boston MSI Portal IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Nantucket Harbor x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Nantucket) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Nantucket) Ports & Terminals Guide (Nantucket) Nantucket MSI Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Hyannis Inner Harbor x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (Hyannis) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Hyannis) Ports & Terminals Guide (Hyannis) Hyannis MSI Portal IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide Directory 2015-16" ; World Port Source 

Falmouth Harbor x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report NOAA Chart 13230 Falmouth MSI 

Portal 

World ports source 

US Harbors http://ma.usharbors.com/harborEdgartown Harbor x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report World Port Source 

(Edgartown) 

Edgartown MSI 

Portal 

Vineyard Haven Harbor x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report World Port Source 

(Vineyard Haven) 

World Port Source 

(Vineyard Haven Harbor) 

Vineyard Haven MSI 

Portal World Port Source 

New Bedford x x Port of New Bedofrd Website NE District USACE Report NOAA Chart 13229 Port of New 

Bedford Website 

Port of New Bedford Website; Ports & Terminals Guide 

(New Bedford) 

Port of New Bedford Website; DOE 

Ports Study (DNV GL) 

Port of New Bedford Website; 

Ports & Terminals Guide (New 

Bedford) 

World Port Source (New Bedford) Ports & Terminals Guide 

(New Bedford) Cape Wind FAA filing New Bedford MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Port Source; Direct 

communication, DOE port readiness study 

Fall River 

Providence x 

x 

x 

NE District USACE Report 

NE District USACE Report 

NE District USACE Report 

NE District USACE Report 

NOAA Charts 13223, 13224, 

13227; Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Fall River) 

NOAA Chart 13223; Ports & 

Terminals Guide 

(Providence) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Providence) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Fall River Line Pier) 

Rhode Island 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Fall 

River Line Pier) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Providence) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Fall River Line Pier) 

Ports America (Providence) 

ProvPort and Leibherr 

websites; Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Providence) 

Fall River (MSI 

Portal) 

Providence MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Newport x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report NOAA Chart 13223; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (Newport) Ports & Terminals Guide (Newport) Ports & Terminals Guide (Newport) Newport MSI Portal IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Melville x NOAA Chart 13223 NOAA Chart 13223 NOAA Chart 13223; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (Melville) Ports & Terminals Guide (Melville) Melville MSI Portal IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Quonset Point/Davisville x x NOAA Chart 13223 QDC 2015 Port Brochure; World Port 

Source (Davisville) 

NOAA Chart 13223; World 

Port Source (Davisville) 

Quonset Port 

Website 

World Port Source 

(Davisville) World Port Source (Davisville) Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Davisville) Quonset Port Website Davisville MSI 

Portal 

Bristol Harbor x US Harbors (Bristol) NOAA Chart 13224; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (Bristoal Harbor) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Bristol Harbor) Ports & Terminals Guide (Bristol Harbor) Bristol MSI Portal IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide Directory 2015-16" 

Point Judith 

Stonington Harbor 

x 

x 

NOAA Chart 13219; NE District 

USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 12372; NE District 

USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 13219 

NOAA Chart 12372 

NOAA Chart 13219 

NOAA Chart 12372; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (North 

Dock) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(North Dock) 

Connecticut 

World Port Source (Stonington) US Harbors (Boatyard) Stonington MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

New London x x NE District USACE Report CT Dept. of Transporation (State 

Pier) 

NOAA Chart 12372; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (New 

London) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (New 

London) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (State Pier) Milone & MacBroom (State Pier 

Planning Study, 2011) Ports & Terminals Guide (New London) New London MSI Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

New Haven x x NE District USACE Report NE District USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 12371; Ports & 

Terminals Guide (New 

Haven) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (New Haven) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Gateway Terminal) World Port Source (New Haven) Ports & Terminals Guide (New Haven) World Port Source (New 

Haven) 

New Haven MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16 

World ports source 

US Harbors (New Haven) 

Bridgeport 

Montauk 

x x 

x 

NE District USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 13209 

NE District USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 13209 

NOAA Chart 12369; Ports & 

Terminals Guide 

(Bridgeport) 

NOAA Chart 13209 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Bridgeport) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(United Illuminating Co 

Oil Dock) 

New York 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Bridgeport) Ports & Terminals Guide (Bridgeport) Ports & Terminals Guide (Bridgeport) 

Bridgeport MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

US Harbors (Montauk) 

Greenport (Long Island) x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 12358; Ports & 

Terminals Guide 

(Greenport) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Greenport) 

World Port Source 

(Greenport) Ports & Terminals Guide (Greenport) US Harbors (Greenport) Greenport MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

New York-Staten Island x x NOAA Chart 12334 NOAA Chart 12334 NOAA Chart 12334 

New York-Erie Basin x NOAA Chart 12334 (at Basin 

entrance) NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12334 

New York-Brooklyn x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12334 

Kismet Harbor x NOAA Chart 12352 NOAA Chart 12352 NOAA Chart 12352 

Ocean Beach Harbor 

Philadelphia (Packer Avenue Marine 

Terminal) x 

x NOAA Chart 12352 

NOAA Chart 12312 

NOAA Chart 12352 

Philadelphia Regional Port Authority 

NOAA Chart 12352 

NOAA Chart 12312 

Philadelphia 

Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia Regional 

Port Authority 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia 

Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia (Tioga Marine Terminal) x NOAA Chart 12313 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority NOAA Chart 12313 

Philadelphia 

Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia Regional 

Port Authority 

Philadelphia Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia Regional Port 

Authority 

Philadelphia 

Regional Port 

Authority 

Page 3 of 9 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix I Final - March 18, 2016
 

Port Classification Matrix Data Sources
 

Capability Area Potential Use Access Quayside Capabilities Storage Capabilities Roll On/Roll Off Cranes Transportation 

Data Sources 

Criteria Staging 

Port O&M Port Port Access Channel Width Port Access Water Depths Overhead Draft Number of Berths 

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Quayside Length 

Quayside 

Seabed 

Suitable for 

Jacking 

Haul Route 

Bearing 

Capacity 

Storage Area 

Bearing Capacity Size of Storage Area Roll On/Roll Off Capability Width of 

Ro-Ro Berth 

Bearing 

Capacity of RoRo Berth and 

Ramps 

On-site Cranes' Capabilities Crane Height 

Restrictions 

Onshore 

Transportation 

Infrastructure (e.g. 

rail access) 

Units - - m m m - t/m2 m - t/m2 t/m2 m2 - m t/m2 t m -

Threshold Value, 4 MW 30 9.5 75 1 13 100 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 6 MW 30 9.5 75 1 27 130 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Monopile Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Threshold Value, 8 MW 30 9.5 75 1 17 170 TRUE 10 10 25,000 FALSE 8 10 600 50 FALSE 

Assumed Governing Factor - - Jacket WTG Jackets N/A Jacket Nacelle Nacelle SPMTS Nacelle Blades N/A Tower Tower Nacelle WTG N/A 

Weighting Factor - 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.5 

Bayonne x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12334 

New Jersey 

Bayonne MSI Portal World Port Source 

Newark x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12333 World Port Source 

(Newark) World Port Source (Newark) World Port Source (Newark) Newark MSI Portal World Port Source 

Elizabeth x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12333 Elizabeth MSI Portal World Port Source 

Perth Amboy x x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12331 Perth Amboy MSI 

Portal World Port Source 

Shark River x NY District USACE Report NY District USACE Report NOAA Chart 12324 

Manasquan x NOAA Chart 12324 NOAA Chart 12324 NOAA Chart 12324 

Paulsboro x NOAA Chart 12312 NOAA Chart 12312 NOAA Chart 12312 Port of Paulsboro 

Website DOE Ports Study (DNV GL) DOE Ports Study (DNV GL) Ports & Terminals Guide (Paulsboro ) DOE Ports Study (DNV GL) Port of Paulsboro 

Website 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Direct communication 

Cape May 

Wilmington x 

x 

x 

NOAA Chart 12317 

Philly District USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 12317 

Philly District USACE Report 

NOAA Chart 12317 

World Port Source 

(Wilmington) 

World Port Source 

(Wilmington) 

World Port Source 

(Wilmington) 

Delaware 

World Port Source (Wilmington) World Port Source 

(Wilmington) Port of Wilmington Website 

Cape May MSI 

Portal 

Wilmington MSI 

Portal 

World Port Source 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; 

Ports America 

Lewes x US Harbors (Lewes) US Harbors (Lewes) 

Breakwater Harbor 

Baltimore x 

x 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Baltimore) Ports & Terminals Guide (Baltimore) Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Baltimore) 

Ports America 

(Baltimore) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Baltimore Metal & 

Commodities Terminal) 

Maryland 

Port of Baltimore Website 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Dundalk Marine Terminal & 

Atlantic Terminal Pier) 

MD Dept. of Transportation 

Port Admin. 

Baltimore MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Port Source 

Ocean City x Baltimore District USACE Report Baltimore District USACE Report 

Solomons Island 

Cape Charles x 

x 

x Ports & Terminals Guide (Bar 

Channel) 

World Port Source (Solomons) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Bar 

Channel) 

World Port Source 

(Solomons) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Wharf) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Cape 

Charles) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Wharf) 

Virginia 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Cape Charles) 

Solomons MSI 

Portal 

Cape Charles MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Hampton Roads-APM Terminal x Ports & Terminals Guide (Thimble 

Shoal Channel) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Thimble 

Shoal Channel) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Hampton Roads) 

Port of Virginia 

Website 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Hampton Roads-Norfolk International 

Terminal x Ports & Terminals Guide (Thimble 

Shoal Channel) VA DMME RFP (Alongside Depth) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Norfolk International 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Norfolk 

International 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Norfolk International 

Terminal); VA DMME 

RFP 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Norfolk 

International Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Norfolk International 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Norfolk International 

Terminal) 

FAA Determination Hampton Roads 

MSI Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Port Source; Port of 

Virginia Website 

Hampton Roads-Portsmouth Marine 

Terminals x Ports & Terminals Guide (Thimble 

Shoal Channel) VA DMME RFP (Alongside Depth) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Portsmouth Marine 

Terminals) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Portsmouth 

Marine Terminals) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Portsmouth Marine 

Terminals) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Portsmouth Marine Terminals) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Portsmouth Marine 

Terminals); Port of Virginia 

Website 

Port of Virginia Website Hampton Roads 

MSI Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Port Source 

Hampton Roads-Newport News Marine 

Terminal x Ports & Terminals Guide (Thimble 

Shoal Channel) VA DMME RFP (Alongside Depth) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Newport News Marine 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Newport 

News Marine 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Newport News Marine 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Newport News Marine 

Terminal) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Newport News Marine 

Terminal) 

Port of Virginia Website Hampton Roads 

MSI Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Port Source 

Hampton Roads-Peck Marine Terminal 

Morehead City 

x 

x 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Thimble 

Shoal Channel) VA DMME RFP (Alongside Depth) Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Peck Marine Terminal) 

Port of Virginia 

Website 

DOE Ports Study (DNV GL); North Carolina Ports Website (Marine Commerce); Direct Communication 

Peck Marine Terminal 

DOE Ports Study (DNV GL) 

N

Port of Virginia 

Website 

orth Carolina 

DOE Ports Study (DNV GL) North Carolina Ports Website 

(Warehouse) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (RoRo Berth) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Ro-Ro Berth) 

DOE Ports Study 

(DNV GL) 

Port of Virginia Website 

North Carolina Ports 

Website 

Port of Virginia 

Website 

Morehead MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Ports Source 

Wilmington 

Charleston 

Savannah 

x 

x 

x 

x Ports & Terminals Guide (Ocean 

Bar Channel) 

World Port Source (Charleston) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Garden 

City & Ocean Terminals ) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Ocean Bar 

Channel) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Inner 

Harbor) 

Ports & Terminals Guide (Tybee 

Roads) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Wilmington) 

Port of Charleston Website; 

NOAA Chart 11518_2 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Savannah) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Wilmington) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Charleston) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Savannah) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Vopak South DC 160) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Garden Terminal CB1) 

So

Georgia 

uth Carolina 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Wilmington) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Charleston) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Savannah) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Wilmington) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Charleston) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Ocean Terminals & Slip 

Berths) 

Port of Charleston 

Website 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Ocean 

Terminal No. 13) 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Wilmington) 

Port of Charleston Website 

Ports & Terminals Guide 

(Ocean Terminal Clyde 

Berth) 

Ports & Terminals 

Guide (Ocean 

Terminal Clyde 

Berth) 

Wilmington MSI 

Portal 

Charleston MSI 

Portal 

Savannah MSI 

Portal 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16"; World Port Source 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

IHS Maritime, "Ports & Terminals Guide 

Directory 2015-16" 

Page 4 of 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I PORT CLASSIFICATION MATRIX REFERENCES 

Connecticut Department of Transportation. New London State Pier, Property Characteristics. Undated. 

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/majorprojectupdates/State_Pier_Pro 

perty_Characteristics_handout%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed May 12, 2015). 

DNV GL. Assessment of Ports for Offshore Wind Development in the United States. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2014. 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f14/Assessment%20of%20Ports%20for%20Offshore 

%20Wind%20Development%20in%20the%20United%20States_1.pdf (accessed March 4, 

2015). 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for Temporary 

Structure. Aeronautical Study No. 2015-AEA-1837-OE. 2015. 

IHS Maritime. Ports & Terminals Guide Directory 2015-16. 2014. 

Liebherr. Liebherr USA. Undated. http://www.liebherr.us/en-GB/default_us-lh.wfw (accessed May 15, 

2015). 

Maryland Department of Transportation Port Administration. Port of Baltimore. 2015. 

http://www.mpa.maryland.gov/ (accessed May 28, 2015). 

Milone & MacBroom. State Pier Needs and Deficiencies Planning Study: New London, Connecticut. 

2011. 

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/MajorProjectUpdates/FINAL_DRA 

FT_REPORT-March2011.pdf (accessed May 12, 2015). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Raster Navigational 

Charts. [via Google Earth]. Undated. http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ (accessed 2015). 

North Carolina Ports. Port of Morehead City. Undated. http://www.ncports.com/port-of-morehead-city/ 

(accessed May 26, 2015). 

Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. Port of Philadelphia. Undated. 

http://www.philaport.com/index.htm (accessed May 12, 2015). 

Port of Baltimore. Marine Terminals. Undated. http://pobdirectory.com/terminals.php (accessed May 

12, 2015). 

Port of New Bedford. Port of New Bedford. 2015. http://www.portofnewbedford.org/ (accessed May 15, 

2015). 

Port of Wilmington Delaware. The Port of Wilmington Delaware. Undated. 

http://www.portofwilmington.com (accessed May 27, 2015). 

Ports America. Port of Baltimore. Undated. https://www.portsamerica.com/portofbaltimoremaryland.html (accessed May 15, 2015). 

Ports America. Port of Providence. Undated. https://www.portsamerica.com/portofprovidence-rhodeisland.html (accessed May 15, 2015). 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

Ports America. Port of Wilmington, DE. Undated. https://www.portsamerica.com/portofwilmingtondelaware.html (accessed May 15, 2015). 

ProvPort. ProvPort. Undated. http://www.provport.com/ (accessed May15, 2015). 

Quonset Development Corporation. Port of Davisville Quonset Development Park. 2015. 

http://www.quonset.com/_resources/common/userfiles/Kait/POD_Insert_2015.pdf (accessed 

May 27, 2015). 

South Carolina Ports. Port of Charleston. 2015. http://www.port-of-charleston.com/ (accessed May 12, 

2015). 

South Jersey Port Corporation. Paulsboro Marine Terminal. 2015. 

http://southjerseyport.com/facilities/paulsboro-marine-terminal/ (accessed May 12, 2015). 

The Port of Virginia. The Port of Virginia. 2015. http://www.portofvirginia.com/ (accessed May 12, 

2015). 

US Harbors. Bristol. Undated. http://ri.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/bristol (accessed May 15, 2015). 

US Harbors. Falmouth. Undated. http://ma.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/falmouth (accessed May 15, 

2015). 

US Harbors. Greenport. Undated. http://ny.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/greenport (accessed May 15, 

2015). 

US Harbors. Lewes. Undated. http://de.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/lewes (accessed May 12, 2015). 

US Harbors. Montauk. Undated. http://ny.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/montauk (accessed May 12, 

2015). 

US Harbors. New Haven. Undated. http://ct.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/new-haven (accessed May 12, 

2015). 

US Harbors. Stonington, CT. Undated. http://ct.usharbors.com/harbor-guide/stonington-ct (accessed 

May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Baltimore District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Ocean City, Worcester County, Maryland. October 27, 2014. 

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/NavMaps.aspx (accessed May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Charleston District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Charleston Entrance Channel, South Carolina. March 12, 2015. 

http://www.sac.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ChannelConditions.aspx (accessed June 12, 

2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Boston Harbor Channels, Boston, MA. March 4, 2014. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

6 
 

 

 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Bridgeport Harbor, CT. November 15, 2010. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Edgartown Harbor, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. May 3, 

2012. http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx 

(accessed May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Fall River Harbor, Fall River, Massachusetts. August 22, 2013. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Falmouth Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts. November 20, 2013. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Hyannis Harbor, Barnstable (Hyannis) and Yarmouth, 

Massachusetts. July 22, 2014. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed 

May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Nantucket Harbor, Nantucket MA. February 27, 2014. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford and Fairhaven, MA. February 

17, 2012. http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx 

(accessed May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: New Haven Harbor, New Haven, CT. May 22, 2014. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: New London Harbor, New London/Groton, CT. December 14, 2010. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Newport Harbor, Newport, Rhode Island. January 23, 2012. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

7 
 

 

 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Point Judith Pond and Harbor of Refuge. February 15, 2012. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

27, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Providence River and Harbor, Providence, RI. March 2, 2012. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Stonington Harbor, Stonington, Connecticut. March 15, 2012. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Vineyard Haven Harbor, MA. May 17, 2011. 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/MassachusettsProjects.aspx (accessed May 

26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Bay Ridge and Red Hook Channels, New York. December 8, 2014. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx (accessed 

May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Buttermilk Channel, New York. August 12, 2014. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx (accessed 

May 28, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Greenport Harbor, New York. July 14, 2009. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx (accessed 

May 28, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic Rivers, New Jersey; Newark Bay – Main 

Channel South and Middle Reaches. May 20, 2015. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx (accessed 

May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic Rivers; Port Elizabeth Channel, NJ. March 

12, 2015. http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx 

(accessed May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic Rivers; Port Newark and Port Newark 

Pierhead Channels, New Jersey. April 21, 2015. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx (accessed 

May 28, 2015). 

8 
 

 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: New York and New Jersey Channels, Perth Amboy, Anchorage, NJ. February 24, 

2015. http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx 

(accessed May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New York District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Shark River, New Jersey. February 23, 2015. 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/ControllingDepthReports.aspx (accessed 

May 26, 2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Philadelphia District. Federal Navigation Channels: 

Controlling Depth Report: Christina River, Wilmington Delaware. January 27, 2015. 

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Surveys/Projects.aspx (accessed May 26, 

2015). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Savannah District. Federal Navigation Channels: Controlling 

Depth Report: Savannah Harbor, Georgia. May 19, 2015. 

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/About/DivisionsandOffices/OperationsDivision/NavigationBran 

ch/ChannelSurveys.aspx (accessed June 12, 2015). 

World Port Source. USA Ports. Undated. http://www.worldportsource.com/states.php. 

9 
Appendix II
 

Environmental & Socioeconomic 

Impacts
 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016 

Table 1
 

Summary of Impact Producing Factors Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Marine/Estuarine 

Sediment Disturbance 

Soil Disturbance/ 

Erosion Dewatering Stormwater Accidental Spills 

Sediment Dredging       

Rock Dredging     

Blasting     

Blasting       

Pile Driving/Drilling       

Dredging       

Utility Tower Extensions     

Utility Line Moves   

Dredging       

Pile Driving/Drilling       

Fill Placement       

Fill Compaction    

Paving     

Pile Driving/Drilling      

Fill Placement       

Fill Compaction    

Paving     

Pile Driving/Drilling      

Fill Compaction   

Paving     

Aggregate Dumping     

Dredging       

Pile Driving/Drilling     

Aggregate Dumping     

Haul Road Bearing Capacity Improvement (between quayside and storage area) 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement      

Fill Compaction     

Paving     

Aggregate Dumping     

Storage Area Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement      

Fill Compaction     

Paving     

Aggregate Dumping     

Storage Area Size Expansion 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement      

Fill Compaction     

Paving     

Construction of storage structure      

Construction Activity 

Sea Bottom/Land Disturbance Discharges Sediment 

Suspension & 

Deposition 

Noise Lighting Trash & Debris 

Channel Widening/ Deepening 

Air Draft Improvement (Bridges, Utility Lines) 

Access Quayside Storage 

New Berth Construction 

Quayside Length Expansion 

Quayside Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Quayside Seabed Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Page 1 of 4
 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016 

Table 1
 

Summary of Impact Producing Factors Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Marine/Estuarine 

Sediment Disturbance 

Soil Disturbance/ 

Erosion Dewatering Stormwater Accidental Spills 

Construction Activity 

Sea Bottom/Land Disturbance Discharges Sediment 

Suspension & 

Deposition 

Noise Lighting Trash & Debris 

Provide RoRo Capability 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement       

Paving     

RoRo Berth (Width/Air Draft) 

Land Clearing     

Drilling    

Paving     

RoRo Berth Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement      

Fill Compaction    

Paving     

Aggregate Dumping     

Provide Fixed Crane 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement       

Fill Compaction     

Paving     

Provide Mobile Crane 

Land Clearing     

Fill Placement       

Fill Compaction     

Paving     

Reduce Crane Height Restrictions 

Land Clearing     

Drilling    

Paving     

Utility Tower Extensions   

Utility Line Moves  

Modify Rail Line 

Land Clearing     

Blasting/Drilling     

Fill Placement        

Fill Compaction      

Modify Road (widen, turning, bearing) 

Land Clearing     

Blasting/Drilling    

Fill Placement        

Fill Compaction      

Paving      

Cranes Transportation Infrastructure Roll On/Roll Off 

Page 2 of 4
 
 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016 

Table 1
 

Summary of Impact Producing Factors Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Sediment Dredging 

Rock Dredging 

Blasting 

Blasting 

Pile Driving/Drilling 

Dredging 

Utility Tower Extensions 

Utility Line Moves 

Dredging 

Pile Driving/Drilling 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Pile Driving/Drilling 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Pile Driving/Drilling 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Aggregate Dumping 

Dredging 

Pile Driving/Drilling 

Aggregate Dumping 

Haul Road Bearing Capacity Improvement (between qu 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Aggregate Dumping 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Aggregate Dumping 

Storage Area Size Expansion 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Construction of storage structure 

Construction Activity 

Channel Widening/ Deepening 

Air Draft Improvement (Bridges, Utility Lines) 

Access Quayside Storage 

New Berth Construction 

Quayside Length Expansion 

Quayside Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Quayside Seabed Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Vessels Vehicles Aquatic Terrestrial Offshore Onshore 

     

     

     

         

       

      

     

    

      

        

         

     

     

       

        

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

      

     

    

     

  

     

     

    

    

  

     

     

    

    

  

     

     

Demand for Local 

Labor, Goods & 

Services 

Traffic Space Use Conflicts Species Injury, Mortality, or 

Displacement 

Air Emissions Visible 

Infrastructure 

Aquatic Habitat 

Alteration 

Page 3 of 4
 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016 

Table 1
 

Summary of Impact Producing Factors Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction Activity 

Provide RoRo Capability 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Paving 

RoRo Berth (Width/Air Draft) 

Land Clearing 

Drilling 

Paving 

RoRo Berth Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Aggregate Dumping 

Provide Fixed Crane 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Provide Mobile Crane 

Land Clearing 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Reduce Crane Height Restrictions 

Land Clearing 

Drilling 

Paving 

Utility Tower Extensions 

Utility Line Moves 

Modify Rail Line 

Land Clearing 

Blasting/Drilling 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Modify Road (widen, turning, bearing) 

Land Clearing 

Blasting/Drilling 

Fill Placement 

Fill Compaction 

Paving 

Cranes Transportation Infrastructure Roll On/Roll Off 

Vessels Vehicles Aquatic Terrestrial Offshore Onshore 

Demand for Local 

Labor, Goods & 

Services 

Traffic Space Use Conflicts Species Injury, Mortality, or 

Displacement 

Air Emissions Visible 

Infrastructure 

Aquatic Habitat 

Alteration 

    

    

     

    

     

   

    

     

  

     

     

     

    

  

   

     

    

  

   

    

     

  

     

    

    

     

    

  

    

     

   

   

   

Page 4 of 4
 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: ACCESS QUAYSIDE 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Channel Widening/ Deepening Air Draft Improvement Construction of New Berths Expanding Length of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Seabed at Quayside 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Benthic Potential for loss of habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass), 

smothering and crushing of 

benthic organisms, increased 

turbidity and reduced water 

clarity or release of 

contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. 

Signs of recolonization of 

benthic community can 

typically be found within 3 

months of construction 

completion. Recolonization 

to pre-construction levels 

typically occurs within 3 years 

of construction completion. 

Compensatory mitigation may 

be required. Create like or 

functional value habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass) offsite; transplanting; mitigation 

credits; pre-construction, 

construction and postconstruction turbidity 

monitoring. 

Potential for loss of habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass), 

smothering and crushing of 

benthic organisms, increased 

turbidity and reduced water 

clarity or release of 

contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. 

Signs of recolonization of 

benthic community can 

typically be found within 3 

months of construction 

completion. Recolonization 

to pre-construction levels 

typically occurs within 3 years 

of construction completion. 

Compensatory mitigation may 

be required. Create like or 

functional value habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass) offsite; transplanting; mitigation 

credits; pre-construction, 

construction and postconstruction turbidity 

monitoring. 

Potential for loss of habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass), 

smothering and crushing of 

benthic organisms, increased 

turbidity and reduced water 

clarity or release of 

contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. 

Signs of recolonization of 

benthic community can 

typically be found within 3 

months of construction 

completion. Recolonization 

to pre-construction levels 

typically occurs within 3 years 

of construction completion. 

Compensatory mitigation may 

be required. Create like or 

functional value habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass) offsite; transplanting; mitigation 

credits; pre-construction, 

construction and postconstruction turbidity 

monitoring. 

Potential for loss of habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass), 

smothering and crushing of 

benthic organisms, increased 

turbidity and reduced water 

clarity or release of 

contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. 

Signs of recolonization of 

benthic community can 

typically be found within 3 

months of construction 

completion. Recolonization 

to pre-construction levels 

typically occurs within 3 years 

of construction completion. 

Compensatory mitigation may 

be required. Create like or 

functional value habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass) offsite; transplanting; mitigation 

credits; pre-construction, 

construction and postconstruction turbidity 

monitoring. 

Potential for loss of habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass), 

smothering and crushing of 

benthic organisms, increased 

turbidity and reduced water 

clarity or release of 

contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. 

Signs of recolonization of 

benthic community can 

typically be found within 3 

months of construction 

completion. Recolonization 

to pre-construction levels 

typically occurs within 3 years 

of construction completion. 

Compensatory mitigation may 

be required. Create like or 

functional value habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass) offsite; transplanting; mitigation 

credits; pre-construction, 

construction and postconstruction turbidity 

monitoring. 

Potential for loss of habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass), 

smothering and crushing of 

benthic organisms, increased 

turbidity and reduced water 

clarity or release of 

contaminants from 

contaminated sediments. 

Signs of recolonization of 

benthic community can 

typically be found within 3 

months of construction 

completion. Recolonization 

to pre-construction levels 

typically occurs within 3 years 

of construction completion. 

Compensatory mitigation may 

be required. Create like or 

functional value habitat 

(coral, seagrass, eelgrass) offsite; transplanting; mitigation 

credits; pre-construction, 

construction and postconstruction turbidity 

monitoring. 

Fish & EFH Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity. In most cases, habitat 

will return to preconstruction conditions and 

fish will return after 

construction completion. 

Potential for loss of habitat. 

Increased turbidity and 

sedimentation could result in 

gill clogging in adults and 

smothering and crushing of 

eggs/larvae. 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques; 

turbidity monitoring 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity. In most cases, habitat 

will return to preconstruction conditions and 

fish will return after 

construction completion. 

Potential for loss of habitat. 

Increased turbidity and 

sedimentation could result in 

gill clogging in adults and 

smothering and crushing of 

eggs/larvae. 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques; 

turbidity monitoring 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity. In most cases, habitat 

will return to preconstruction conditions and 

fish will return after 

construction completion. 

Potential for loss of habitat. 

Increased turbidity and 

sedimentation could result in 

gill clogging in adults and 

smothering and crushing of 

eggs/larvae. 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques; 

turbidity monitoring 

Displacement expected 

during construction activity. 

Fish will return after 

construction completion. 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Displacement expected 

during construction activity. 

Fish will return after 

construction completion. 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity. In most cases, habitat 

will return to preconstruction conditions and 

fish will return after 

construction completion. 

Potential for loss of habitat. 

Increased turbidity and 

sedimentation could result in 

gill clogging in adults and 

smothering and crushing of 

eggs/larvae. 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques; 

turbidity monitoring 

Air Quality Increase in particulate and 

gaseous emissions from 

vessels/vehicles throughout 

construction activity; 

tugboats would produce most 

emissions 

Use vehicles and vessels 

meeting appropriate 

standards and monitor for 

compliance 

Increase in particulate and 

gaseous emissions from 

vessels/vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities; tugboats 

would produce most 

emissions 

Use vehicles and vessels 

meeting appropriate 

standards and monitor for 

compliance; watering of site 

and implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in particulate and 

gaseous emissions from 

vessels/vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities; tugboats 

would produce most 

emissions 

Use vehicles and vessels 

meeting appropriate 

standards and monitor for 

compliance; watering of site 

and implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in particulate and 

gaseous emissions from 

vessels/vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities; tugboats 

would produce most 

emissions 

Use vehicles and vessels 

meeting appropriate 

standards and monitor for 

compliance; watering of site 

and implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vessels/vehicles throughout 

construction activities; 

fugitive dust as a result of 

earth moving activities 

Use vehicles and vessels 

meeting appropriate 

standards and monitor for 

compliance; watering of site 

and implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in particulate and 

gaseous emissions from 

vessels/vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities; tugboats 

would produce most 

emissions 

Use vehicles and vessels 

meeting appropriate 

standards and monitor for 

compliance 

Terrestrial Biota May effect terrestrial biota as 

a result of land-side 

construction for dredge 

activity accessing site via 

land. 

Use existing roads and 

developed areas if land access 

is needed; avoid sensitive 

habitat areas; compensatory 

mitigation as required, likely 

in form of off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

May effect terrestrial biota as 

a result of land-side 

construction for dredge 

activity accessing site via 

land. 

Use existing roads and 

developed areas if land access 

is needed; avoid sensitive 

habitat areas; compensatory 

mitigation as required, likely 

in form of off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

May effect terrestrial biota as 

a result of land-side 

construction for dredge 

activity accessing site via 

land. 

Use existing roads and 

developed areas if land access 

is needed; avoid sensitive 

habitat areas; compensatory 

mitigation as required, likely 

in form of off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Marine Mammals & Sea 

Turtles 

Incidental takes could occur 

during pile driving, but highly 

unlikely, as these animals are 

mobile and could leave area 

during project; likely to return 

to area at completion of 

construction 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques such 

as slow starts or ramp up; 

turbidity monitoring 

Incidental takes could occur 

during pile driving, but highly 

unlikely, as these animals are 

mobile and could leave area 

during project; likely to return 

to area at completion of 

construction 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques such 

as slow starts or ramp up; 

turbidity monitoring 

Incidental takes could occur 

during pile driving, but highly 

unlikely, as these animals are 

mobile and could leave area 

during project; likely to return 

to area at completion of 

construction 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques such 

as slow starts or ramp up; 

turbidity monitoring 

Incidental takes could occur 

during pile driving, but highly 

unlikely, as these animals are 

mobile and could leave area 

during project; likely to return 

to area at completion of 

construction 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques such 

as slow starts or ramp up; 

turbidity monitoring 

Incidental takes could occur 

during pile driving, but highly 

unlikely, as these animals are 

mobile and could leave area 

during project; likely to return 

to area at completion of 

construction 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques such 

as slow starts or ramp up; 

turbidity monitoring 

Incidental takes could occur 

during pile driving, but highly 

unlikely, as these animals are 

mobile and could leave area 

during project; likely to return 

to area at completion of 

construction 

TOY Restrictions; segment 

project to minimize 

disturbance; use noise 

abatement techniques such 

as slow starts or ramp up; 

turbidity monitoring 

Page 1 of 12 
 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: ACCESS QUAYSIDE 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Channel Widening/ Deepening Air Draft Improvement Construction of New Berths Expanding Length of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Seabed at Quayside 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Birds & Bats Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in 

substrate; dredge activities 

could stir up these 

contaminants and be ingested 

and work way through food 

chain to shorebirds and bats 

Pre-dredge survey of 

substrate to avoid release 

contaminants into water; 

monitor pre- and postconstruction 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in 

substrate; dredge activities 

could stir up these 

contaminants and be ingested 

and work way through food 

chain to birds and bats; air 

draft improvements could 

result in collisions with birds 

and bats; new or taller utility 

towers pose increased 

collision risk 

TOY Restrictions; pre-dredge 

survey of substrate to avoid 

release of contaminants into 

water; segment project to 

minimize disturbance; 

monitor pre- and postconstruction; use noise 

abatement techniques; use 

antiperching and utility line 

marking measures 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in 

substrate; dredge activities 

could stir up these 

contaminants and be ingested 

and work way through food 

chain to birds and bats; 

destruction or loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of 

substrate to avoid release of 

contaminants into water; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in 

substrate; dredge activities in 

water and earth moving 

activities could stir up or 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of 

substrate and soil to avoid 

release of contaminants into 

water and expose to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in 

substrate; dredge activities 

could stir up these 

contaminants and be ingested 

and work way through food 

chain to shorebirds and bats 

Pre-dredge survey of 

substrate to avoid release 

contaminants into water; 

monitor pre- and postconstruction 

Water Quality Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; expected to return to 

pre-dredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction; potential for 

suspension of contaminated 

sediment; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release 

Turbidity monitoring often 

required; compliance with all 

permits and plans; BMPs to 

reduce risk of spills; plans in 

place to handle accidental 

spills or releases 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; expected to return to 

pre-dredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction; potential for 

suspension of contaminated 

sediment; potential for runoff 

discharges; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release 

Turbidity monitoring often 

required; compliance with all 

permits and plans; BMPs to 

reduce risk of spills; plans in 

place to handle accidental 

spills or releases 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; expected to return to 

pre-dredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction; potential for 

suspension of contaminated 

sediment; potential for runoff 

discharges; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release 

Turbidity monitoring often 

required; compliance with all 

permits and plans; BMPs to 

reduce risk of spills; plans in 

place to handle accidental 

spills or releases 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; expected to return to 

pre-dredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction; potential for 

suspension of contaminated 

sediment; potential for runoff 

discharges; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release 

Turbidity monitoring often 

required; compliance with all 

permits and plans; BMPs to 

reduce risk of spills; plans in 

place to handle accidental 

spills or releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; expected to return to 

pre-dredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction; potential for 

suspension of contaminated 

sediment; potential for runoff 

discharges; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release 

Turbidity monitoring often 

required; compliance with all 

permits and plans; BMPs to 

reduce risk of spills; plans in 

place to handle accidental 

spills or releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; expected to return to 

pre-dredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction; potential for 

suspension of contaminated 

sediment; potential for runoff 

discharges; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release 

Turbidity monitoring often 

required; compliance with all 

permits and plans; BMPs to 

reduce risk of spills; plans in 

place to handle accidental 

spills or releases 

Ocean Currents & Ocean currents and Ensure currents and Ocean currents and Ensure currents and Ocean currents and Ensure currents and Ocean currents and Ensure currents and Ocean currents and Ensure currents and Ocean currents and Ensure currents and 

Movements movements in area could 

improve as a result of 

dredging and seafloor 

alteration; impacts to ocean 

currents are irreversible; 

potential or erosion in 

surrounding areas 

movement are sufficient for 

bays and semi-enclosed 

waterbodies to prevent 

stagnant water; prevent 

shoreline erosion 

movements in area could 

improve as a result of 

dredging and seafloor 

alteration; impacts to ocean 

currents are irreversible; 

potential or erosion in 

surrounding areas 

movement are sufficient for 

bays and semi-enclosed 

waterbodies to prevent 

stagnant water; prevent 

shoreline erosion 

movements in area could 

improve as a result of 

dredging and seafloor 

alteration; impacts to ocean 

currents are irreversible; 

potential or erosion in 

surrounding areas 

movement are sufficient for 

bays and semi-enclosed 

waterbodies to prevent 

stagnant water; prevent 

shoreline erosion 

movements in area could 

improve as a result of 

dredging and seafloor 

alteration; impacts to ocean 

currents are irreversible; 

potential or erosion in 

surrounding areas 

movement are sufficient for 

bays and semi-enclosed 

waterbodies to prevent 

stagnant water; prevent 

shoreline erosion 

movements in area could 

improve as a result of 

dredging and seafloor 

alteration; impacts to ocean 

currents are irreversible; 

potential or erosion in 

surrounding areas 

movement are sufficient for 

bays and semi-enclosed 

waterbodies to prevent 

stagnant water; prevent 

shoreline erosion 

movements in area could 

improve as a result of 

dredging and seafloor 

alteration; impacts to ocean 

currents are irreversible; 

potential or erosion in 

surrounding areas 

movement are sufficient for 

bays and semi-enclosed 

waterbodies to prevent 

stagnant water; prevent 

shoreline erosion 

Sediment Deposition Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; sediment suspension 

and deposition levels 

expected to return to predredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; sediment suspension 

and deposition levels 

expected to return to predredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; sediment suspension 

and deposition levels 

expected to return to predredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

None None None None Impacts expected to last 

throughout construction 

activity; sediment suspension 

and deposition levels 

expected to return to predredge conditions shortly 

after completion of 

construction 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Acoustic Environment Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; fish, 

mammals, turtles, and other 

mobile animals will leave area 

until construction activities 

end. There may be land 

impacts throughout 

construction depending on 

location of port, but not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area. 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation; IHA for 

dredge/blast activities, 

possible noise abatement 

techniques 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; fish, 

mammals, turtles, and other 

mobile animals will leave area 

until construction activities 

end. There may be land 

impacts throughout 

construction depending on 

location of port, but not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area. 

Restriction on hours of 

operation; IHA for 

dredge/blast activities, 

possible noise abatement 

techniques 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity; 

concerns of in-water noise of 

pile-driving activities 

Use sound abatement 

techniques for pile-driving 

activities 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; fish, 

mammals, turtles, and other 

mobile animals will leave area 

until construction activities 

end. There may be land 

impacts throughout 

construction depending on 

location of port, but not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area. 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation; IHA for 

dredge/blast activities, 

possible noise abatement 

techniques 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; fish, 

mammals, turtles, and other 

mobile animals will leave area 

until construction activities 

end. There may be land 

impacts throughout 

construction depending on 

location of port, but not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area. 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation; IHA for 

dredge/blast activities, 

possible noise abatement 

techniques 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; fish, 

mammals, turtles, and other 

mobile animals will leave area 

until construction activities 

end. There may be land 

impacts throughout 

construction depending on 

location of port, but not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area. 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation; IHA for 

dredge/blast activities, 

possible noise abatement 

techniques 

Page 2 of 12 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: ACCESS QUAYSIDE 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Channel Widening/ Deepening Air Draft Improvement Construction of New Berths Expanding Length of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Seabed at Quayside 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Coastal Habitats Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Military Use Areas Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with USCG and 

military commanders 

Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with military 

commanders 

Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with military 

commanders 

Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with military 

commanders 

None None None None 

Land Use & Existing Potential for space use Coordination with other USCG Potential for space use Siting of expansion areas to Potential for space use Siting of expansion areas to Potential for space use Siting of expansion areas to Space use conflicts unlikely None Space use conflicts unlikely None 

Infrastructure conflicts throughout 

construction activity; conflicts 

expected to be resolved at 

construction completion 

and users of waterways conflicts throughout 

construction activity; conflicts 

expected to be resolved at 

construction completion 

minimize displacements; 

coordination with other USCG 

and users of waterways 

conflicts throughout 

construction activity; conflicts 

expected to be resolved at 

construction completion 

minimize displacements; 

coordination with other USCG 

and users of waterways 

conflicts throughout 

construction activity; conflicts 

expected to be resolved at 

construction completion 

minimize displacements; 

coordination with other USCG 

and users of waterways 

Transportation (terrestrial) Associated land-side activity 

could disrupt some vehicle 

traffic and transportation in 

area during portions of 

construction activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

Associated land-side activity 

could disrupt some vehicle 

traffic and transportation in 

area during portions of 

construction activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

Associated land-side activity 

could disrupt some vehicle 

traffic and transportation in 

area during portions of 

construction activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

Associated land-side activity 

could disrupt some vehicle 

traffic and transportation 

within port facility during 

portions of construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

Associated land-side activity 

could disrupt some vehicle 

traffic and transportation 

within port facility during 

portions of construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

None None 

Cultural & Historical Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Visual Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

vessels during construction 

activity; No permanent 

changes to visual setting 

unless visible coastal habitats 

are removed. 

None Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from 

elevated structures; Level of 

impact depends on 

surrounding visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from 

expanded berth areas; Level 

of impact depends on 

surrounding visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from 

expanded berth areas; Level 

of impact depends on 

surrounding visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None 

Environmental Justice* Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. None None None None 

Commercial Fishing Potential to impact day-today fishing operations or 

vessel transits during portion 

construction activity if port is 

home to commercial fishing 

fleet 

Segment project to minimize 

disturbance of fishing; time 

construction with off-season 

if possible; coordinate with 

USCG and local waterways 

users 

Potential to impact day-today fishing operations or 

vessel transits during portion 

construction activity if port is 

home to commercial fishing 

fleet 

Segment project to minimize 

disturbance of fishing; time 

construction with off-season 

if possible; coordinate with 

USCG and local waterways 

users 

Potential to impact day-today fishing operations or 

vessel transits during portion 

construction activity if port is 

home to commercial fishing 

fleet 

Segment project to minimize 

disturbance of fishing; time 

construction with off-season 

if possible; coordinate with 

USCG and local waterways 

users 

Potential to impact day-today fishing operations or 

vessel transits during portion 

construction activity if port is 

home to commercial fishing 

fleet 

Segment project to minimize 

disturbance of fishing; time 

construction with off-season 

if possible; coordinate with 

USCG and local waterways 

users 

None None None None 

Page 3 of 12 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: ACCESS QUAYSIDE 

Channel Widening/ Deepening Air Draft Improvement Construction of New Berths Expanding Length of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Quayside Improving Bearing Capacity of Seabed at Quayside 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Tourism & Recreation Potential for impacts to 

cruise ships or tourist 

activities during construction 

if port is home to cruise ships 

or near tourist areas; 

Time construction with offseason; segment project; 

coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway users

 Potential for impacts to 

cruise ships or tourist 

activities during construction 

if port is home to cruise ships 

or near tourist areas; 

Time construction with offseason; segment project; 

coordinate with FAA, USCG, 

and local waterway users

 Potential for impacts to 

cruise ships or tourist 

activities during construction 

if port is home to cruise ships 

or near tourist areas; new 

Time construction with offseason; segment project; 

coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway users

 Potential for impacts to 

cruise ships or tourist 

activities during construction 

if port is home to cruise ships 

or near tourist areas; 

Time construction with offseason; segment project; 

coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway users 

None None None None 

dredging could improve 

tourism and recreation to 

areas previously inaccessible 

by cruise ships 

increased air draft could 

improve tourism and 

recreation to areas previously 

inaccessible by cruise ships 

berths could be used cruise 

ships when not used for 

offshore wind or other uses. 

expanded quayside could be 

used cruise ships when not 

used for offshore wind or 

other uses. 

Navigation May impact vessel traffic in 

immediate vicinity during 

construction activity; vessel 

schedules may need to be 

adjusted; likely to positively 

impact navigation by 

improving channels 

Coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway uses; 

coordinate project schedule 

to minimize disturbance and 

conflict; time construction 

with off-season if possible; 

use of appropriate lighting, 

signals and markings 

May impact vessel traffic in 

immediate vicinity during 

construction activity; vessel 

schedules may need to be 

adjusted; likely to positively 

impact navigation by 

improving channels 

Coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway uses; 

coordinate project schedule 

to minimize disturbance and 

conflict; time construction 

with off-season if possible; 

use of appropriate lighting, 

signals and markings 

May disrupt vessel traffic in 

immediate vicinity 

throughout construction 

activity; likely to positively 

impact navigation by 

providing new berth areas for 

use by ships 

Coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway uses; 

coordinate project schedule 

to minimize disturbance and 

conflict; time construction 

with off-season if possible; 

use of appropriate lighting, 

signals and markings 

May disrupt vessel traffic in 

immediate vicinity 

throughout construction 

activity; likely to positively 

impact navigation by 

providing new berth areas for 

use by ships 

Coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway uses; 

coordinate project schedule 

to minimize disturbance and 

conflict; time construction 

with off-season if possible; 

use of appropriate lighting, 

signals and markings 

May impact vessel traffic in 

immediate vicinity during 

construction activity; vessel 

port call schedules may need 

to be adjusted 

Coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway uses; 

coordinate project schedule 

to minimize disturbance and 

conflict; time construction 

with off-season if possible; 

use of appropriate lighting, 

signals and markings 

May impact vessel traffic in 

immediate vicinity during 

construction activity; vessel 

port call schedules may need 

to be adjusted 

Coordinate with USCG and 

local waterway uses; 

coordinate project schedule 

to minimize disturbance and 

conflict; time construction 

with off-season if possible; 

use of appropriate lighting, 

signals and markings 

Socioeconomic Resources Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None 

impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in 

smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities 

Job Creation Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None 

*Potential impacts only if high and adverse human health or environmental effects remain after mitigation and depending on demographics of affected area. 

Page 4 of 12 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: STORAGE ROLL ON / ROLL OFF CAPABILITIES 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Improving bearing capacity of haul road (between 

quayside and storage area) Increasing the bearing capacity of storage areas Increasing the size of the storage area Provide Ro Ro Capability Increase Width and Headroom of Ro Ro Berth Ro Ro Berth Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Benthic None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Fish & EFH None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Air Quality Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Terrestrial Biota Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Marine Mammals & Sea 

Turtles 

None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Page 5 of 12 
 

 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: STORAGE ROLL ON / ROLL OFF CAPABILITIES 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Improving bearing capacity of haul road (between 

quayside and storage area) Increasing the bearing capacity of storage areas Increasing the size of the storage area Provide Ro Ro Capability Increase Width and Headroom of Ro Ro Berth Ro Ro Berth Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Birds & Bats Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques; use 

antiperching and utility line 

marking measures 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Water Quality Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Ocean Currents & 

Movements 

None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Sediment Deposition None None None None None None Potential impacts as a result 

of fill placement; impacts 

expected to last throughout 

construction activity; 

sediment suspension and 

deposition levels expected to 

return to pre-construction 

conditions shortly after 

project completion 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

None None Potential impacts as a result 

of fill placement; impacts 

expected to last throughout 

construction activity; 

sediment suspension and 

deposition levels expected to 

return to pre-construction 

conditions shortly after 

project completion 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Acoustic Environment Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; mobile 

animals will leave area until 

completion of construction. 

Not significant if Port is 

located in industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; mobile 

animals will leave area until 

completion of construction. 

Not significant if Port is 

located in industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity; mobile 

animals will leave area until 

completion of construction. 

Not significant if Port is 

located in industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity. Not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area 

None Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity. Not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity in 

immediate vicinity. Not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Page 6 of 12 
 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: STORAGE ROLL ON / ROLL OFF CAPABILITIES 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Improving bearing capacity of haul road (between 

quayside and storage area) Increasing the bearing capacity of storage areas Increasing the size of the storage area Provide Ro Ro Capability Increase Width and Headroom of Ro Ro Berth Ro Ro Berth Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Coastal Habitats Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Military Use Areas None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

Space use conflicts unlikely None Space use conflicts unlikely None Space use conflicts unlikely None Space use conflicts unlikely None Space use conflicts unlikely None Space use conflicts unlikely None 

Transportation (terrestrial) Associated land-side activity 

could disrupt some vehicle 

traffic and transportation 

within port facility during 

portions of construction 

activity. 

Traffic management plan; 

restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

Cultural & Historical Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Visual Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from 

expanded storage areas/new 

buildings; Level of impact 

depends on surrounding 

visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None Visual disturbance limited to 

presence of construction 

equipment during 

construction activity; No 

permanent changes to visual 

setting. 

None 

Environmental Justice* None None None None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. None None None None None None 

Commercial Fishing None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Page 7 of 12 
 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: STORAGE ROLL ON / ROLL OFF CAPABILITIES 

Improving bearing capacity of haul road (between 

quayside and storage area) Increasing the bearing capacity of storage areas Increasing the size of the storage area Provide Ro Ro Capability Increase Width and Headroom of Ro Ro Berth Ro Ro Berth Bearing Capacity Improvement 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Tourism & Recreation None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Navigation None None None None None None None None None None None None 

Socioeconomic Resources Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None 

impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in 

smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities 

Job Creation Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None 

*Potential impacts only if hig 

Page 8 of 12 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: CRANES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Provide Fixed Crane Provide Mobile Crane Reduce Crane Height Restrictions Modify Rail Line Modify Road (widen, turning, bearing capacity) 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Benthic None None None None None None None None None None 

Fish & EFH None None None None None None None None None None 

Air Quality Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Increase in emissions from 

vehicles throughout 

construction activity; fugitive 

dust as a result of earth 

moving activities 

Use vehicles meeting 

appropriate standards and 

monitor for compliance; 

watering of site and 

implementation of a dust 

control plan; use soil 

stabilizers; cover truck loads 

and disturbed areas; halt 

activities in high winds 

Terrestrial Biota Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of terrestrial habitat through 

land clearing, compaction, or 

paving; displacement of 

terrestrial biota throughout 

construction with potential 

for permanent displacement 

with loss of habitat 

Restrict hours; use noise 

abatement techniques 

compensatory as required, 

through on- or off-site habitat 

creation or enhancement; 

avoid sensitive habitat areas 

Marine Mammals & Sea 

Turtles 

None None None None None None None None None None 

Page 9 of 12 
 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: CRANES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Provide Fixed Crane Provide Mobile Crane Reduce Crane Height Restrictions Modify Rail Line Modify Road (widen, turning, bearing capacity) 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Birds & Bats Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat; new cranes 

and crane construction could 

result in increased collision 

risk 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques; use 

marking measures to avoid 

collisions 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat; new cranes 

and crane construction could 

result in increased collision 

risk 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques; use 

marking measures to avoid 

collisions 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat; new cranes 

and crane construction could 

result in increased collision 

risk 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques; use 

antiperching and utility line 

marking measures 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Potential to impact birds and 

bats if toxic chemicals and 

heavy metals exist in soil; 

earth moving activities could 

expose these contaminants 

and be ingested and work 

way through food chain to 

birds and bats; destruction or 

loss of habitat 

TOY Restrictions; preconstruction survey of soil to 

avoid exposure to air; 

segment project to minimize 

disturbance; monitor pre- and 

post-construction; use noise 

abatement techniques 

Water Quality Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Vessels or diesel generators 

or machinery requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential for runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Potential for pollution and 

emissions from construction 

vehicles; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Potential for pollution and 

emissions from construction 

vehicles; vessels or diesel 

generators or machinery 

requiring 

lubricants/chemicals may 

result in accidental spill or 

release; potential runoff 

discharges as a result of land 

clearing and fill placement 

Compliance with all permits 

and plans; BMPs to reduce 

risk of spills; plans in place to 

handle accidental spills or 

releases; erosion and 

sedimentation controls 

Ocean Currents & 

Movements 

None None None None None None None None None None 

Sediment Deposition Potential impacts as a result 

of fill placement; impacts 

expected to last throughout 

construction activity; 

sediment suspension and 

deposition levels expected to 

return to pre-construction 

conditions shortly after 

project completion 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Potential impacts as a result 

of fill placement; impacts 

expected to last throughout 

construction activity; 

sediment suspension and 

deposition levels expected to 

return to pre-construction 

conditions shortly after 

project completion 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

None None Potential impacts as a result 

of fill placement; impacts 

expected to last throughout 

construction activity; 

sediment suspension and 

deposition levels expected to 

return to pre-construction 

conditions shortly after 

project completion 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Potential impacts as a result 

of fill placement; impacts 

expected to last throughout 

construction activity; 

sediment suspension and 

deposition levels expected to 

return to pre-construction 

conditions shortly after 

project completion 

Monitoring of sediment 

suspension and deposition 

throughout construction to 

ensure does not exceed 

specified allowable threshold 

Acoustic Environment Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity. Increase 

in crane size and number 

would result in more noise 

None Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity. 

Increase in crane size and 

number would result in more 

noise 

None Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity. Not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity. Not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Impacts expected throughout 

construction activity. Not 

significant if Port is located in 

industrialized area 

Restrictions on hours of 

operation 

Page 10 of 12 
Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: CRANES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Provide Fixed Crane Provide Mobile Crane Reduce Crane Height Restrictions Modify Rail Line Modify Road (widen, turning, bearing capacity) 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Coastal Habitats Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

None None Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Potential for reduction or loss 

of coastal habitat (mangrove 

forests or wetlands) if area 

previously undeveloped; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat for birds and bats; 

possible loss or reduction in 

nesting habitat for sea turtles 

Compensatory mitigation 

such as mitigation credits or 

on- or off-site habitat 

(wetland or mangrove) 

enhancement, restoration, 

and preservation for wetlands 

destroyed/altered or fill 

placement 

Military Use Areas Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with FAA and 

military commanders 

Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with FAA and 

military commanders 

Space use conflicts unlikely Coordination with FAA and 

military commanders 

None None None None 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

Space use conflicts unlikely None None None None None Space use conflicts unlikely None Potential space use conflicts Siting of expansion areas to 

minimize displacements; 

Local coordination to 

minimize business and 

utilities disruption. 

Transportation (terrestrial) May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

None None May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity during construction 

activity. 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction, selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity; potential to reduce 

vehicular traffic congestion 

after construction completion 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

May disrupt vehicle 

transportation in immediate 

vicinity; potential to reduce 

vehicular traffic congestion 

after construction completion 

Restrictions on hours of 

construction selection of 

routes, widening of road 

segments/crossings 

Cultural & Historical Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

None None Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Depends on port and whether 

there are historic properties 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effects 

Adverse effects on historic 

properties are resolved 

through consultation with 

SHPO(s) and interested 

parties under Section 106 of 

the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Visual Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from new 

fixed cranes; Level of impact 

depends on surrounding 

visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from new 

mobile cranes; Level of 

impact depends on 

surrounding visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from taller 

cranes; Level of impact 

depends on surrounding 

visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting 

None None Potential changes in visual 

setting resulting from new 

roads; Level of impact 

depends on surrounding 

visual setting. 

Site and design management; 

controlled lighting; plantings 

Environmental Justice* Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. None None None None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. Develop mitigation on a caseby-case basis. 

Commercial Fishing None None None None None None Potential positive impacts on 

ability to transport landed 

catch by rail. 

None Potential positive impacts on 

ability to transport landed 

catch by truck. 

None 

Page 11 of 12 
 

Task Order M15PD00001 Appendix II FINAL - March 18, 2016
 

Table 2
 

Potential Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts, Mitigation Measures Associated with Typical Port Modifications to Support Offshore Wind 

Port Requirement: CRANES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Provide Fixed Crane Provide Mobile Crane Reduce Crane Height Restrictions Modify Rail Line Modify Road (widen, turning, bearing capacity) 

Port Modification Activities 

Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Impacted 

Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation Description of Impacts Mitigation 

Tourism & Recreation None None None None None None None None Potential positive impacts on 

ability to transport people 

and materials to the port 

facility. 

None 

Navigation None None None None None None None None None None 

Socioeconomic Resources Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None Potential for socioeconomic None 

impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in impacts in ports located in 

smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities smaller communities 

Job Creation Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None None None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None Determine impacts on a caseby-case basis. None 

*Potential impacts only if hig 

Page 12 of 12 
Appendix III 

Environmental & Socioeconomic 

Port Profiles 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2016 ESS Group, 

°! 

Path: J:\B438-000 BOEM Port Mod Study\Technical\GIS\MXD\B438_Figure_1_Preliminary_Port_Study 3.23.16.mxd Drawing Date: 3/23/2016 

MA/RI 

MA 

NY 

NJ 

DE 

MD 

VA 

NC 

NC 

Philadelphia

Packer Ave. Marine Terminal 

Philadelphia

Tioga Marine Terminal 

NORTH

CAROLINA 

SOUTH

CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST

VIRGINIA 

PENNSYLVANIA 

OHIO 

NEW YORK 

MASSACHUSETTS 

NEW

JERSEY 

CONNECTICUT 

Falmouth

Harbor 

DELAWARE 

MARYLAND 

Cape Charles 

Baltimore 

Portsmouth Marine 

Terminal 

Peck Marine 

Terminal 

Newport News 

Marine Terminal 

Morehead City 

Charleston SC 

Savannah 

New York - Brooklyn 

New York 

Bayonne 

Newark 

Perth Amboy 

Wilmington DE 

Boston 

New Bedford 

Quonset Point/Davisville Providence 

New London 

New Haven 

Bridgeport 

New York - Staten Island New York

Gowanus/Erie Basin 

Elizabeth 

Paulsboro 

Norfolk International

Terminals 

Wilmington NC 

0 30 60 120 Miles 

Inc. 

BOEM - The Identification of Port Modifications & Legend Overview 

the Environmental & Socioeconomic Consequences Port/Harbor 

Task Order No. M15PD00001 

Approximate Shortest Distance Line 

1 inch = 60 miles Wind Energy Area/ Call Area 

Source: 1) BOEM, Wind Planning Areas, Feb. 2016 

2) ESRI/NOAA, Online Basemap 

States Figure 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction to Port Profiles 

Currently, very few ports exist on the Atlantic coast that are capable of fully supporting an offshore wind energy 

project; however, port modifications are already being implemented or planned in some locations to 

accommodate wind energy facility construction and operations. Sixteen ports were selected to profile based on 

the ESS Team’s knowledge of East Coast ports and their potential to accommodate offshore wind development. 

These ports were determined to have medium or high potential to support construction and staging activities, as 

well as Operation & Maintenance (O&M) activities, based on publically available data, as described below. It is 

important to note that even if a port was not selected for profiling, it could still be considered a candidate to 

support offshore wind in the future. Port operators and owners are encouraged to provide updated information 

about their capabilities via the U.S. Department of Energy Port Readiness Assessment Tool, available at 

www.offshorewindportreadiness.com. 

The port profiles summarize the main characteristics with respect to their capacity to accommodate offshore wind 

energy development. They provide abbreviated descriptions of the existing physical, environmental, and 

socioeconomic conditions at each port and its surrounding areas. To the extent possible, the profiles highlight 

environmental and socioeconomic resources that could potentially be impacted by future port modifications 

associated with wind energy development. Should port modifications at a specific port included in this study be 

proposed, a more thorough and detailed environmental assessment will need to be conducted. 

Due to the limited scope of this study, the description of the existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions 

at each port is intended to provide a general indication of areas potentially impacted. The geographic area of 

interest around each port is not necessarily the same for each environmental and socioeconomic aspect of the 

port described. In general, the geographic area of interest described was the following: 

 Immediate vicinity of the port and access channel for most environmental resources, land use, 

transportation, cultural and historic resources, and visual resources; 

 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, County or City for socioeconomic and environmental justice resources, 

recreational fishing communities, and tourism and recreation; 

 Port area and surrounding fishing communities for commercial fishing; and 

 Vessel traffic to and from the port for navigation. 

The information gathered for each of the port profiles was drawn from publically available information. The data 

sources used in the description of the current characteristics were selected to provide a brief overview of current 

conditions and often of selected aspects, but greater detail should be considered in programmatic or project 

specific environmental review documents. In some cases, the available information was limited or conflicted with 

other data sources. Where they existed, data gaps were identified. For example, most ports do not know the 

bearing capacity of their quaysides or if their quayside seabed is suitable for jacking because their normal port 

operations do not require this capability. As a result, these data were generally hard to find and were not always 

available. This information may be acquired in the future with specific data requests or geotechnical studies at a 

port. It is important to note that the information contained in each profile was obtained in the second half of 2015 

and may change with the passage of time. Each port profile includes a date in the footer to provide future readers 

with the context of when the profile was prepared. 

The profiles were developed using a standardized template containing the following sections: 

 Port Overview
 

 Port Classifications – Existing Capabilities
 

 Potential Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind
 

 Impact Producing Factors
 

 Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions
 

 Anticipated Impacts
 

 Data Sources & Additional Information
 

March 18, 2016 Page 1 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A brief description of each section is provided below, as well as the methodology used to gather the pertinent 

information. Further clarifications on specific sections are also included. 

Port Overview 

This section provides a general description of the port, including the geographic location, identification of available 

terminals, port governance, primary uses, land area, port employment (where available), and distance to closest 

wind energy area. In instances where there are multiple terminals identified within a port, the terminal with the 

greatest potential to support offshore wind is identified and described. 

Port Classifications - Existing Capabilities 

This section summarizes key criteria determined to be important in characterizing ports for their readiness (at 

present) in supporting activities associated with offshore wind energy facility construction. This information was 

not readily or publically available for every criterion or for every port. A “U” was used to indicate that the 

information was either unknown or unavailable. “N/A” was used to indicate that a criterion was not applicable. A 

threshold was determined for each category based on the requirements to support staging of a project utilizing 8 

MW wind turbines (e.g., Port Access Channel Width threshold of 30 m) (Table 1). The 8 MW wind turbine 

scenario was chosen because it is expected to become the standard in the future. It is important to note that each 

requirement may not represent the best solution for a specific project; it is intended to provide guidance in the 

planning process. 

Table 1. Port Classification Key Criteria and Thresholds for 8 MW Projects 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity Staging Port  10 (t/m2) Potential Use Operation & Maintenance Storage Storage Area Bearing Capacity  10 (O&M) Port (t/m2 Capabilities )

Size of Storage Area (m2) 25,000 

Quayside Bearing 17 On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 600 Capacity (t/m2) Cranes
 

Quayside
 Quayside Length (m) 170 Crane Height Restrictions (m) 50 

Capabilities 

Quayside Seabed Suitable Yes for Jacking
 

U = Unknown
 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 30 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 8.1 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) 75 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) 8 

Number of Berths 1 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro 

Berth & Ramps (t/m2) 10 

Transportation 

Onshore Transportation 

Infrastructure (rail, highway, 

etc.) 

No 

Ports were classified as construction and staging ports (“Staging Port”) or as both staging ports and operation and 

maintenance ports (“O&M Port”). For the port profiles, the focus was primarily on ports that were suitable for 

construction and staging activities, assuming that such ports would have marine facilities around them suitable for 

some O&M activities. However, routine O&M activities may be supported by smaller, less well-equipped ports and 

would likely require fewer potential port modifications. Location relative to the nearest wind energy area will likely 

be the key factor in the ability of smaller ports to support O&M activities. 

Overhead draft was determined by identifying the lowest height of an overhead structure, such as a bridge or 

overhead power cables, which could limit the passage of a vessel with turbine components traveling between the 

open ocean and the port. The overhead draft restriction determined for an 8 MW wind turbine scenario is 75 m. 

This height is based on the size of the jacket structure used in the 8 MW scenario. While it may not always be 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

realistic or feasible (technically or economically) to raise a highway, railroad bridge, or power lines, “improve 

overhead draft to 75 m” was included as a potential port modification since there is precedent for raising a bridge 

to accommodate expected larger vessels size at port (e.g., the ongoing project to raise the Bayonne Bridge from 

151 feet of clearance to 215 of clearance to accommodate post-Panamax vessels). This is more likely to be 

considered an option, if coupled with a bigger project (e.g., replacement of an aging bridge). Modifying a highway 

or railroad bridge would have additional financial, environmental, and socioeconomic benefits and impacts 

associated with it that would need to be studied and assessed if that modification was deemed to be necessary 

for a specific port, either to support the offshore wind energy industry or for some other purpose. 

The crane capability of a port was evaluated with two criteria: on-site crane capability, which identifies whether the 

port has existing on-site crane capabilities and is expressed as the lifting capacity (in tons) that the crane(s) can 

handle at a port and as crane height restrictions, which defines any height restrictions, if present. If on-site cranes 

are not present at a port, the value of the on-site crane capability criteria was “No.” Crane height restrictions (due 

to nearby aviation activity, bridges, etc.) were identified regardless of whether the port had an on-site crane due to 

the fact that a port could utilize mobile cranes on a project-specific, as-needed basis. 

The transportation capability of a port was determined based on the presence of on-site transportation facilities. 

For the purposes of the port profiles, rail transportation means rail service that is capable of transporting goods, 

including offshore wind energy project components. It does not include commuter rails and subways used for 

transporting people. For a port to be classified as having rail transportation, the rail has to be located within the 

port and accessible to vessels without the use of a truck or additional transportation. Ports with railroad 

transportation have direct rail access or on-dock rails typically supported by cranes. If the port does not have 

direct rail access at the port, it is not considered to have rail access or rail transportation. Highway access was 

determined if a port was within a couple miles of a major highway via major roads and not residential, small 

streets. 

Potential Port Modifications 

For each port, the existing capabilities for each criteria were compared to the criteria thresholds identified in Table 

1. If a capability of the port did not meet the threshold for a category, it was included in the potential port 

modification table (refer to Table 2 for an example). Where information was unknown, we included it as a potential 

port modification in the profile as well. To differentiate between known potential port modifications and assumed 

potential port modifications, we italicized the assumed construction activities. This is denoted in the profile with 

“Modifications shown in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications.” The specific criteria 

needed to reach the threshold within each capability area are identified beneath the table as well. 

Table 2. Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Potential Port 

Modifications 

Construction Activity 

Dredging Pile Driving/ 

Drilling Land Clearing Fill Placement Fill Compaction Paving 

Channel Access  

Quayside Improvements    

Storage Capacity    

Ro-Ro Capabilitya     

Cranesb    

Modifications shown in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications a Provide Ro-Ro Capability; improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Port Modifications table in each profile also identifies the construction activities likely to be necessary to 

achieve the threshold indicated for a specific port. This table is based off of the port-specific Existing Capabilities 

table. The activities associated with achieving each threshold capabilities (identified in Table 1 and described in 

detail in the Port Characteristics deliverable), include sediment dredging, rock blasting, land clearing, pile driving, 

drilling, fill placement, compaction, and paving. 

Impact Producing Factors 

The activities identified as necessary to achieve the criteria threshold will generate impact producing factors 

(stressors) that in turn have a measured impact on environmental and socioeconomic resources (receptors) in the 

area of the port. Impact producing factors associated with the activities identified in Table 2 are expected to 

include the following: 

 Seafloor/land disturbance; 

 Sediment suspension/deposition; 

 Noise; 

 Lighting; 

 Discharges (dewatering, stormwater, accidental spills); 

 Trash/debris; 

 Vessel and vehicular traffic; 

 Air emissions; 

 Visible infrastructure; 

 Species injury, mortality, or displacement; 

 Offshore/onshore space use conflicts; and 

 Increased demand for local labor and services. 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions 

The existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions for each port are described in this section of the port 

profile. To provide consistency, where possible, sources were identified that provided information on a specific 

resource for each of the ports. Additionally, port-specific sources were used to provide further description and 

detail. For more detailed information on references, see citations throughout the tables and the list of the data 

sources found at the end of each profile. Table 3 provides the source of the data for each environmental and 

socioeconomic resource category, as well as a brief description of how and/or where the information was 

gathered for each resource. Where a consistent source(s) was unavailable for a resource, or special 

considerations were made, we have noted this in the table below. All sources used and obtained are publically 

available. 

The geographic area of interest around each port is not necessarily the same for each environmental and 

socioeconomic resource described. While the geographic extent of the environmental resources is often more 

easily defined by the physical land and water resources surrounding the port, the geographic extent of the 

socioeconomic resources can be more complicated and is discussed below. 

Table 3. Description and Source of Environmental and Socioeconomic Resource Data Gathered 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Consistent source unavailable or unknown. Port- and location-specific sources used where available. 

Information on benthic communities typically found in Environmental Assessments (EA) 

/Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) /Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for projects (typically 

Benthic dredging projects) proposed or done within the vicinity of the port. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Fish & EFH 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper was 

used identify EFH in waters surrounding the ports: http://www.bls.gov/lau/ . 

Port- and location-specific sources were also used to provide further detailed information on fish and 

EFH habitat. If applicable, anadromous species were identified for ports along rivers. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

Air quality classifications were identified using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html). 

Identified whether an Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) was in attainment or non-attainment of the 

Air Quality NAAQS for any or all of the criteria pollutants. 

Geographic region: air quality control region, which includes several towns/cities/counties in an area. 

Terrestrial Biota 

Terrestrial biota information for ports in Massachusetts through Virginia was gathered using The 

Nature Conservancy’s Northeast Habitat Map 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8 

A consistent source for ports located south of Virginia was not available or known. Port- and locationspecific sources were used, where available. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and adjacent properties and communities and/or 

habitats. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) was consulted to identify 

sea turtles in the area and NOAA (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals) 

was consulted to identify marine mammals in the area. 

Geographic region: surrounding waterbodies and extending to larger geographic areas of the Atlantic 

Ocean given transient lifestyle of these animals. 

Birds & Bats 

USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) was consulted to identify birds and bats in the area. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and extending to larger geographic areas such as 

surrounding water bodies and the port’s county given the transient lifestyle of these animals. 

Water quality was addressed by identifying impaired waters. Impaired waters were identified using 

U.S. EPA’s National Summary of Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

Information 

(http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state). If 

a waterbody was designated as impaired, the state’s most current integrated water quality report was 

consulted for further information. An explanation of the water quality classification was provided for 

impaired waters as well. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Water Quality 

Currents & Tides 

Tidal range and currents identified using NOAA Tidal Bench Mark Data Sheets 

(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

Consistent source unavailable or unknown. Port- and location-specific sources used, where 

available. Sediment 

Deposition Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Acoustic 

Environment 

Consistent source unavailable or unknown. Port- and location-specific sources, where available. 

Geographic region: town, city, or county where the port is located. 

Critical habitat designations around the port identified using USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html). 

Critical Habitat 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

Military Use Areas 

Used MilitaryBases.com and local knowledge of the ESS Team to identify military bases within and 

surrounding the ports. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port, access channel, and waterbodies surrounding the 

port. 

Land Use & 

Existing 

Infrastructure 

To identify land use and existing infrastructure around a port, Google Earth and Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium’s National Land Cover Database Evaluation, Visualization, and 

Analysis Tool were used (http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Transportation 

Transportation within and surrounding the ports was identified using Google Earth and supporting 

port websites. Where possible, distances to highways were provided and for rail service, it was noted 

if service was direct to dockside or within port. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby historical places and buildings were identified using the National Register of Historic Places 

Database (http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm). 

Shipwrecks within the port vicinity were identified using NOAA’s Wrecks and Obstructions Database 

(http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html). 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Visual 

Google Earth was used to identify the viewscapes around the ports and identify urbanized/developed 

or undeveloped land. 

Geographic region: immediate vicinity of the port and access channel. 

Environmental 

Justice 

The percentage of total minorities in the county and state were identified using US Census Bureau’s 

American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2009-2013): 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

The percentage of low-income in the county and state were identified using US Census Bureau’s 

American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2009-2013): 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

The percentage of total minority populations and individuals below the poverty level in the area 

surrounding the port was identified using EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool: 

http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (see additional discussion below), county, or city. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings for the port and state as well as rank in the US identified using National Marine 

Fisheries Services’ (NMFS) Commercial Fisheries Statistics: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercialfisheries/index 

Commercial fishing engagement in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using 

NMFS’ Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/socialindicators/map 

Commercial fishing reliance in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using 

NMFS’ Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/socialindicators/map 

Geographic region: surrounding fishing communities. 

The percentage of employment in tourism-related industries in the county identified using Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

Recreational fishing engagement in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using 

NMFS’ Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/socialTourism & indicators/map 

Recreation Recreational fishing reliance in surrounding communities identified on scale of low to high using 

NMFS’ Community Social Indicators: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/socialindicators/map 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas or county. 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port and main vessel types to and from port identified 

using Marine Traffic’s Automatic Identification System: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/ports/all 

Vessel types include: cargo, tanker, passenger, high speed craft, tug, fishing, and pleasure 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas or county. 

Population of County or City identified using US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

Labor Force identified using Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 

Socioeconomic http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

Resources Main Sources of fiscal revenues identified using US Census Bureau’s State Finances, 2012 Census 

of Governments: http://census.gov/govs/local/ 

Geographic region: Metropolitan Statistical Areas, county, or city. 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas are usually adequate geographic areas for the description of socioeconomic 

characteristics of port areas because the affected area must consider the community in which ports are located, as 

well as surrounding communities that may be impacted by activities at the port through commercial or fiscal ties or 

through movements of people for work, recreation or other activities. Metropolitan Statistical Areas consist of one 

or more counties with a high degree of social and economic integration, as measured by commuter ties and with a 

core urban area. They are defined and revised with some regularity by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB 2015). Additional information on commuter data is available through the following U.S. Census Bureau 

online tool and can also be a useful alternative in defining the study area for socioeconomics (USCB 2015a; USCB 

2015b). However, for populous and economically large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, impacts of construction and 

operation of projects will very often be negligible in magnitude, and stakeholders often would like to know how they 

compare to smaller economic areas, such as their city or county. In addition, for some aspects analyzed (e.g. fiscal 

impacts) impacts may occur within sub-areas of the geographic area of interest, so these need to be discussed as 

well. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing conditions of port areas for environmental justice considerations are typically described for the same 

geographic area used for the socioeconomic analysis. The reason is that environmental justice assessments 

should consider all areas where potentially high and adverse human health and environmental impacts may occur. 

In the case of modifications to ports to accommodate wind energy development, this area is expected to be the 

same as the area for socioeconomic impacts. However, impacts often occur within a sub-area of the geographic 

area of interest, such as the immediate vicinity of the port or transportation routes. Therefore, these sub-areas 

often need to be described as well. 

The data sources used in the description of the current characteristics were selected to provide a quick overview of 

current conditions and often of selected aspects, but greater detail should be considered in programmatic or 

project specific environmental review documents. A few notes on the data sources used follow. 

	 The main source of readily available data for identifying minority and low-income populations is the U.S. 

Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (USCB 2015c). A quick overview at 

the census block group level is available through EPA’s EJSCREEN tool (EPA 2015). The data currently 

available through this tool is from the ACS 2008-2012 5-Year Estimates. 

	 NOAA’s community social indicators were developed to characterize communities engaged in fishing 

activities and their vulnerability to change. The indicators were developed for Census Designated Places 

(CDPs) based largely on data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year 

Estimates. The latest data available used is for the 2005-2009 period. Each indicator combines several 

sources to reach a qualitative measure of how vulnerable communities are to change. Each indicator 

received a high, medium or low qualitative measure in each community, based on the community’s position 

relative to the standard deviation of that indicator among the communities analyzed (NOAA Undated). The 

use of these indicators must be with careful consideration of the geographic area of analysis they describe 

and their interpretation. For the purposes of the community profiles, selected indicators from this source 

were used to characterize communities engaged in commercial and recreational fishing. 

	 Tourism-related employment is not well defined in data based on the NAICS classification of industries. 

Estimates typically require making assumptions regarding the share of certain codes that actually reflect 

tourism (e.g., restaurants). 

Anticipated Impacts 

The information gathered for these port profiles is intended to summarize what exists at the time of writing and 

includes general impacts that have been associated with similar construction activities at ports across the U.S. and 

Europe. However, offshore wind energy development is constantly evolving and needs and impacts may change in 

the future. There may be impacts associated with offshore wind not included in these profiles. These profiles 

should serve as a guide to evaluate the potential readiness and construction necessary to accommodate such 

activity. A more comprehensive, site-specific assessment should be conducted should a port be considered for 

supporting offshore activities. 

References 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. EJSCREEN. Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping 

Tool. Available: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. Accessed: 09/10/2015. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Undated. Social Indicator Links. Available: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/index. Accessed: 09/10/2015. 

OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2015. Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations 

of These Areas. OMB Bulletin N. 15-01. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins_default. 

Accessed: 09/10/2015. 

March 18, 2016 Page 8 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2015a. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. Available: 

http://lehd.ces.census.gov/. Accessed: 09/10/2015. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2015b. OnTheMap. Available: http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Accessed: 

09/10/2015. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2015c. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. Available: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed: 09/10/2015. 

March 18, 2016 Page 9 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

BOSTON 

Conley Terminal | Boston, Massachusetts | 42° 20’ 25” N, 71° 01’ 21” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

BOSTON
 Conley Terminal | Boston, Massachusetts | 42° 20’ 25” N, 71° 01’ 21” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Massachusetts Port Authority (Independent Public Authority) 

Operator: Massachusetts Port Authority (Independent Public Authority) 

Primary Existing Uses: Containerized Cargo Shipping 

Primary Cargos Handled: Seafood; Beer/Wine; Footwear; Apparel; Furniture; Waste Paper; Scrap Metal [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM [1] 

Terminal Land Area: Approximately 100 acres 

Shortest Distance to Wind 145.7 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Massachusetts Wind Energy Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 7,100 people [2] 

The Port of Boston’s Conley Terminal, owned and operated by Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), is located within the 

South Boston Designated Port Area (DPA) on the Reserved Channel, and is New England’s largest full service container 

terminal with the only deep-water access in the Port of Boston. Conley Terminal serves many of world’s top container lines, 

including MSC, COSCO, Hanjin, Evergreen, Maersk and Hapag Lloyd, and handles nearly 1.5 million metric tons of cargo 

each year. The terminal is located on 100 acres with a dedicated haul road, which provides easy connections to the interstate 

system (I-93, I-90, and I-95 are all less than two miles from the terminal). The Conley Terminal includes two active container 

ship berths, Berths 11 and 12, which total approximately 2,000 linear feet of hardened edge. The deep-water berths at 

Conley Terminal are currently dredged to 45 feet deep, and are served by six low-profile ship-to-shore cranes. The height of 

the existing cranes and any future equipment on the current Conley Terminal footprint is limited by airspace restrictions 

associated with Logan Airport runways. 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 182.9 Size of Storage Area (m2) 404,700 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 12.2 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) N/A 

Number of Berths 5 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) N/A 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 51 

Quayside Length (m) 304 Crane Height Restrictions (m) 61 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) Highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

U = Unknown 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Construction 

of Storage 

Structure 

Dredging Aggregate 

Dumping 

   

Ro-Ro      Capabilitya 

Cranesb   

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOSTON
 Conley Terminal | Boston, Massachusetts | 42° 20’ 25” N, 71° 01’ 21” W 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Construction 

of Storage 

Structure 

Dredging Aggregate 

Dumping 

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityc 

    

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Provide Ro-Ro Capability; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2

; improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability 

c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2

; increase Storage Area to 25,000 m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species, injury, mortality, displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

There is no mapped eelgrass or shellfish suitable areas. The improvements to water quality in 

Boston Harbor brought on by the harbor cleanup effort, mainly the upgrade in sewage plant and 

Benthic discharge facilities, have led to significant improvements in benthic resources in areas of the 

harbor that were once considered heavily polluted by sludge discharges, however the harbor is still 

representative of industrialized conditions. 

Fish & EFH 

Boston Harbor, including the Reserved Channel, has been mapped by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as containing Essential Fish Habitat (EFH); however, the area 

in the immediate vicinity of the Terminal is unlikely to have habitat functions and values that are 

capable of supporting a healthy, stable and viable population of fish at any life stage due to its 

historical and current industrial use. 

Air Quality 

Boston Harbor is located in the Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 

and is classified as a non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and a maintenance area for carbon 

monoxide (CO). [3] A CO Maintenance area is an area in where the CO levels formerly exceeded 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but have now been reduced to and meet the 

NAAQS. 

Terrestrial Biota There are no extensive wetland areas in the Terminal as the majority of the shoreline has been 

hardened to support Terminal use. 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA were 

consulted. Five whale species that could potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were 

identified as endangered or threatened: blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic 

right whale, and sperm whale. The sei whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern US, was 

also identified as endangered. [4] The North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, sei 

whale, sperm whale, and minke whale may all be found seasonally in Massachusetts waters; 

however, only transient marine mammals are found in the Boston Harbor area during seasonal 

migrations. Harbor seal, white-side dolphin, harbor porpoise, and gray seal may also be observed 

rarely. The hawksbill and leatherback turtle are listed as a federally endangered species. The 

green sea turtle is listed as threatened in Massachusetts. These turtle species are known to occur 

in Massachusetts coastal waters; however, no turtle species are known to be found in Boston 

Harbor [5] . 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOSTON 

Conley Terminal | Boston, Massachusetts | 42° 20’ 25” N, 71° 01’ 21” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover is listed as 

threatened in Suffolk county. In addition to the piping plover there are many different types of 

resident, migratory, and coastal birds that could potentially use the areas of Boston Harbor as 

feeding, nesting or resting areas. The Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area was 

designated as a Massachusetts Important Bird Area (IBA) because the park provides habitat for a 

significant number of colonial-nesting waterbirds; however, the area is not considered critical 

habitat. [5] 

(Information on bats in this area is not readily available.) 

The Boston Inner Harbor (Segment ID MA70-02), located directly north of Conley Terminal, is 

listed as impaired, according to the Massachusetts Year 2012 Integrated List of Waters. The Water Quality Boston Inner Harbor is impaired due to Enterococcus, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue [6] [7] . 

Currents & Tides The dominant currents in the harbor are tidal in origin, although wind driven currents occur during 

storms. [1] The mean tidal range is 9.5 feet. 

Sediment Deposition 

The Terminal has an extensive history of industrial and commercial use and consequently has 

been the location of several releases of oil and hazardous materials. Sediment contaminant 

concentration levels, in general, are higher in the Inner Harbor, where they are closest to point 

sources of pollution and where the sediments are fine-grained (compared to coarser grained 

samples in the Outer Harbor). Metals such as zinc, lead, chromium, copper, arsenic and silver, 

and organic contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), and pesticides are found in elevated levels in fine-grained surface sediments deposited 

[8] since industrialization of the area in the Inner Harbor. 

Acoustic Environment 

Existing sound levels are typical of an urbanized area and include local traffic (Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority (MBTA) buses), mechanical equipment from the City of Boston building, 

Logan Airport departing and arriving aircraft, and Interstate 93. Although Massport is not subject to 

municipal ordinances, the City of Boston’s regulations [9] on construction sound levels state that 

operation of any construction devices, excluding impact devices, may not exceed 86 dBA during 

any time period. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has also established a policy 

(DEP Policy 90--001) for implementing noise regulations (310 CMR 7.10) if: 1) the source 

increases the broad band sound level by more than 10 dBA above ambient (normally defined as 

L90); or 2) the source produces a "pure tone" condition. 

Critical Habitat 

Although there are federally and state listed endangered species in Boston Harbor, the area has 

not been identified as critical habitat. [5] The area is not a state-designated Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: US Coast Guard (USCG) District 1 Headquarters and USCG Base 

Boston. Nearest Department of Defense (DoD) installations are the Hanscom Air Force Base (Air 

Force) about 15 mi NW and the Soldier Systems Center (Army) about 16 mi SW. [10] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

High and medium intensity developed land with residential area to the southwest of the Terminal. 

Terminal is just north of Pleasure Bay recreational areas, including Marine Park and Castle Island. 

The Terminal shares an approximately 600 foot wide channel with Cruiseport Boston and is less 

than a mile south of Logan Airport runways. [11] [12] 

Transportation About two miles from Interstates 90 and 93 and US highway 1. [12] 

Cultural & Historical Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: Fort Independence. [13] 

Over a dozen known shipwrecks to the east of the terminal and four to the west. [14] 

Visual 

Varied viewscape with residential and Pleasure Bay recreational areas to the south, industrial 

areas to the west, a cruise terminal to the north and open waters to the north and east. Six ship-toshore container cranes are positioned along the port berth. [11] [1] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOSTON 

Conley Terminal | Boston, Massachusetts | 42° 20’ 25” N, 71° 01’ 21” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Environmental 

Justice 

Total minorities: Suffolk County 52.3%; MA 24.3%. [15]
 

Low-income: Suffolk County 20.8%; MA 11.4%. [16]
 

Area surrounding port: census block groups in residential areas to the southwest of the Terminal
 

have less than 7% total minority population. The Terminal census block itself has over 40% total 

minority population. The percent of the population in poverty in the census block groups of the
 

Terminal and surrounding areas is less than 16%. [16]
 

Tourism & Recreation 

Recreational fishing reliance low in all surrounding communities. [18] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: No commercial fishing landings at the Terminal. Port of Boston 20.2 million 

pounds (US rank 63); MA 264.6 million pounds. [17] 

Commercial fishing engagement low in all the surrounding communities with the exception of 

Boston itself where it is high. [18] 

Commercial fishing reliance low in all surrounding communities. [19] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Suffolk County in 2010: 47,405. [19] 

Recreational fishing engagement low in all the surrounding communities with the exception of 

Boston itself where it is medium. [18] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

intergovernmental revenues 30.9%; charges 11.8 %; utility revenues 7.9 %. [22] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (not just Conley Terminal, Sep 12 – Oct 12, 

2015): 21-147. [20] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): high speed craft 30.0%, passenger boats 29.2%, tug 

boats 16.5%. [20] 

Population: Suffolk County 735,701. [15] 

Labor Force: Suffolk County 411,889; employed 389,822; unemployment rate 5.4%. [21] 

Main sources of fiscal revenues in MA Local Jurisdictions: property taxes 41.5%; 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Conley Terminal necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to 

primarily impact terrestrial and upland resources, with limited impact to marine resources. The area is already an active port in 

an industrialized setting with degraded water and sediment quality. The potential for reduction or loss of habitat (terrestrial and 

marine) exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. Noise 

associated with the port modifications identified above will not result in any significant noticeable increase in noise to the 

surrounding communities due to high local noise levels that presently exist. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of 

emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Road access to the 

port partially depends on local roads across residential areas. To the extent that construction materials are transported by 

truck, impacts to traffic may occur. Individual, port-specific air quality and noise analyses and monitoring would likely be 

required to assess any localized resulting from proposed modifications. Activities on the Reserved Channel shared with 

Cruiseport Boston would need to be coordinated to minimize interference with current activities. Because of engagement in 

commercial fishing in some communities, activities should be well coordinated to avoid use conflicts. No disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income communities are anticipated. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is partnering with Massport and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to conduct 

the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project, which will improve shipping channel depths to allow for a more efficient and 

safer flow of goods from Post-Panamax container ships as well as larger Cruise Line vessels. This project will deepen the 

North Entrance Channel from -45 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) to -51 feet MLW and the Main Channel from -40 feet MLW to ­

47 feet MLW, and will create a 50 foot deep berth at Conley Terminal. This project has already identified and assessed many 

of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with dredging the surrounding waterways. [8] 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 Conley Terminal, Massport. Port of Boston. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 10]. Available from: 

https://www.massport.com/port-of-boston/conley-terminal/. 

2	 Massport (Massachusetts Port Authority). 10-9-15 MASTER EBC 9th Annual Ocean Resource Management 

Conference - Update on Dredging in New England. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/285226011/10-9-15-MASTER-EBC-9th-Annual-Ocean-Resource-ManagementMarch 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

BOSTON
 Conley Terminal | Boston, Massachusetts | 42° 20’ 25” N, 71° 01’ 21” W 

Conference-Update-on-Dredging-in-New-England. 

3	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 

2015 October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

4	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' 

Jurisdiction. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

5	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

6	 MassDEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). Massachusetts Year 2012 Integrated List of 

Waters. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 19]. Available from: 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdls.htm. 

7	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

8	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Improvment Study Final Feasibility 

Report. 2013. Available from: 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/topics/BostonHarbor/DeepDraftFeasibilityStudy2013.pdf. 

9	 City of Boston Air Pollution Control Commission. Regulations for the Control of Noise in the City of Boston, City of 

Boston Air Pollution Control Commission. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 19]. Available from: 

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/noise_reg_tcm3-13127.pdf. 

10 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://militarybases.com/. 

11 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis 

(EVA) Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

12 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

13 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

14 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

15 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

16 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

17 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

18 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

19 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and 

Tourism Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. 

OCS Study BOEM 2012-085; 2012. 

20 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Boston. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available 

from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/131/USA_port:BOSTON. 

21 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

22 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

NEW BEDFORD 

Marine Commerce Terminal | New Bedford, Massachusetts | 41° 38’ 15” N, 70° 54’ 59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

NEW BEDFORD 

Marine Commerce Terminal | New Bedford, Massachusetts | 41° 38’ 15” N, 70° 54’ 59” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: City of New Bedford (City Agency) 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (State Agency) - Marine Commerce Terminal 

Operator: Harbor Development Commission (City Agency); Massachusetts Clean Energy 

Center (Quasi-public Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Fishing, Shipping, Recreational Boating, Cruises, Ferries 

& Excursion Boats 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM (Flexible) 

Terminal 28.45 acres 

Land Area: 

Shortest Distance to Wind 28.5 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Rhode Island/Massachusetts Lease Area – North 

Commercial Port Employment: Over 4,400 people [1] 

The Port of New Bedford is a deepwater, commercial port located at the mouth of the Acushnet River, and has direct access 

into Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean. It has three main operating areas: North Port Area, Central Port 

Area, and South Port Area. The Marine Commerce Terminal (also known as the South Terminal) is a separate terminal within 

the South Port Area constructed specifically to support the offshore wind industry’s construction staging needs. According to 

the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, the port has the capacity to support the construction of offshore wind energy 

projects. The Port’s facilities are located in New Bedford Harbor and are protected by a hurricane barrier that is operated and 

maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The port is considered a harbor of refuge for vessels in the 

region. 

New Bedford is the number one fishing port in the nation in term of landings value and generates economic activity in excess 

of $1 billion. In 2013, the 500 vessel fishing fleet landed more than 130 million pounds of products worth $379 million. [2] The 

Port is home to greater than 30 processors and distributors, ranging in size from high-volume international wholesale to 

small-scale local retail. [1] [3] 

New Bedford Harbor is one of the largest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund sites in the country. The Marine 

Commerce Terminal construction was done under the State Enhanced Remedy Authority and through coordination with and 

approval from EPA for sampling and removal methods of contaminated sediment. Construction of the terminal included 

navigational dredging, construction of confined aquatic disposal cells, and the creation/modification of mitigation areas. 

Capability Area Criteria (units) Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity (t/m2) 20 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) 20 

Access 

Port Access Channel Width 

(m) 36.6 Size of Storage Area (m2) 114,323 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 9.1 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) N/A 

Number of Berths 1 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth & 

Ramps (t/m2) N/A 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 20 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) No 

Quayside Length (m) 305 Crane Height Restrictions (m) 51.8 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking Yes Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD 

Marine Commerce Terminal | New Bedford, Massachusetts | 41° 38’ 15” N, 70° 54’ 59” W 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction Activity Land Clearing Drilling Fill Placement Fill Compaction Aggregate 

Dumping Paving 

Ro-Ro Capabilitya      

Cranesb  

a Provide Ro-Ro Capability; improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability 

Impact Producing Factors 

 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Noise  Visible infrastructure 

 Discharges  Species injury, mortality, displacement 

 Trash & debris  Space use conflicts 

 Traffic  Demand for local labor, goods, services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic Contaminated sediment conditions in New Bedford Harbor limit the benthic community. 

Fish & EFH 

The waters surrounding and including New Bedford Harbor are considered to be Important Fish 

Resource Areas and are classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Acushnet River serves as a migratory pathway for anadromous 

species such as river herring. [4] 

Air Quality 

New Bedford is located in the Metropolitan Providence Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) and is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria 

pollutants except ozone (O3). [5] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. There are 

no extensive wetland areas in the Port of New Bedford as the majority of the shoreline has been 

hardened to support water dependent uses. Small areas of wetlands are located behind the 

hurricane barrier, on Palmers Island, and other smaller islands and undeveloped areas within the 

harbor. [6] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The sei 

whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern US, was also identified as endangered. [7] 

The hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle and green sea turtle have been identified as either 

threatened or endangered in Bristol County. [8] Marine mammals (especially harbor seals) and sea 

turtles have been observed in the waters surrounding and including New Bedford Harbor; 

however, the area is not considered critical habitat. [9] [10] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover, which is listed as 

threatened, and roseate tern, which is listed as endangered, have been identified to potentially 

occur in Bristol county. [8] Areas around New Bedford Harbor are designated as core habitat for 

terns (Artic, common, and least), and sea ducks. [10] Waterfowl concentrations are at their highest 

by December, decreasing through March. [11] 

(Information on bats in this area is not readily available.) 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Military Use Areas Military installations near port: Sector Southeastern New England (Coast Guard), Air Station Cape 

Cod (Coast Guard). [15] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

High and medium intensity developed land with residential areas just west of the Marine 

Commerce Terminal, across JFK Memorial Highway. [16] [17] 

Transportation Access to east-west Interstate 195 and US Hwy 6 and to north-south state highways 140 and 18 

though local roads and the JFK Memorial Highway. [16] 

Places in the National Register of Historic Places near the Marine Commerce Terminal: Robert C. 

Ingraham School, Palmer Island Light Station. The New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park is 

crossed by state highway 18 to the north. The Butler Flats Light is west of the access channel. [16] 

[18] [19] [20] 

Six known shipwrecks to the east of the Marine Commerce Terminal (around Palmer Island). [21] 

NEW BEDFORD 

Marine Commerce Terminal | New Bedford, Massachusetts | 41° 38’ 15” N, 70° 54’ 59” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

New Bedford Harbor (Segment ID MA95-63) is listed as impaired according to the Massachusetts 

Year 2014 Integrated List of Waters. New Bedford Harbor is impaired for dissolved oxygen, 

estuarine bioassessments, fecal coliform, total nitrogen, other, and polychlorinated biphenyls 

Water Quality (PCBs) in fish tissue. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is currently needed for all 

impairments except fecal coliform. Surface waters in New Bedford Harbor are classified as “SB”, 

designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, including for their reproduction, 

migration, growth and other critical functions, and for primary and secondary contact recreation. [12] 

Currents & Tides 

Water circulation around the Port is influenced by an inflow from the Acushnet River as well as 

tides and wind. Maximum ebb and flood tide currents are under an average of 4.2 feet per 

second. The tidal range is 3.5 to 4.0 feet. [13] 

There are high levels of contamination throughout the sediments of the harbor that extend into 

Buzzards Bay, due to the historic discharge of wastes containing PCBs and toxic metals into New Sediment Deposition Bedford Harbor. This contamination led to New Bedford Harbor being designated as a Superfund 

Site. Since 2004, the EPA has been dredging to remove the PCBs in contaminated sediments. [14] 

Acoustic Environment The Port is currently an active port in an industrialized area. To fully assess the impacts of noise, a 

detailed noise and traffic study should be performed prior to modification. 

Buzzards Bay is classified as a Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuary; however, Buzzards Bay and 

New Bedford Harbor are not classified as Marine Managed Areas by NMFS. However, all of 

Critical Habitat Buzzards Bay and New Bedford Harbor south of I-95 are classified as priority Habitats of Rare 

Species. [10] Therefore, one or more federal or state threatened, endangered or species concern 

species may occur in this area. 

Cultural & Historical 

Visual Developed port areas to the north and south of the Marine Commerce Terminal. Residential areas 

to the west, across JFK Memorial Highway. [16] 

Total Minorities: Bristol County 14.7 %; MA 24.3%. [22] 

Environmental Low-Income: Bristol County 12.4%; MA 11.4%. [23] 

Justice Area surrounding port: Census block group where Marine Commerce Terminal is located and 

surrounding census block groups > 40% minority and > 25% individuals below poverty level. [24] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Recreational fishing reliance high in Bourne, Gosnold and Aquinnah. [23] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Port of New Bedford 129.8 million pounds (US rank 1); MA 264.6 million 

pounds. [2] 

Commercial fishing engagement high in New Bedford. [23] 

Commercial fishing reliance high in Gosnold and Chilmark. [23] 

As a result of the widespread PCB contamination and the accumulation of PCBs in marine biota, 

the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) established three fishing closure areas in 

New Bedford Harbor. Area I, which includes the Port of New Bedford, is closed to all fishing: 

including finfish, shellfish, and lobsters. 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Bristol County in 2010: 20,188. [25] 

Recreational fishing engagement high in Wareham, Bourne, Falmouth and Edgartown. [23] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

potential modifications may be streamlined or limited. [14]

 

 

NEW BEDFORD 

Marine Commerce Terminal | New Bedford, Massachusetts | 41° 38’ 15” N, 70° 54’ 59” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Aug 12 - Sept 11, 2015): 17-56. [26] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug boats 33.9%, fishing vessels 27.6%, high speed 

craft 23.4%. [26] 

Population: Bristol County 549,870. [27] 

Socioeconomic Labor force: Bristol County 288,918; employed 267,712; unemployment rate 7.3%. [28] 

Resources Main sources of fiscal revenues in MA Local Jurisdictions: property taxes 41.5%; 

intergovernmental revenues 30.9%; charges 11.8 %; utility revenues 7.9 %. [22] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of New Bedford necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to be 

limited to terrestrial and upland resources and, overall, have little impact on existing biological resources, as this area is 

already an active port in an industrialized setting with degraded water and sediment quality. The potential for reduction or loss 

of habitat (terrestrial) exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. 

Noise associated with the port modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels; however, 

day/night restrictions may be required for certain activities that have the potential to disturb surrounding sensitive 

communities. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well 

as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring would likely be 

required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. Any activity involving the dredging 

of sediments would likely need to be coordinated with the EPA remediation plan. However, there is no anticipated impact to 

sediments associated with the port modifications identified above. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts already identified 

and assessed many of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the Port of New Bedford site as part of the 

Superfund cleanup response associated with development of the Marine Commerce Terminal. Many design revisions and 

mitigation measures, including traffic impacts to residential neighborhoods, impacts to cultural resources, and conflicts from 

dredging with fishing, cargo, and recreational vessels have already been employed. No disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income communities are anticipated. Further NEPA review of any 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 Port of New Bedford. Port of New Bedford. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 1]. Available from: 

http://www.portofnewbedford.org/.
 

2	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

3	 New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.masscec.com/programs/marinecommerce-terminal-new-bedford. 

4	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

5	 AAPA (American Association of Port Authorities). Port Communities in Non-Attainment Areas for National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 9]. Available from: http://www.aapaports.org/Issues/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1278. 

6	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

7	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' 

Jurisdiction. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

8	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

9	 Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. Project History and Structure. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 9]. 

Available from: http://www.buzzardsbay.org/bbporgch.htm. 

10 MORIS (Massachusetts Ocean Resource Information System). Critical Habitat Designations. [Internet]. [cited 

2015 September 9]. Available from: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/program-areas/mapping-and-datamanagement/moris/. 

11 Harper D. Birds of New Bedford Harbor. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 9]. Available from: 

http://www.danielharper.org/yauu/articles/birds-of-new-bedford-harbor/. 

12 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

NEW BEDFORD
 Marine Commerce Terminal | New Bedford, Massachusetts | 41° 38’ 15” N, 70° 54’ 59” W 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

13 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 

2015 September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

14 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Final Determination for the South Terminal Project. [Internet]. 2012 

[cited 2015 July 9]. Available from: http://www.masscec.com/content/epa-documents. 

15 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://militarybases.com/. 

16 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

17 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis 

(EVA) Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

18 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

19 MHC (Massachusetts Historical Commission). Massachusetts Cultural Resources Information System (MACRIS). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://mhc-macris.net. 

20 NPS (National Park Service). New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.nps.gov/nebe/planyourvisit/upload/2015-NPS-NEBE-Self-Guided-tour-Map-Web.pdf. 

21 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

22 USCB (US Census Bureau). State and Local Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://www.census.gov/govs/local/. 

23 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

24 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

25 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and 

Tourism Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. 

OCS Study BOEM 2012-085; 2012. 

26 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of New Bedford. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/7378/USA_port:NEW%20BEDFORD. 

27 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

28 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

PROVIDENCE 

ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

PROVIDENCE 

ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: City of Providence (City Agency) 

Operator: Waterson Terminal Services (Private Corporation); ProvPort (Quasi-public Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping for International Bulk; Break Bulk; Cargo 

Primary Cargos Handled: Heavy Machinery; Petroleum; Cement; Chemicals; Scrap Metal [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: Fully secure, 24-hour monitored facility 

Port Land Area: Approximately 105 acres [2] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 38.7 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Rhode Island/Massachusetts Lease Area - North 

Commercial Port Employment: 2,400 people [2] 

ProvPort is a deepwater Port located on the Providence River at the head of Narragansett Bay. The Providence River is a 

tidal river formed by the junction of the Woonasquatucket and Moshassuck Rivers, which flow from northern Rhode Island. 

From this confluence, the Providence River flows southerly for 8 mi (12.9 km) before emptying into Narragansett Bay. The 

Providence ship channel is divided into an entrance channel and six reaches, ranging north to south from Fox Point to 

Rumstick Neck. 

The facility covers more than 105 acres and contains 1.1 thousand meters of berthing space that can serve up to six vessels 

at the same time. The federal government carried out a $63 million dredge project in the Providence River federal channel in 

2005 to bring the controlling depth to 40 feet, further supporting and expanding the capabilities of the Port. [3] The Port 

services New England and generates an estimated $200 million total economic impact on the region. [2] The Port of 

Providence is easily accessible to Interstate 95. It also contains three rail spurs that allow direct vessel-to-rail transfers, 

indoor rail, and alongside rail at the open lay-down area. The rail is connected to all major railroads offering service to 

anywhere in the US and Canada. 

Both operators, Waterson Terminal Services (WTS) and ProvPort, have invested time and money into improving the facility 

and adding cranes to support demand. WTS states on their website that they are willing to rent or purchase additional 

equipment for any project through coordination with their marketing department. [4] 

Deepwater Wind and General Electric are currently using the Port to assemble 6 MW offshore wind turbine components for 

the Block Island Wind Farm. 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 182.9 Size of Storage Area (m2) 42,000 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 12.2 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) 59.1 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U 

Number of Berths 27 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) U 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 144 

Quayside Length (m) U Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) Rail 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVIDENCE 

ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W 

U = Unknown 

Construction 

Activity Blasting Land Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Capabilitiesc      

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye      

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2

; Increase Quayside Length to 170 m; Make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

e Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Fox Point Reach, located immediately east of the Port, is known as a highly stressed environment 

with low abundance and diversity of benthic organisms. [5] Quahog are known to inhabit this area Benthic and further south in the Providence River; however, shellfishing in this area of the Providence River 

and Seekonk River is prohibited due to pollutants. [6] 

Fish & EFH The Providence River and the Seekonk River are classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). [7] 

Providence is located in the Metropolitan Providence Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 

and is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria Air Quality pollutants, except for ozone (O3). [8] The entire state of Rhode Island is designated a nonattainment zone for ozone. 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port of Providence is developed and provides limited wildlife 

habitat. Wildlife species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in 

this landscape include woodlands, forests, grasslands, shrublands, and intertidal shore. [9] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVIDENCE 

ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The sei 

whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern US, was also identified as endangered. [10] Other 

species commonly found in the waters of Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound and Rhode Island 

Sound that could potentially travel into the tidal river: pygmy sperm whale, common minke whale, 

long-finned pilot whale, harbor porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, short-beaked dolphin, shortbeaked common dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, harbor seal, gray seal, harp 

seal, hooded seal, leatherback sea turtle and loggerhead sea turtle. 

The hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and the green sea turtle have been identified as 

endangered or threatened in Providence county. [11] Additionally, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and the 

West Indian manatee are listed as endangered under the ESA and are commonly observed in 

Rhode Island waters. [12] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted and no listings were found for 

Providence county. [11] The upper Providence River provides relatively low quality habitat for birds 

because of its water depth, lack of forage items, and level of contamination. The area around the 

Port is highly developed and lacks sufficient intertidal and estuary settings for wading and nesting 

birds. The depth of the channel near the Port (approximately 12 m) is deeper than that typically 

inhabited by diving birds. Diving birds, such as scaup, are known to inhabit other areas of the 

Providence River that are shallower. They dive to about 7.6 m to feed on clams, other 

invertebrates, fish, and plants. [13] 

(Information on bats in this area not readily available.) 

The Providence River (Segment ID RI0007020E-01B), located to the east of ProvPort, is listed as 

impaired according to the State of Rhode Island 2012 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. The 

Providence River is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and nitrogen. [14] The water 

Water Quality quality of the Providence River is currently degraded by upstream industrial, residential, and 

commercial waste water treatment facility discharges and residential and commercial runoff. This 

portion of the River is classified as a Class SB1 water; designated for primary and secondary 

contact recreational activities and fish and wildlife habitat. [15] 

Currents & Tides The Providence River and Seekonk River are both tidal rivers and water circulation is influenced by 

tides and wind. The mean tidal range by the Port is 4.4 feet. [16] 

Sediment in this area adjacent to the Port is a mix of coarser-grained material such as sand, 

gravel, and cobble, as well as cohesive clay. [5] Studies show elevated levels of metals and 

Sediment Deposition petroleum hydrocarbons in the sediments of Providence River and Harbor. [17] The upper and mid 

regions of the Providence River are in a degraded state with respect to the ability of sediment to 

support biological populations due to high PCB levels. [18] 

Acoustic Environment 

Noise in the vicinity of the Terminal includes sounds typical of a marine terminal, including those 

generated by a variety of large vessels, including tankers, barges, and cargo. Rhode Island Air 

Quality Control Regulations regulates activities involving dust, odors, construction, noise, and 

motor vehicle emissions. [13] The areas along the upper Providence River, in the cities of 

Providence and East Providence, have relatively high levels of background noise, with the urban 

development and highway traffic in the area, as well as noise generated by large tankers and 

motorboats. [13] 

Critical Habitat 

Several marine mammal and sea turtle species listed as endangered or threatened have been 

observed in the waters of Narragansett Bay, but there are no Federally-listed or proposed 

threatened and/or endangered species known to occur in the area of the Port. 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: two military installations at Newport, RI, 25 mi south of Providence, 

at the entrance of the navigation channel. These are Naval Station Newport (Navy) and Station 

Castle Hill (Coast Guard). A third installation is a further southwest, Station Point Judith (Coast 

Guard). [19] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVIDENCE 

ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

High and medium intensity developed industrial land with the closest residential areas about a third Land Use & Existing of a mile southwest. Some undeveloped or developed open land exists across the channel in East Infrastructure Providence at distance of less than half a mile to the east. [20] [21] 

Environmental
 

Justice
 

low-income. [24] 

Transportation Half a mile from Interstate 95 with access to Interstates 195 and 295. Serviced by rail. [21] 

Cultural & Historical Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: none. 

Over ten known shipwrecks to the south of the port, two to the north. [22] 

Visual 

View from closest residential areas partially blocked by vegetation. View from I-95 includes three 

wind turbines in the industrial area. View from channel is of industrial landscape with storage tanks, 

wind turbines, and warehouses. [21] 

Total minorities: Providence County 34.5%; RI 24.3%. [23] 

Low-income: Providence County 17.1%; RI 13.6%. [23] 

Area surrounding port: census block group where port is located is over 20% total minority. 

Residential areas to the northwest of the port have over 75% minorities. Census tract including port 

and surrounding areas is over 16% low-income with residential areas to the northwest over 26% 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [25] 

Commercial fishing engagement is low in all surrounding communities. [26] 

Commercial fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [26] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Providence County in 2010: 34,042. [27]
 

Recreational fishing engagement is low in all surrounding communities except high in Warwick (to
 Tourism & Recreation the south) and medium in Barrington. [26]
 

Recreational fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [26]
 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 12 – Oct 12, 2015): 1-11. [28] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug boats 78%, tankers 13%. [28] 

Population: Providence County 627,469. [23] 

Socioeconomic Labor Force: Providence County 322,238; employed 295,871; unemployment rate 8.2%. [29] 

Resources Main Sources of fiscal revenues in RI local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 27.0%; 

charges 11.8 %; property taxes 54.8%; utility revenues 4.4%. [30] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the ProvPort necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to primarily impact 

terrestrial and upland resources, with limited impact to marine resources. The area is already an active port in an industrialized 

setting with degraded water and sediment quality. The potential for reduction or loss of habitat (terrestrial and marine) exists; 

however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with the 

port modifications identified above will not result in any significant noticeable increase in noise to the surrounding communities 

due to high local noise levels that presently exist. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, 

vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Road access to the port partially depends 

on local roads across residential and commercial areas. To the extent that construction materials are transported by truck, 

impacts to traffic may occur. Individual, port-specific air quality and noise analyses and monitoring would likely be required to 

assess any localized resulting from proposed modifications. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects to areas to the northwest of the port there may be disproportionately high impacts on low-income 

communities. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted an extensive river and harbor maintenance dredging project in the 

early 2000’s, involving the dredging in the channel to restore the authorized 40 foot channel depth and placement of 

contaminated dredged material in underwater Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) cells located directly under the federal 

channel. This project identified and assessed many of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with dredging 

the surrounding waterways. [13] 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVIDENCE
 ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 World Port Source. Port of Providence. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: 

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/review/USA_RI_Port_of_Providence_85.php. 

2	 ProvPort. ProvPort. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: http://www.provport.com/. 

3	 Providence Working Waterfront Alliance. Providence Working Waterfront. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 22]. Available 

from: http://providenceworkingwaterfront.org/. 

4	 Waterson Terminal Services. Port of Providence, Rhode Island. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://www.watersonllc.com/equipment/equipment_overview/. 

5	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Proposed Change to Ongoing Maintenance Dredging 

of the Providence River and Harbor Federal Navigation Project, Providence Rhode Island. Draft Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 2004. 

6	 RIDEM (State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). Notice of Polluted Shellfishing Ground 

May 2015. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: http://www.dem.ri.gov/maps/mapfile/shellfsh.pdf. 

7	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

8	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

9	 RIDEM (State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). Environmental Resource Map. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=b24d6c60ff3a4947a14fbd15a66390c6&extent=­

72.3519,41.0712,-70.6655,42.0922. 

10 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

11 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available 

from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

12 Kenney RD, Vigness-Raposa KJ. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles of Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound, Rhode 

Island Sound, and Nearby Waters: An Analysis of Existing Data for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area 

Management Plan. Technical Report. NOAA; 2010. Available from: 

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/pdf/appendix/10-Kenney-MM&T_reduced.pdf. 

13 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Providence River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging 

Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Concord, MA 2001. 

14 RIDEM (State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). State of Rhode Island 2012 303(d) List of 

Impaired Waters. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/303d/303d12.pdf. 

15 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

16 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides & Currents. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 22]. 

Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8454000. 

17 Coastal Resources Center. Providence Harbor: Special Area Management Plan. Coastal Resources Management 

Council; 1983. 

18 Latimer JS, LeBlanc LA, Ellis JT, Quinn JG. The Distribution of PCBs in Surface Sediments of Narragansett Bay, 

Rhode Island. Michigan: Lewis Publishers; 1991. p. 221-248. 

19 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

20 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

21 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

22 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

23 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

24 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

PROVIDENCE
 ProvPort | Providence, Rhode Island | 41° 47’ 48” N, 71° 23’ 21” W 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

25 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

26 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

27 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study 

BOEM 2012-085; 2012. 

28 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Providence. [Internet]. 2015 Available from: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/10241/USA_port:PROVIDENCE. 

29 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

30 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE 

Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE 

Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Quonset Development Corporation (Quasi-state Agency) 

Operator: Quonset Development Corporation (Quasi-state Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping 

Primary Cargos Handled: Autos, Frozen Seafood [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 7:00 AM – 3:30 PM Monday-Friday [2] 

Terminal Land Area: Approximately 58 acres [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 21.7 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Rhode Island/Massachusetts Lease Area - North 

Commercial Port Employment: Over 10,000 people [1] 

The Port of Davisville is a public port located near the mouth of the Narragansett Bay within the Quonset Business Park 

(QBP). The Quonset Business Park is over 3,200 acres in size and provides space for business, commerce, recreation, and 

open space use; with options for tenant expansion. 

Environmental remediation associated with Navy base closure at Davisville is ongoing. Land will continue to be transferred 

from the federal government to QDC once remediation is substantially complete. The Park has direct access to RI Route 4 

and I-95; intra-port rail service and direct on-dock rail; freight rail access to Class I carriers; easy access to major airports in 

Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; corporate aviation facilities available on-site; and the Port has direct 

intermodal connections. [1] 

The Port of Davisville offers four berths and five terminals with 46 acres of laydown and 13 acres of terminal storage. The 

Port is one of the top ten auto importers in North America as well as home to one of the largest producers of sea frozen fish 

on the East Coast. [1] In 2012, the Port invested approximately $30 million to improve its facilities and add a 150 MT mobile 

harbor crane. The Port is equipped to handle a variety of project cargoes and break bulk materials such as wind turbines and 

the associated equipment. The Port of Davisville also houses NOAA’s oceanic research vessel, Okeanos Explorer. 

The Port of Davisville was used for staging work for Deepwater Wind’s five turbine wind energy project off of Block Island, 

Rhode Island. Quonset will also host the project’s long-term operations and maintenance facility. [3] 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 152.4 Size of Storage Area (m2) 52,600 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 9.8 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) 59.1 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U 

Number of Berths 2 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro 

Berth & Ramps (t/m2) U 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 150 

Quayside Length (m) 366 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation 

Onshore Transportation 

Infrastructure (rail, highway, 

etc.) 

Rail; 

highway; 

air 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

U = Unknown 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE 

Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing Dredging Blasting 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Capabilitiesc     

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye      

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and Make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

e Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic Although Narragansett Bay supports a diverse benthic community, benthic conditions in the waters 

surrounding the dock are stressed and shellfishing is prohibited due to pollutants. [4] 

Fish & EFH 

Shellfish and finfish are abundant in the waters off Quonset/Davisville. Narragansett Bay is 

classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). [5] The 

general area supports both commercial and recreational fisheries, including: soft shelled clams, 

quahogs, flounder, scup, striped bass, bluefish, menhaden, lobster, and baitfish. 

Air Quality 

North Kingstown is located in the Metropolitan Providence Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) and is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for most 

criteria pollutants. [6] The entire state of Rhode Island is a non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone 

(O3) standard. 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding Quonset Point/Davisville is developed and provides limited wildlife 

habitat. Wildlife species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. There are open 

spaces and ecological communities to the north, south, and west of Quonset Point/Davisville within 

the QBP. These ecological communities include grasslands, shrublands, and forests. [7] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE 

Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Water Quality 

as Type 6. Type 6 waters are industrial waterfronts and commercial navigation channels. [13] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover, which is listed as 

threatened, and roseate tern, which is listed as endangered, have been identified to potentially 

occur in Washington county. The waters adjacent to Quonset Point provide foraging habitat for 

wintering ducks, including common eider, scoter species, scaup species, American black duck, 

bufflehead, goldeneye, and merganser species; brant, longtailed duck, and harlequin duck may 

also occur during the winter. During the summer, gulls and terns may occur in waters adjacent to 

Quonset Point. [11] Hope Island located in the Bay adjacent to the Quonset serves as a designated 

bird sanctuary. 

(Information on bats in this area not readily available.) 

The portion of the Narragansett Bay, located to the east of Quonset Point/Davisville, is not listed 

as an impaired waterbody according to the State of Rhode Island 2012 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters. [12] Bay waters in the Quonset area are classified by the Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management (RIDEM) as SA, suitable for shellfishing and water contact recreation. 

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council classifies the waters around the Port 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The sei 

whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern US, was also identified as endangered. [8] Other 

species commonly found in the waters of Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound and Rhode Island 

Sound that could potentially travel into the tidal river: pygmy sperm whale, common minke whale, 

long-finned pilot whale, harbor porpoise, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, short-beaked dolphin, shortbeaked common dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, harbor seal, gray seal, harp 

seal, hooded seal, leatherback sea turtle and loggerhead sea turtle. 

The hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and the green sea turtle have been identified as 

endangered or threatened in Washington county. [9] Additionally, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and the 

West Indian manatee are listed as endangered under the ESA and are commonly observed in 

Rhode Island waters. [10] 

Currents & Tides The Port is located near the mouth of Narragansett Bay and is influenced by tidal flow and wind. 

The mean tidal range in this area is 3.71 feet. [14] 

Tidal currents in the area are relatively strong as a result of water circulation and wind speed; 

resulting low sediment accumulation rates. Silt covers most of the seabed surface in the vicinity of 

Sediment Deposition the Port, with pockets of sand in specific locations. Sediments in the vicinity of the Davisville and 

Quonset piers contained elevated mercury, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and DTT (formally 

known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) concentrations. [15] 

Acoustic Environment 

The Terminal is located adjacent to the Quonset State Airport, which is a significant source of 

noise to the area. [13] Ambient noise levels on-site and construction-related noise levels are 

regulated by Rhode Island Air Quality Control Regulations. 

Several marine mammal and sea turtle species listed as endangered or threatened have been 

observed in the waters of Narragansett Bay, but the area is not listed as critical habitat. According Critical Habitat to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, no federally listed threatened or endangered species are 

known to exist in the vicinity. There are two state-listed threatened species of birds. [13] 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: RI Air National Guard operates out of Quonset State Airport; two 

military installations at Newport, RI, 12 mi south of Quonset Point, at the entrance of the navigation 

channel. These are Naval Station Newport (Navy) and Station Castle Hill (Coast Guard). A third 

installation is a little further southwest, Station Point Judith (Coast Guard). [16] 

High and medium intensity developed industrial land. Undeveloped lands and a marina to the north Land Use & Existing and northwest, and Quonset State Airport, a former navy base, to the south. The closest Infrastructure residential areas are low density just over a mile to the west. [17] [18] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE 

Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Transportation Access through Davisville Rd and state routes to US highway 1 and Interstates 95 and 295. Intraport rail service and dockside rail. [18] [1] 

Cultural & Historical Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: none. 

Two known shipwrecks just east of the port. [19] 

Visual 

Viewscape characterized by large open container and automobile lots with a few warehouses up to 

two or three stories high. No tall structures. One mobile crane. Area surrounding developed port 

area and airport area is low density residential interspersed with vegetation. [18] 

Total minorities: Washington County 8.0%; RI 24.3%. [20] 

Low-income: Washington County 8.9%; RI 13.6%. [20] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: census block group where port is located is over 40% total minority and is Justice surrounded by blog groups with less than 20% of minorities. Census tract including port and 

surrounding areas is over 10% low-income. [21] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Port of North Kingstown 21.7 million pounds (US rank 83); RI 90.0 million 

pounds. [22] 

Commercial fishing engagement is high in North Kingstown and low in other surrounding 

communities. [23] 

Commercial fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [23] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Washington County in 2010: 6,834. [24] 

Recreational fishing engagement is low North Kingstown but high in surrounding communities of 

Warwick, Portsmouth, and Jamestown. [23] 

Recreational fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [23] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Davisville, Sep 12 – Oct 12, 2015): 4-57. [25] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug boats 46%, fishing vessels 17%, high speed craft 

12%. [25] 

Population: Washington County 126,627. [20] 

Socioeconomic Labor Force: Washington County 69,539; employed 64,675; unemployment rate 7.0%. [26] 

Resources Main Sources of fiscal revenues in RI local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 27.0%; 

charges 11.8 %; property taxes 54.8%; utility revenues 4.4%. [27] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Quonset Point/Port of Davisville necessary to support offshore wind development are 

anticipated to occur primarily in terrestrial and upland areas, with minimal impact to marine resources. Overall, potential port 

modifications will have little impact on existing biological resources, as this area is already an active port classified as an 

industrialized waterfront along a commercial navigational channel with degraded sediment quality. The potential for reduction 

or loss of habitat (terrestrial) exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of 

organisms. Noise associated with the port modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels. Air 

quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from 

earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring would likely be required to assess any 

localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. The addition of cranes may provide visual contrast with the 

overall low height of structures at the Port and could potentially interfere with airspace for the Quonset State Airport, located 

adjacent to the south of the Port, requiring coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Because of engagement 

in commercial fishing in some communities, activities should be well coordinated to avoid use conflicts. To the extent that high 

and adverse human health or environmental impacts occur, minority and low-income populations may be disproportionately 

affected. 

QDC has already identified and assessed many of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the Port of Davisville site 

as part of the Base Redevelopment Plan and environmental remediation associated with Navy base closure at 

Quonset/Davisville that is ongoing. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE
 Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 QBP (Quonset Business Park). Quonset Business Park. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 20]. Available from: 

http://www.quonset.com/. 

2	 Port of Davisville, Quonset Development Corporation. Rules and Regulations for the Use of the Port of Davisville, 

Rhode Island, USA Marine Terminals and Associated Facilities. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 10]. Available 

from: http://www.quonset.com/_resources/common/userfiles/file/Port%20of%20Davisville/PoD%20Rules.pdf. 

3	 Deepwater Wind. Block Island Wind Farm Caps Off Successful First Offshore Construction Season. [Internet]. 2015 

[cited 2016 January 5]. Available from: http://dwwind.com/press/block-island-wind-farm-caps-off-successful-firstoffshore-construction-season/. 

4	 RIDEM (State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). Notice of Polluted Shellfishing Ground May 

2015. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: http://www.dem.ri.gov/maps/mapfile/shellfsh.pdf. 

5	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

6	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

7	 RIDEM (State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). Environmental Resource Map. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=b24d6c60ff3a4947a14fbd15a66390c6&extent=­

72.3519,41.0712,-70.6655,42.0922. 

8	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

9	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available 

from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

10 Kenney RD, Vigness-Raposa KJ. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles of Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound, Rhode 

Island Sound, and Nearby Waters: An Analysis of Existing Data for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management 

Plan. Technical Report. NOAA; 2010. Available from: http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/pdf/appendix/10-KenneyMM&T_reduced.pdf. 

11 Tetra Tech EC I. Block Island Wind Farm and Block Island Transmission System Environmental Report. 2012. 

12 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

13 The Louis Berger Group. Quonset State Airport Master Plan Update. Rhode Island Airport Corporation; 2014. Available 

from: http://www.pvdairport.com/documents/corporate/oqu-masterplan/oqu-ampu-report-chapters.pdf. 

14 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides & Currents. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 22]. 

Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datums.html?id=8454538. 

15 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. & Maguire Group, Inc. Quonset Davisville Port and Commerce Park Master Plan. 

Prepared for the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation; 2003. 

16 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

17 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

18 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

19 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html.
 

20 US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

21 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

22 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

23 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

24 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE
 Port of Davisville | North Kingstown, Rhode Island | 41° 36’ 45” N, 71° 24’ 19” W 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-085; 2012. 

25 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Davisville. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 September 10]. Available 

from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/665/USA_port:DAVISVILLE. 

26 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

27 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

NEW LONDON 

State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

NEW LONDON
 State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Connecticut Department of Transportation (State Agency) 

Operator: Logistec Stevedoring Inc. (Private Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping, Military Vessels, Shipbuilding, Fishing, Ferries, Cruises 

Primary Cargos Handled: Lumber; Steel Products; and other Neo-bulk Products (pre-packaged products) [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday-Friday [2] 

State Pier Facility Land Area: 35 acres [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 44.1 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Rhode Island/Massachusetts Lease Area - North 

Commercial Port Employment: Not available 

State Pier is located in New London, Connecticut approximately 3 miles upriver from the mouth of the Thames River. [3] The 

State Pier Facility is comprised of two main finger pier structures: the Admiral Harold E. Shear State Pier and Long Dock. 

Both piers have aprons and are equipped with direct on dock rail connecting them to upland warehouses and the New 

England Central Railroad (NECR) interchange to serve state, regional, and national locations. [3] In addition to the NECR, the 

Facility is connected to the Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor tracks and Interstate 95. [1] This facility has a high degree of flexibility 

and can be adapted for various marine activities and operations. [1] 

The Thames River is an important harbor of refuge. Vessels of deep draft can find anchorage here in any weather and at all 

seasons. The main harbor includes Shaw Cove, Greens Harbor, and Winthrop Cove. New London Coast Guard Station and 

Fort Trumbull State Park are located on the west side of the main channel northward of Greens Harbor. The Thames River is 

also home to the General Dynamics submarine construction facility, the Naval Submarine Base New London (which is 

physically located in the Towns of Groton and Ledyard), and the US Coast Guard Academy. Groton and New London are 

known as the “Submarine Capital of the World”. America’s tall ship, the US Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Eagle, is 

homeported in New London. Year-round passenger and vehicle ferry services to Fishers Island, NY; Block Island, RI; and 

Orient Point (Long Island), NY are based in downtown New London. 

The Thames River has more than 30 wharves and piers. Most of these facilities are used as repair berths, and for mooring 

recreational craft, fishing vessels, barges, ferries, and government vessels. Depths alongside these facilities range from 10 to 

40 feet. New London is also a customs port of entry. 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 152.4 Size of Storage Area (m2) 141,600 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 10.6 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) N/A 

Number of Berths 2 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) N/A 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) 4.8 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) U 

Quayside Length (m) 305 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

U = Unknown 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW LONDON 

State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving Dredging Aggregate Dumping 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Construction 

of Storage 

Structure 

Quayside 

Capabilitiesa      

Ro-Ro 

Capabilityb      

Storage 

Capabilitiesc      

Cranesd     

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2

; make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking b Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

c Increase Storage Area to 25,000 m2

; Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

d Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

There are several areas in the Thames River that contain oyster beds and hardshell clam beds, 

which are leased to shellfisherman. However, the entire area is closed to shellfishing due to high Benthic coliform levels. The shellfish may be taken to cleaner waters to reside so that any bacteria which 

may accumulate in the shellfish are purged. [4] 

Fish & EFH 

The Thames River and Long Island Sound are classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). [5] The river is also utilized by resident and migratory 

fish as a feeding, spawning and nursery area and is an area of intense recreational fishing. Fish 

such as winter flounder, tomcod, windowpane flounder, mummichog, striped killifish, menhaden, 

bluefish, striped bass, mackerel, tautog, weakfish, porgy, whiting, and herring are examples of 

species that occur in the river at New London. [4] 

Air Quality 

New London is located in the Eastern Connecticut Intrastate Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) and is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria 

pollutants, except ozone (O3). The entire state of Connecticut is classified as non-attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. The county is classified as “marginal,” which is the lowest of the 

classifications for ozone and requires fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning 

and control requirements. [6] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this landscape 

include scattered wetlands. [7] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW LONDON 

State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The sei 

whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern US, was also identified as endangered. In Long 

Island Sound, several types of whales have been seen including; fin whale, humpback whale, 

minke whale and sperm whale. Additional marine mammals that have been seen in Long Island 

Sound include; gray seals, harbor seals, harp seals and hooded seals. [8] 

Three sea turtles have been identified as endangered or threatened in New London county 

including; hawksbill, leatherback and green sea turtles. The green sea turtle, leatherback sea 

turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, and the loggerhead sea turtle have been observed in Long Island 

Sound. Therefore, there is the possibility of these animals traveling into the Thames River. [9] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover, which is listed as 

threatened, and roseate tern, which is listed as endangered, have been identified to potentially 

occur in New London county. [9] Fishers Island, located approximately 8 miles southeast of New 

London, hosts both resident and migratory bird populations. [10] [11] Although no site specific bat 

information was found it is documented that bat populations in southern Connecticut are drastically 

declining due to white-nose syndrome. [12] 

The mouth of the Thames River (Segment ID CT-E1_014-SB), located southeast of the State Pier 

Facility, is listed as impaired according to the 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated Water Quality 

Report. The mouth of the Thames River is impaired due to dissolved oxygen and estuarine 

bioassessments. The middle segment of the Thames River (Segment ID CT-E1_015-SB), located 

north of the State Pier Facility, is also listed as impaired due to dissolved oxygen, estuarine Water Quality bioassessments, and fecal coliform. [13] [14] 

The Thames River has been classified as an SB surface water resource. Designated uses of Class 

SB surface waters include habitat for marine fish and aquatic life and wildlife; commercial shellfish 

harvesting; recreational use; industrial water supply; and navigation. [15] 

Currents & Tides 

Water circulation around the Port is influenced by primarily by tidal flow and wind with some 

influence from inflow from the upper portions of the Thames River. The mean tidal range in the 

Port vicinity is 2.56 ft. [16] 

Sediment Deposition 

Silts and clayey silts dominate the federal channel and the deep water areas of the river adjacent 

to the channel. Slightly coarser sandy silts occur in the shallower areas within the Thames River. [17] 

Acoustic Environment 

Noise is regulated in the city via police patrol, as required by the New London Code and the 

Zoning Regulations. These ordinances authorize the control of sound amplifying devices, 

construction activities, and all other operations that may be viewed as a nuisance to neighboring 

properties or the general public. Motor vehicles and railroad noise are considered to be principal 

sources of noise. [15] 

Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been identified in the vicinity of the Port. The Port was not identified as 

having state and federal listed species and significant natural communities present. [18] 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near the State Pier Facility: three military installation in New London and 

Groton, CT, bordering the Thames River. The United States Coast Guard Academy is less than 1 

mile north of the port. The New London Submarine Base (Navy) and Marine Safety lab (Coast 

Guard) are 2 miles north of the port. Coast Guard Station New London and the Coast Guard 

Research and Development Center are located approximately 1 mile south of State Pier. [19] 

Vessel transits in the Thames River are restricted when Navy submarines are underway in the 

river. 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Port of New London 4.9 million pounds (US rank 101); CT 8.0 million 

pounds. [26] 

Commercial fishing engagement medium in New London and low in Groton. [27] 

Commercial fishing reliance low in surrounding communities. [27] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in New London County in 2010: 10,312. [28] 

Recreational fishing engagement high in New London and Groton. [27] 

Recreational fishing reliance low in surrounding communities. [27] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sept 13 – Oct 13, 2015): 40-76. [29] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): passenger 84.6%, tug boats 5.2%, other 3.3%. [29] 

Population: New London County 274,090. [24] 

Labor Force: New London County 137,254; employed 128,000; unemployment rate 6.7%. [30] 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in CT local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 29.7%; 

charges 8.5 %; property taxes 55.1%; utility revenues 4.5%. [31] 

NEW LONDON 

State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial and residential areas surrounding the 

Land Use & Existing port in all directions. On the western boarder of the port is the Winthrop Cove Park (several acres 

Infrastructure in area). To the north is the Gold Star Memorial Bridge. Residences as well as commercial and 

industrial areas occupy the eastern (opposite) shore of the Thames River. [20] [21] 

Transportation Access to Interstate 95 and US highway 1 just north of the terminal and to State Route 641 to the 

west. Rail service to the terminal, including on dock rail. [21] 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 39 properties listed in the city 

of New London, many of which are in the vicinity of the port. The New London’s Downton Historic Cultural & Historical District is just southwest of the port. [22]
 

Two shipwrecks just north of the port. [23]
 

Visual Varied viewscapes with some industrial development along the western shore of the Thames River 

and residences and commercial/industrial areas along the eastern shore. [21] 

Total minorities: New London County 22.3%; CT 29.5%. [24] 

Low-income: New London County 8.7%; CT 10.2%. [24] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: Census block group encompassing the port has highest rate of total Justice minority population (> 75%) and the census tract encompassing the port and bordering tracts to 

the north and west of the port have highest share of individuals below poverty level (> 26 %). [25] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the State Pier Facility necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to 

primarily impact terrestrial and upland resources, with limited impact to marine resources. The area is an active port in an 

urban setting with degraded water and sediment quality. The potential for reduction or loss of habitat (terrestrial and marine) 

exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with 

the port modifications identified above will not result in any significant noticeable increase in noise to the surrounding 

communities due to high local noise levels that presently exist. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from 

vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. 

Road access to the port depends largely on State Route 641 which crosses commercial and residential areas, as well as 

historic districts to the west of the port. To the extent that construction materials are transported by truck, impacts to traffic may 

occur. Cranes may produce visual impacts against some viewscapes. To the extent that there are high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects to areas surrounding the port there may be disproportionately high impacts on low-income 

communities. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Navy have conducted regular maintenance dredging of the lower 

Thames River, in which many environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with dredging have been identified and 

assessed. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

NEW LONDON 

State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 

1	 Milone & MacBroom. State Pier Needs and Deficiencies Planning Study: New London, Connecticut. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 

2015 October 19]. Available from: 

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/MajorProjectUpdates/FINAL_DRAFT_REPORTMarch2011.pdf. 

2	 CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). Locate a Port of Entry. [Internet]. [cited 2015 December 10]. Available from: 

http://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports. 

3	 CT Port Authority Working Group. City of New London Port Summary. 2014. 

4	 New London Planning and Development Commission. Plan of Conservation & Development for the City of New London, 

Connecticut. 2007. Available from: http://www.ci.newlondon.ct.us/filestorage/7495/7518/7664/8618/7685/Combined_PODC_02_09_09.pdf. 

5	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

6	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

7	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

8	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

9	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

10	 Sargent A. For the Birds - Islanders Join National Migratory Bird Count. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 29]. Available from: 

http://fishersisland.net/birds-islanders-join-national-migratory-bird-count/. 

11	 Long Island Sound Study. Fishers Island. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 29]. Available from: 

http://longislandsoundstudy.net/2012/07/fishers-island-coastline/. 

12	 Wisniewski CD. The Past, Present and Future of White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. Southern Connecticut State University, 

Department of Biology; 2015. Available from: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150628/scsu-science-teamworking-to-save-connecticuts-bats-from-extinction. 

13	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

14	 CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection). 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated Water 

Quality Report. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water/water_quality_management/305b/2014_iwqr_305b_303d_final.pdf. 

15	 Milone & MacBroom. Environmental Impact Analysis National Coast Guard Museum Pedestrian Overpass. New London, 

CT: Department of Economic & Community Development; 2014. MMI #2247-06. 

16	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

17	 Poppe, L.J., Robinson, A.C., Blackwood, Dann Lewis, R.S., and Cohen-DiGiacomo, M.L. The distribution of surficial 

sediments in New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, and the New Haven Dumping Grounds, north-central Long Island Sound. 

USGS; 1998. Open-File Report 98-217. 

18	 CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection). Endangered Species Maps. [Internet]. 2015 

[cited 2015 October 20]. Available from: http://www.depdata.ct.gov/naturalresources/endangeredspecies/nddbpdfs.asp. 

19	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

20	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

21	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

22	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

23	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

24	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

25	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

NEW LONDON
 State Pier Facility | New London, Connecticut | 41° 21’ 35” N, 72° 05’ 30” W 

26	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

27	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

28	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-085; 2012. 

29	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of New London. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 September 10]. Available 

from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/662/USA_port:NEW%20LONDON. 

30	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

31	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

NEW HAVEN 

Gateway Terminal | New Haven, Connecticut | 41° 17’ 40” N, 72° 54’ 21” W59” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

NEW HAVEN 

Gateway Terminal | New Haven, Connecticut | 41° 17’ 40” N, 72° 54’ 21” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Connecticut Port Authority (Quasi-public Agency) except Gateway Terminal (Private 

Corporation) 

Operator: Gateway Terminal (Private Corporation) 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping 

Primary Cargos Handled: Petroleum Products; General Bulk; Cargo; Scrap Metal; Metallic Products; Cement; 

Sand; Stone; Salt; Break Bulk; Project Cargo [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday-Friday [2] 

Terminal Land Area: 8.9 acres [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 86.4 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Rhode Island/Massachusetts Lease Area - South 

Commercial Port Employment: Not available 

The Port of New Haven is a deepwater, commercial shipping port located in New Haven Harbor on the Connecticut shoreline 

of Long Island Sound. [1] [3] New Haven Harbor extends for five miles from Long Island Sound to New Haven in the inner 

harbor. West Haven and East Haven lie on either side of the outer harbor. Principal rivers flowing into the harbor are the 

Quinnipiac River to the northeast, the Mill River to the north, and the West River to the west. Three breakwaters shelter the 

harbor entrance. New Haven is a highly urbanized environment and land use around the port facilities in the harbor is 

predominantly industrial. 

The Port of New Haven is the highest volume commercial shipping port on Long Island Sound and is considered the busiest 

port between Boston and New York City. [1] There are five terminals within the Port of New Haven. The 366 acre port district is 

primarily comprised of a cluster of privately owned facilities that handle petroleum products, general bulk, cargo, scrap metal, 

metallic products, cement, sand, stone, salt, break bulk and project cargo. The Port of New Haven is strategically located at 

the junction of Interstates 95 and 91 with access to freight rail service for the movement of cargo. With a federally authorized 

channel depth of 35 feet and a width of 400 to 800 feet, New Haven Harbor can accommodate ships ranging from 20,000 to 

40,000 deadweight tons. There are five shore cranes, capable of supporting up to 250 tons. [4] 

Gateway Terminal is an 8.9 acre, privately owned marine terminal that handles various types of dry and liquid bulk and breakbulk cargoes, and has over 60 acres of storage area. [3] 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Y Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 121.9 Size of Storage Area (m2) 36,000 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 10.7 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) N/A 

Number of Berths 12 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) N/A 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 250 

Quayside Length (m) 228 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

U = Unknown 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW HAVEN 

Gateway Terminal | New Haven, Connecticut | 41° 17’ 40” N, 72° 54’ 21” W 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving Utility Tower Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Dredging Aggregate 

Dumping 

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitya      

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Capabilitiesc      

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic 

Low species abundance and diversity are seen in areas where macroalgae is present. These 

macroalgae communities negatively affect small worms, crustaceans, oysters, and large bivalves 

which are found in the harbor. [5] 

Fish & EFH 

New Haven Harbor and the Quinnipiac River are classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Quinnipiac River serves as a migratory pathway 

for anadromous species such as alewife, American shad, and blueback herring. [6] [7] 

Air Quality 

New Haven is located in the Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) and is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria 

pollutants, except ozone (O3). The entire state of Connecticut is classified as non-attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. The county is classified as “marginal,” which is the lowest of the 

classifications for ozone, requiring fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and 

control requirements than those with higher classifications. [8] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this landscape 

are limited to small wetlands. [9] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currents & Tides Water circulation around the Port is influenced by an inflow from the Quinnipiac River and Mill 

River as well as tides and wind. The mean tidal range around the Port is 6.14 ft. [16] 

Sediment Deposition 

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals have been detected in the sediment composites 

with a general trend of increasing concentrations occurred from outer to inner harbor locations. 

Sediment in the harbor is predominantly silt material. [17] 

Acoustic Environment 

(Information on acoustic environment not readily available). Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (ConnDOT) noise construction standards state that the maximum allowable level of 

noise at the nearest residence or occupied building should not exceed 90 decibels on the "A" 

weighted scale (dBA). 

No critical habitat has been identified in the vicinity of the Port. The Port was not identified as 

having state and federal listed species and significant natural communities present. However, 

lands across the harbor, to the south, and to the north of the Port have been identified as having 

state and federal listed species and significant natural communities present. [18] [19] 

NEW HAVEN 

Gateway Terminal | New Haven, Connecticut | 41° 17’ 40” N, 72° 54’ 21” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover, which is listed as 

threatened, and roseate tern, which is listed as endangered, have been identified to potentially 

occur in New Haven county. [11] Piping plovers have been observed at Sandy Point, approximately 

3 miles southwest of the Port of New Haven. Primary tern staging areas and habitats for migrating 

shorebirds have also been identified. Although no site specific bat information was found it is 

documented that bat populations in southern Connecticut are drastically declining due to whitenose syndrome. [12] [13] 

New Haven Harbor (Segment ID CT-C1_013-SB), located west of the Port of New Haven, is listed 

as impaired according to the 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated Water Quality Report. New 

Haven Harbor is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, Enterococcus, fecal coliform, eutrophication 

biological indicators, oil and grease, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The mouth of the Water Quality Quinnipiac River (Segment ID CT-C1_014-SB), located north of the Port of New Haven and I-95, is 

also listed as impaired according to the 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated Water Quality 

Report. The Quinnipiac River is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, Enterococcus, eutrophication 

biological indicators, oil and grease, and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). [14] [15] 

Critical Habitat 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The sei 

whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern U.S., was also identified as endangered. In Long 

Island Sound, south of New Haven Harbor several types of whales have been seen including; fin 

whale, humpback whale, minke whale and sperm whale. Additional marine mammals that have 

been seen in Long Island Sound include; gray seals, harbor seals, harp seals and hooded seals. [10] 

Three sea turtles have been identified as endangered or threatened in New Haven county 

including; hawksbill, leatherback and green sea turtles. The green sea turtle, leatherback sea 

turtles, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and the loggerhead sea turtle have been observed in Long Island 

Sound. Therefore, there is the possibility of these animals traveling into the Harbor. [11] 

Cultural & Historical 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: Sector Long Island Sound/Station New Haven (Coast Guard). 

Nearby military installations are the Coast Guard Academy (Coast Guard) and the New London 

Submarine Base (Navy), both about 42 miles east. West Point Military Academy (Army) is about 

55 mi northwest. [20] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial and residential areas to the immediate 

east of the port along I-95. Some open land (East Shore Park near the entrance to the harbor) 

south of the terminal and some forested lands to the northeast, across I-95. [21] 

Transportation Access to Interstate 95 and US highway 1. Train service from the north and south. [21] 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 65 properties or districts in the 

city of New Haven, although not particularly in the port area. [22] 

Two known shipwrecks west of the port. [23] 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW HAVEN 

Gateway Terminal | New Haven, Connecticut | 41° 17’ 40” N, 72° 54’ 21” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Visual 

Industrial viewscape at port. View from the closest residential areas partially blocked by 

vegetation. View from Interstate 95 and across the channel characterized by large storage 

containers, tanks, warehouses, and several large cranes. [21] 

Total minorities: New Haven County 33.3%; CT 29.5%. [24] 

Low-income: New Haven County 12.4%; CT 10.2%. [24] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: Census block group to the west and northwest of the port has highest rate Justice of total minority population (> 75%) and to the west of the port the highest share of individuals 

below poverty level (> 26 %). [25] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [26] 

Commercial fishing engagement in surrounding communities is low. [27] 

Commercial fishing reliance high in surrounding communities is low. [27] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in New Haven County in 2010: 25,979. [28] 

Recreational fishing engagement high in surrounding communities is low. [27] 

Recreational fishing reliance high in surrounding communities is low. [27] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 13 - Oct 13, 2015): 6-23. [29] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug boats 90%. [29] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Population: New Haven County 862,611. [24] 

Labor Force: New Haven County 455,537; employed 422,625; unemployment rate 7.2%. [30] 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in CT local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 29.7%; 

charges 8.5 %; property taxes 55.1%; utility revenues 4.5%. [31] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of New Haven necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to 

primarily impact terrestrial and upland resources, with limited impact to marine resources. The area is an active port in an 

urban setting with degraded water and sediment quality. The potential for reduction or loss of habitat (terrestrial and marine) 

exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with 

the port modifications identified above will not result in any significant noticeable increase in noise to the surrounding 

communities due to high local noise levels that presently exist. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from 

vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. The Port of New Haven is 

strategically located at the junction of Interstates 95 and 91 with access to freight rail service; thereby, minimizing any traffic 

impacts on local roadways. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or environmental effects to areas to 

the west or northwest of the port there may be disproportionately high impacts on low-income communities. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has conducted regular maintenance dredging of New Haven Harbor, in which 

many environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with dredging have been identified and assessed. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 Port Authority, City of New Haven. The Port of New Haven. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 19]. Available from: 

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/PortAuthority/AboutPNH.asp. 

2	 CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). Locate a Port of Entry. [Internet]. [cited 2015 December 10]. Available 

from: http://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports. 

3	 Gateway Terminal. Gateway Terminal - Gateway to the Northeast. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 19]. Available from: 

http://www.gatewayt.com/. 

4	 ConnDOT (Connecticut Department of Transportation). Connecticut ports - Port of New Haven. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 

2015 Oct 28]. Available from: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=1380&q=259730. 

5	 Zajac R,AM. Drift Algae in New Haven Harbor and Impacts on Benthic Communities. Report to the Quinnipiac River 

Fund, New Haven Foundation; 2015. Available from: 

http://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=biology-facpubs. 

6	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW HAVEN 

Gateway Terminal | New Haven, Connecticut | 41° 17’ 40” N, 72° 54’ 21” W 

7	 Fuss & O'Neill. Quinnipiac River Watershed Based Plan. December 2013. Available from: 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water/watershed_management/wm_plans/quinnipiac/quinnipiac_river_finalwbp.pdf. 

8	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

9	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

10	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

11	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available 

from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

12	 Connecticut Audubon. Sandy Point. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://ct.audubon.org/sandy-point. 

13	 Wisniewski CD. The Past, Present and Future of White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. Southern Connecticut State University, 

Department of Biology; 2015. Available from: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150628/scsu-science-teamworking-to-save-connecticuts-bats-from-extinction. 

14	 CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection). 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated Water 

Quality Report. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water/water_quality_management/305b/2014_iwqr_305b_303d_final.pdf. 

15	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

16	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

17	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Long Island Sound Dredged Material Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement - Draft. Concord, MA 2015. Available from: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/Topics/LISDMMP/LIS-DMMP-Main-Report-PRDraft-August2015.pdf. 

18	 Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online. Connecticut's Critical Habitats and Open Space. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 

2015 October 23]. Available from: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a1bf59798c5b45a98aeaeb97dafd60b9. 

19	 CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection). Endangered Species Maps. [Internet]. 2015 

[cited 2015 October 23]. Available from: 

http://www.depdata.ct.gov/naturalresources/endangeredspecies/nddbpdfs.asp?nddbsel=15. 

20	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

21	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

22	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

23	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html 

24	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

25	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

26	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

27	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

28	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-085; 2012. 

29	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of New Haven. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 September 2015]. 

Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/21154/USA_port:NEW%20HAVEN. 

30	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

31	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

BRIDGEPORT 

Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

BRIDGEPORT 

Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Bridgeport Port Authority/Connecticut Port Authority (Quasi-public Agency) 

Operator: Bridgeport Port Authority/Connecticut Port Authority (Quasi-public Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping, Ferries, Recreational Boating 

Primary Cargos Handled: Fruit; Sand; Coal; Gravel; Gasoline; Oil; Stone 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday-Friday [1] 

Terminal Land Area: 52 acres [2] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 101.2 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Rhode Island/Massachusetts Lease Area - South 

Commercial Port Employment: Not available 

The Port of Bridgeport is located at the mouth of the Pequonnock River, north of Long Island Sound. The Port of Bridgeport is 

comprised of two natural harbors, Bridgeport and Black Rock, both offering unhindered access to Long Island Sound. A 

federal channel extends from Long Island Sound to the inner harbor. From Long Island Sound to Tongue Point, the channel 

is 35 feet deep at mean lower low water (MLLW) and 400 feet wide. It widens to 600 feet at the northwest bend, then narrows 

to 300 feet at a point 800 feet before the Stratford Avenue Bridge as it heads up the Pequonnock River. There are two 

breakwaters at the entrance to the main harbor; the eastern breakwater is 3,823 feet long, and the western breakwater is 

2,110 feet. A turning basin, 35 feet deep and 18 acres in area, is located east of the main ship channel [2] The highly 

developed harbor is dominated by industrial, commercial and recreational uses. Bridgeport’s shorefront features consist of 

modified bluffs and escarpments stabilized by control structures such as revetments, bulkheads, or seawalls. [2] 

The Port of Bridgeport is the second busiest port in Connecticut, handling over five million tons of cargo per year. [3] The 

harbor is the home of the Bridgeport Ferry, which transports people and cars between Bridgeport, Connecticut and Port 

Jefferson, New York. The majority of waterfront facilities in Bridgeport are privately owned and operated, although the 

Bridgeport Port Authority owns The Water Street Dock and Terminal on the west shore of the harbor and the Bridgeport 

Regional Maritime Terminal Complex, located on the east shore of Bridgeport Harbor. The Bridgeport Regional Maritime 

Complex houses the Bridgeport Shipyard facility and provides 1,350 linear feet of waterfront, a 160 foot long pier, a 360 foot 

long bulkhead, and over 100,000 square feet of assembly and fabrication space. [4] 

A major obstruction to navigation in Bridgeport Harbor is the vertical clearance limits imposed by bridge crossings in the inner 

harbor. Several of the bridges have created navigational obstructions, due to the fact that a number of the bridges are 

inoperable. There are also a number of sunken vessels, including multiple coal barges, in the waters of Bridgeport Harbor, 

which pose a hazard to navigation and marine safety. [5] Additionally, parts of the Bridgeport Harbor Federal navigation 

channel have become quite shallow compared to the authorized depth, limiting navigation. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), in cooperation with state and city officials, are in the process of undertaking a significant dredging 

program within the next several years. 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 121.9 Size of Storage Area (m2) 19,788 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 10.7 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) N/A 

Number of Berths 4 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro 

Berth & Ramps (t/m2) N/A 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 100 

Quayside Length (m) 105 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRIDGEPORT 

Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation 

Onshore Transportation 

Infrastructure (rail, highway, 

etc.) 

Highway 

U = Unknown 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving Dredging Aggregate Dumping 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Construction 

of Storage 

Structure 

Quayside 

Capabilitiesa      

Storage 

Capabilitiesb      

Ro-Ro 

Capabilityc      

Cranesd       

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve Quayside Length to 170 m; Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking b Increase Storage Area to 25,000 m2

; Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

c Provide Ro-Ro Capability; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2

; improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m d Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space us conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic communities in the Bridgeport Harbor federal navigation channels have very low diversity 

and very low abundance. Dominant species seen in benthic sample collections include 

polychaetes and amphipods, which are typically opportunistic pioneering species found in recently Benthic disturbed or highly stressed environments. Oyster shellfish beds are found in Bridgeport Harbor at 

the mouth of the Pequonnock River; however, these waters are classified as prohibited areas for 

the direct harvesting of shellfish. [2] 

Fish & EFH 

Bridgeport Harbor and Pequonnock River are classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). [6] The Pequonnock River also serves as a migratory 

pathway for anadromous species such as alewife and blueback herring. [2] 

Bridgeport is located in the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR) and is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, except ozone (O3). The entire state 

Air Quality of Connecticut is classified as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The county is 

classified as “marginal,” which is the lowest of the classifications for ozone and requires fewer 

and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements. [7] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this landscape 

include open lands, grassed areas, and wetlands. 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRIDGEPORT 

Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The sei 

whale, which inhabits waters in the northeastern US, was also identified as endangered. [8] In Long 

Island Sound, several types of whales have been seen including; fin whale, humpback whale, 

minke whale and sperm whale. Additional marine mammals common to Long Island Sound 

include; gray seals, harbor seals, harp seals and hooded seals. [8] 

The hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle and green sea turtle have been listed as either 

endangered or threatened in Fairfield county. Three of the listed species in addition to the Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtle, have been seen in Long Island Sound. Therefore, there is the possibility of these 

animals traveling into the Harbor. [9] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover is listed as 

threatened in Fairfield county. [9] Several migratory birds have been identified in Bridgeport, 

specifically at Seaside Park. These include various species of ducks, Canadian Goose, Great 

Egret, Snowy Egret, Greater Yellowlegs and various species of gulls: Herring Gull, Laughing Gull, 

Ring-Billed Gull and Great Black-Backed Gull. [5] 

(Information on bats in this area is not readily available.) 

Bridgeport Harbor (Segment ID CT-W1_001-SB), located north of Long Island Sound, is listed as 

impaired according to the 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated Water Quality Report. The 

Bridgeport Harbor is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, Enterococcus, fecal coliform, 

eutrophication biological indicators, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons (PAHs) [10] [11] . 

The current water quality classification within Bridgeport Harbor, including Pequonnock River and Water Quality the tributaries of Johnson Creek, Yellow Mill Creek, and Lewis Gut, fluctuates between SC and SB 

depending on conditions. SC waterbodies are able to sustain aquatic life and are suitable for 

secondary recreation (activities with minimal skin contact). These waterbodies are sometimes 

classified as SB waters which are able to support primary recreation, such as swimming, that have 

prolonged skin contact. Waters classified as SB are also designated for marine fish habitat, other 

aquatic life and wildlife habitat, commercial shellfish harvesting, industrial water supply and 

navigation. Point and non-point sources of pollution prevent the waters within Bridgeport Harbor 

from consistently achieving Class SB criteria. [2] 

Currents & Tides In addition to inflow from the Pequonnock River, water circulation in Bridgeport Harbor is 

influenced by tidal flow and wind. The mean tidal range in Bridgeport Harbor is 6.74 feet. [12] 

Sediment in Bridgeport Harbor is primarily black organic silt and sediment in the entrance channel 

to the Harbor is composed mostly of silt with some sand. Bridgeport Harbor has sediment Sediment Deposition contaminant levels that are comparable to those found in other industrial harbors in the Northeast, 

including evidence of metal and other organic contaminants. [2] 

Acoustic Environment 

(Information on acoustic environment not readily available). Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (ConnDOT) noise construction standards state that the maximum allowable level of 

noise at the nearest residence or occupied building should not exceed 90 decibels on the "A" 

weighted scale (dBA). 

Critical Habitat 

Bridgeport Harbor was identified as having state and federal listed species and significant natural 

communities present; however, no critical habitat has been identified in the vicinity of Bridgeport 

Harbor. [13] [14] 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: none in Fairfield County. Closest military installations are the West 

Point Military Academy (Army) over 40 miles NW; Sector Long Island Sound/Station New Haven 

(Coast Guard), about 16 miles east; and the New London Submarine Base (Navy) and the Coast 

Guard Academy (Coast Guard), both about 55 miles east [15] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: not available. [23] 

Commercial fishing engagement in communities surrounding the port is low. [24] 

Commercial fishing reliance in communities surrounding the port is low. [24] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Fairfield County in 2010: 30,435. [25] 

Recreational fishing engagement in communities surrounding the port is low. [24] 

Recreational fishing reliance in communities surrounding the port is low. [24] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 13 - Oct 13, 2015): 6-45. [20] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): passenger 53%, tug boats 13.6%. [20] 

Population: Fairfield County 926,233. [21] 

Labor Force: Fairfield County 475,888; employed 446,528; unemployment rate 6.2%. [26] 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in CT local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 29.7%; 

charges 8.5 %; property taxes 55.1%; utility revenues 4.5%. [27] 

BRIDGEPORT 

Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial and residential areas to the west of Land Use & Existing the port and east across the channel along Interstate 95. The closest residential areas are just Infrastructure north of the port, across I-95. [16] 

Environmental
 

Justice
 

[22] 

Transportation 

The Port is located approximately a quarter mile from Interstate 95 and State Route 130 and 

approximately one mile from Connecticut Routes 25 and 8. A commuter railroad is also located 

within the Port. [16] [17] 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 55 properties and historic 

districts in the city of Bridgeport, although not particularly concentrated around the port. [18] 

One known shipwreck of significance to the east of the port. [19] 

Visual 

View from closest residential areas obstructed by vegetation. View from Interstate 95 is a large 

industrial viewscape, with a red and white smokestack often visible (from an industrial plant, south 

of the port, on the west side of the channel). [20] 

Total minorities: Fairfield County 34.5%; CT 29.5%. [21] 

Low-income: Fairfield County 9.1%; CT 10.2%. [21] 

Area surrounding port: census block groups for the port and its surroundings are over 75 percent 

total minority and census tracts for the port and its surroundings are over 25 percent low income. 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Bridgeport necessary to support offshore wind development as a staging port are 

anticipated to be relatively extensive; however, several terminals/piers that make up the Port of Bridgeport may prove to be 

suitable for offshore wind O&M ports. Minor modifications would likely be necessary to accommodate O&M port use. 

Modifications to accommodate staging are anticipated to primarily impact terrestrial and upland resources, with limited impact 

to marine resources. The area is an active port in an urban setting with degraded water and sediment quality. The potential for 

reduction or loss of habitat (terrestrial and marine) exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not support a 

diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with the port modifications identified above will not result in any significant 

noticeable increase in noise to the surrounding communities due to high local noise levels that presently exist. Air quality 

impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth 

moving activities. The terminals at the Port are strategically located off Interstate 95, minimizing any traffic impacts on local 

roadways. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or environmental effects, there may be 

disproportionately high impacts on minority or low-income communities. The USACE, in cooperation with the state and local 

agencies, are in the process of undertaking an extensive maintenance dredging project within Bridgeport Harbor. An 

Environmental Assessment was prepared that identified and assessed many of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts 

associated with dredging the surrounding waterways. [2] 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

BRIDGEPORT 

Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 

1	 CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). Locate a Port of Entry. [Internet]. [cited 2015 December 10]. 

Available from: http://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports. 

2	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) New England District. Draft Environmental Assessment, FONSI and 

404(B)(1) Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Facility Construction. 

Environmental Assessment & FONSI. 2010. Available from: 

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/Topics/BridgeportDMMP/DraftEA-FONSI-404.pdf. 

3	 World Port Source. Port of Bridgeport. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: 

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/USA_CT_Port_of_Bridgeport_70.php. 

4	 Connecticut Economic and Community Development. Bridgeport Port Overview. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 

October 27]. Available from: http://www.ct.gov/ecd/lib/ecd/Bridgeport_Port_Authority.pdf. 

5	 Apex Environmental. City of Bridgeport, Conneticut Harbor Management Plan. City of Bridgeport Harbor 

Management Commission; 2006. Available from: 

http://www.bridgeportct.gov/filestorage/89019/89753/95286/103729/TheHarborManagementPlanDecember2009. 

pdf. 

6	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

7	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 

2015 October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

8	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' 

Jurisdiction. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

9	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

10	 CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection). 2014 State of Connecticut Integrated 

Water Quality Report. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water/water_quality_management/305b/2014_iwqr_305b_303d_final.pdf. 

11	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

12	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides & Currents. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 23]. Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datums.html?id=8467150. 

13	 Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online. Connecticut's Critical Habitats and Open Space. [Internet]. 2012 

[cited 2015 October 23]. Available from: 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a1bf59798c5b45a98aeaeb97dafd60b9. 

14	 CT DEEP (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection). Endangered Species Maps. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 23]. Available from: 

http://www.depdata.ct.gov/naturalresources/endangeredspecies/nddbpdfs.asp?nddbsel=15. 

15	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://militarybases.com/. 

16	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

17	 Bridgeport Port Authority. Connecticut Port Authority - Talking Points December 1, 2014. 2014. 

18	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

19	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

20	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Bridgeport. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/659/USA_port:BRIDGEPORT. 

21	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 

2015 September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

22	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

23	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

24	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

BRIDGEPORT
 Bridgeport, Connecticut | 41° 10’ 21” N, 73° 10’ 55” W 

25	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and 

Tourism Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. 

OCS Study BOEM 2012-085; 2012. 

26	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 

10]. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

27	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

PHILADELPHIA 

Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

PHILADELPHIA 

Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA) (State Agency) 

Operator: Greenwich Terminals, LLC (Private Agency) – operates Packer Avenue Marine 

Terminal; Delaware River Stevedores, Inc. (Private Agency) – operates Tioga 

Marine Terminal 

Terminals at Port of Packer Avenue Marine Terminal (Packer); Tioga Marine Terminal (Tioga) 

Philadelphia: 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping; Container Handling; Breakbulk [1] 

Primary Cargos Handled: Automobiles; Containers; Breakbulk; Steel; Project Cargo; Frozen Meat; Fruit; 

Paper; Forest Products [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM Monday-Friday [1] 

Marine Terminal Land Area: 112 acres (Packer); 116 acres (Tioga) [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 112.5 miles (average distance of 2 terminals) 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Delaware Lease Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 1,945 people [2] 

The Port of Philadelphia is presently comprised of two marine terminal facilities—the Tioga Marine Terminal and the Packer 

Avenue Marine Terminal—and several Pier facilities. Tioga Marine Terminal is the largest of PRPA’s terminals, and handles 

multiple types of cargo, including containers, breakbulk; Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro); and heavy lift cargo. The Packer Avenue 

Marine Terminal handles automobiles, steel, and project cargoes. The various pier facilities operated by PRPA (Piers 38/40, 

78/80, 82, 84, and 96/98) are smaller facilities that handle various types of cargo. PRPA also controls a 194 acre waterfront 

parcel called the Southport Marine Terminal Complex that it is presently the subject of a solicitation for private development 

interest. [1] 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Philadelphia District is responsible for maintaining the authorized 40-foot depth in 

the Delaware River navigation channel from Newbold Island in Bucks County north of Philadelphia. The federal channel 

serves ports in Paulsboro, Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington. [3] Currents play an important role in navigation, as the 

transit of deep-draft vessels entering the estuary destined for port facilities in the reach from Wilmington to Philadelphia is 

scheduled to take advantage of flood currents and higher tidal stages, to assure maximum bottom clearance in high shoaling 

rate areas. [3] The Philadelphia District is in the process of deepening the Delaware River main channel from 40 feet to 45 feet 

from the Atlantic Ocean to the marine terminals in Philadelphia and Camden. The project is 75% complete, and will be finished 

by 2017. 

PRPA’s terminal facilities are located near, and have easy access, to all major trucking routes including I-95 and I-76. 

Currently, the Port’s facilities are serviced by two class-one railroads: CSX and Norfolk Southern. [1] 

Capability Area Criteria (units) Packer Tioga 

Potential Use Staging Port Yes Yes 

Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Port 

Access 

Port Access Channel Width (m) 121.9 121.9 

Port Access Water Depths (m) 12.2 10.8 

Overhead Draft (m) 50.6 42.4 

Number of Berths 6 6 

Quayside Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U U 

Quayside Length (m) 1158 1164 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA 

Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W 

Capability Area Criteria (units) Packer Tioga 

Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking U U 

Storage Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U U 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U U 

Size of Storage Area (m2) U U 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes Yes 

Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U U 

Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth & Ramps (t/m2) U U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 340 104 

Crane Height Restrictions (m) U U 

Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, 

etc.) Rail; highway Rail; highway 

U = Unknown 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing Blasting 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Construction 

of Storage 

Structure 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityc 

      

Storage 

Capabilitiesd      

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye      

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m for both terminals 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capacity for both terminals; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m for both terminals c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Suitable for Jacking for both terminals d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 for both terminals; increase storage area to 25,000 m2 

for both terminals 

e Improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m for both terminals; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berths and Ramps to 10 t/m2 for both terminals 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA 

Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

(Limited information on benthic environment in immediate area surrounding port). The Delaware
 

Benthic
 Estuary hosts the world’s largest horseshoe crab population. Other important benthic species 

found in the area include the blue crab and American oyster. [3] 

Air Quality 

been reduced to and meet the NAAQS. 

Fish & EFH 

The portion of the Delaware River where the Port is located is classified as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) by NMFS. The shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are endangered species found in nearshore 

estuaries and rivers, including the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. Many anadromous fish, 

including American shad, also utilize the Delaware River for spawning. [4] 

The Port Area is within the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 

(Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware), which is classified as severe non-attainment for ozone (O3) 

(composed of nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) and as a 

maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). [3] [5] A CO Maintenance area is an area in where the 

CO levels formerly exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but have now 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this landscape 

include very limited wetlands scattered along the banks of the Delaware River in this vicinity. [6] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. [7] The North 

Atlantic right whale, fin whale, and humpback whale have been documented in the Delaware River 

Estuary. Other species that are occasionally seen in the Delaware Bay include the blue whale, 

sperm whale, and sei whale. It is unlikely that these species will be found near the Port due to 

location upriver. Other marine mammals that are known to occur in the Delaware River include 

bottlenose dolphin, short beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise and harbor seal. [3] 

Four federally listed endangered species of turtles including the leatherback, loggerhead, Kemp’s 

ridley, and hawksbill turtles, have been identified in the Delaware River and Estuary. The green 

sea turtle, which is listed as threatened in NJ, is also known to occur in the Delaware River and 

Estuary. These species are unlikely to occur near the Port, due to its location upriver. [3] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The bald eagle is listed as recovery 

for Philadelphia county. The second largest population of migrating shorebirds in North America is 

located in Delaware Bay. [8] Commonly observed species include sanderlings, sandpipers, ruddy 

turnstones and red knot. [9] At the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 60 miles 

south of the Port, many species of waterfowl and shorebirds have been observed. At the Salem 

River Wildlife Management Area, approximately 25 miles southeast of the Port, additional bird 

species have been known to occur including the Ross’s goose, orchard oriole, European starling, 

and common grackle. [10] 

(Information on bats in this area is not readily available.) 

The Delaware River (Segment ID’s= NJDELAWARE RIVER 2, 8, 14-19) is listed as impaired 

according to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2012 Integrated Report – 

Appendix A. The Delaware River is listed as impaired for chlorodane in fish tissue, DDT (formally 

Water Quality known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in fish tissue, mercury in fish tissue, deildrein in fish 

tissue and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue throughout the waterway. [11] (Data 

were used from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection [NJ DEP] given the 

proximity of sites and because data from Pennsylvania was last updated in 2004.) 

Currents & Tides 

Water circulation at the Port is influenced by the flow of the Delaware River as well as by tidal flow 

and wind. The limit of salt intrusion during high flow conditions is generally near Wilmington, DE, 

but can approach the Philadelphia area under low flow conditions. [12] The tidal range at the 

Benjamin Franklin Bridge in Philadelphia (RM 100) is 5.7 feet. [3] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA 

Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Sediment Deposition 

Studies conducted by the USACE in the channels of the Delaware River found the sediments 

contained a variety of toxins and metals such as PCBs, DDE (formally known as 

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene), and pesticides. [3] 

Acoustic Environment 

The area surrounding the port supports a variety of light industrial and commercial uses, as well as 

residential uses. At the port itself, typical noise includes cranes, equipment, generators, vehicles 

and miscellaneous tools. [13] 

Critical Habitat There are no critical habitat designations in the state of Pennsylvania along the Delaware River. [14] 

Military Use Areas There are no military installations in Philadelphia County, PA. The closest military installation is 

the Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (Navy), which is 16 miles north of the port. [15] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

Packer: High and medium intensity developed industrial areas to the north and south of the 

terminal, along the coast line. High intensity developed residential areas one mile to the 

northwest. Less developed industrial areas on half a mile to the southwest of the terminal. 

Medium intensity industrial, commercial, and residential areas to the east, about half a mile from 

[16] [17] the terminal. The Walt Whitman Bridge borders the terminal to the north. 

Tioga: High intensity developed industrial areas within the terminal’s immediate vicinity. High 

intensity developed residential and commercial areas less than one mile northwest of the terminal 

and medium developed residential and commercial areas less than a mile to the east, across the 

channel. Less developed lands along the shoreline approximately a mile southwest of the port. 

The Palmyra Cove Nature Park is 2.5 mi to the northeast of the terminal. The Betsy Ross Bridge 

[16] [17] borders the terminal to the northeast. 

Transportation Packer: Immediate access to I-95 and I-76. Terminal is serviced by rail. [17] 

Tioga: Immediate access to I-95. Rail on the NE border of the terminal. [17] 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 552 properties or districts in 

Philadelphia County. [18] 

Packer: Within Pennsylvania waters, there are two known shipwreck north of the terminal. There 

are numerous known shipwrecks to the south of the terminal, along the route to the entrance to the 

navigation channel. [19] 

Tioga: Within Pennsylvania waters, there is one known shipwreck northeast of the terminal and 

one known shipwreck southwest of the terminal. In New Jersey waters, across the channel, there 

are numerous reports of shipwrecks, especially south of the terminal. [19] 

Visual 

Packer: Industrial viewscapes at the terminal, from both shores of the navigation channel. From 

the Walt Whitman Bridge, four large cranes and numerous large containers are visible. [17] 

Tioga: Industrial viewscapes at the terminal. From the Betsy Ross Bridge, cranes and other 

industrial equipment dominate the viewscape. Industrial equipment at the terminal obstructs views 

of downtown Philadelphia. [17] 

Environmental 

Justice 

Total minorities: Philadelphia County 58.4%; PA 21.0%. [20]
 

Low-income: Philadelphia County 26.5%; PA 13.3%. [20]
 

Packer: Area surrounding terminal: Census block group encompassing the terminal has a total
 

minority population of less than 26 percent, census block groups less than a mile to the north and 

northeast have over 75 percent total minority populations; the census tract encompassing the
 

terminal has less than 20 percent individuals below poverty level. [21]
 

Tioga: Area surrounding terminal: Census block group encompassing the terminal has a total
 

minority population of less than 26 percent, census block groups less than a mile to the north and 

northeast have over 75 percent total minority populations; the census tract encompassing the
 

terminal has less than 20 percent individuals below poverty level. [21]
 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [22] 

Commercial fishing engagement in all surrounding communities is low. [23] 

Commercial fishing reliance in all surrounding communities is low. [23] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Philadelphia County in 2012: 36,777. [24] 

Tourism & Recreation Recreational fishing engagement in all surrounding communities is low. [23] 

Recreational fishing reliance in all surrounding communities is low. [23] 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA 

Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 28 - Oct 26, 2015): 6-69. [25] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): cargo 6.78%, passenger 20.0%, tug 63.8%, and 

tanker 4%. [25] 

Population: Philadelphia County 1,536,704. [20] 

Socioeconomic Labor Force: Philadelphia County 689,205; employed 634,036; unemployment rate 8.0%. [24] 

Resources Main Sources of fiscal revenues in PA local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 35.5%; 

charges 12.2 %; property taxes 27.0%; individual income tax 7.1%. [26] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Philadelphia necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to be 

relatively extensive, and include increasing the bearing capacity at various points within the terminal. This would have minor 

impact on existing terrestrial and marine resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Noise associated with the port 

modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels; due to the industrialized nature of the 

surrounding environment. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port 

machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring 

would likely be required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. Chances for relevant 

socioeconomic impacts are low. No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or 

low-income communities are anticipated. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 PRPA (Philadelphia Regional Port Authority). Port of Philadelphia. [Internet]. [cited 2015 November 5]. Available from: 

http://www.philaport.com/index.htm. 

2	 Economic Development Research Group. Maritime Commerce in Greater Philadelphia: Assessing Industry Trends and 

Growth Opportunities for Delaware River Ports. PIDC; 2008. Available from: http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/ports%20­

%20final.pdf. 

3	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Delaware River Main Stem and Channel Deepening Project Environmental 

Assessment. Philadelphia District; 2009. 

4	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

5	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

6	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 November 5]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

7	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

8	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

9	 Delaware Riverkeeper Network & National Wildlife Federation. Delaware River Deepening - Dumped Again. 2007. 

10	 New Jersey Birding & Wildlife Trails. Salem River Wildlife Management Area. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2015 November 4]. 

Available from: 

http://www.njwildlifetrails.org/PineBarrensTrails/Sites/tabid/1698/Scope/site/Guide/DELBAYSH/Site/10/Default.aspx. 

11	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 November 2]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

12	 Patrick Center for Environmental Research. Impact of Aquatic Vegetation on Water Quality of the Delaware River Estuary. 

West Trenton: Delaware River Basin Commission; 1998. Final Report 98-5F. Available from: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/aquaticveg-delestuary1998.pdf. 

13	 Delaware River Port Authority. BFB Neighbor Advisory. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 2]. Available from: 

http://www.drpa.org/travel/bfb_neighborhood_advisory.html. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA
 Multiple Terminals | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 39° 53’ 43” N, 75° 08’ 07” W 

14	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. [Internet]. 

[cited 2015 Oct 29]. Available from: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper.jsp. 

15	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

16	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) Tool. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

17	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

18	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

19	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

20	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

21	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

22	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

23	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

24	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

25	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Philadelphia. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/2817. 

26	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

PAULSBORO 

Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

PAULSBORO 

Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: BP leases to Borough of Paulsboro (Private Corporation/City) 

Operator: South Jersey Port Corporation (SJPC) and Holt Logistics 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping 

Primary Cargos Handled: Plywood, Steel cargoes, Scrap export and Cocoa beans 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday-Friday [1] 

Terminal Land Area: 200 acres [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 101.1 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Delaware Lease Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 2,446 people 

The Port of Paulsboro is located approximately 15 miles south of Camden on the east banks of the Delaware River in 

Gloucester County, New Jersey. The port is located across from Philadelphia International Airport, approximately 50 miles 

upriver of Delaware Bay and approximately 90 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. [2] 

Currently, the Port handles traditional cargo; however a portion of the port is being redeveloped to accommodate larger 

vessels and heavier equipment. The Paulsboro Marine Terminal is the first major terminal to be constructed on the Delaware 

River in more than 50 years, and is targeted for operation in early 2016. [1] The terminal is located on a 200 acre area that once 

housed a BP oil terminal and a Dow Chemical plant. While BP has performed an extensive environmental remediation of the 

site, they are leasing the land to the Borough of Paulsboro for development of the Terminal. Environmental monitoring of the 

remediation project, as dictated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), is expected to continue 

for many years. 

The new facility will contain 2 ship berths and is designed primarily to handle break-bulk cargo, although the port owners have 

also expressed an interest in attracting offshore wind projects or component manufacturers to the port. [3] The Port designed 

the quayside for 7.3 t/m2 with the expectation that additional and less expensive load-spreading techniques would be used to 

facilitate heavy lifts. [3] 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Philadelphia District is responsible for maintaining the authorized 40-foot depth in 

the Delaware River navigation channel from Newbold Island in Bucks County north of Philadelphia. The federal channel 

serves ports in Paulsboro, Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington. [4] The Philadelphia District is in the process of deepening 

the Delaware River main channel from 40 feet to 45 feet from the Atlantic Ocean to the marine terminals in Philadelphia and 

Camden. The project is 75% complete, and will be finished by 2017. 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 24 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 24 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 243.8 Size of Storage Area (m2) 400,000 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 12.2 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) No 

Overhead Draft (m) 15.2 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) N/A 

Number of Berths 3 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) N/A 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) 7.3 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 180 

Quayside Length (m) 330 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking Yes Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) Rail 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAULSBORO 

Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W 

U = Unknown 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Blasting Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving Aggregate Dumping 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityb 

    

Ro-Ro 

Capabilityc      

Cranesd       

Onshore 

Transportation 

Infrastructuree 

     

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 

c Provide Ro-Ro Capability; improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

d Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m e Provide Onshore Transportation Infrastructure 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

The Delaware Estuary hosts the world’s largest horseshoe crab population. Other important 

benthic species found in the area include blue crab and American oyster. [5] 

Benthic 

(Information on benthic environment in this area is not readily available.) 

Fish & EFH 

The portion of the Delaware River where the Port is located is classified as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are 

endangered species found in nearshore estuaries and rivers, including the Delaware River and 

Delaware Bay. Many anadromous fish, including American shad, also utilize the Delaware River 

for spawning. [6] [7] 

Air Quality 

The Port Area is within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Area, which is 

classified as severe non-attainment for ozone (composed of nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile 

organic compounds [VOCs]) and as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). [8] [4] A CO 

Maintenance area is an area in where the CO levels formerly exceeded the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), but have now been reduced to and meet the NAAQS. 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAULSBORO 

Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this landscape 

include wetlands along the banks of the Delaware River. [9] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. [10] The North 

Atlantic right whale, fin whale, and humpback whale, have been documented in the Delaware River 

Estuary. Other species that are occasionally seen in Delaware Bay include the blue whale, sperm 

whale, and sei whale. It is unlikely that these species will be found near the Port. Other marine 

mammals that are known to occur in NJ waters and may be found in the upriver portions of the 

Delaware River include bottlenose dolphin, short beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise and 

harbor seal. [4] 

Four federally listed endangered species of turtles including the leatherback, loggerhead, Kemp’s 

ridley, and hawksbill turtles, have been identified in the Delaware River and the Estuary. The 

green sea turtle, which is listed as threatened in NJ, is also known to occur in the Delaware River 

and Estuary. These species could potentially occur near the Port. [4] [11] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The Northern long-eared bat is 

listed as threatened in Gloucester county. The second largest population of migrating shorebirds in 

North America is located approximately 50 miles downriver from Paulsboro in Delaware Bay. [12] 

Commonly observed species include sanderlings, sandpipers, ruddy turnstones and red knot. [5] At 

the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 52 miles southwest of the Port, many 

species of waterfowl and shorebirds have been observed. At the Salem River Wildlife Management 

Area, approximately 20 miles southeast of the Port, additional bird species have been known to 

occur including the Ross’s goose, orchard oriole, European starling, and common grackle. [13] 

Water Quality 

The Delaware River (Segment ID’s= NJDELAWARE RIVER 2, 8, 14-19) is listed as impaired 

according to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2012 Integrated Report – 

Appendix A. The Delaware River is listed as impaired for chlorodane in fish tissue, DDT (formally 

known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in fish tissue, mercury in fish tissue, deildrein in fish 

tissue and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue throughout the waterway. [14] 

Currents & Tides 

The Port is located on the Delaware River and Mantua Creek. Water circulation is influenced by 

the inflow of these waterbodies as well as tidal flow and wind. The mean tidal range at this portion 

of the Delaware River is 5.64 ft. [15] 

The National Coastal Assessment study classified the sediments surrounding the Port as nontoxic; 

however, studies conducted by the USACE in the channels of the Delaware River found the Sediment sediments contained a variety of toxins and metals such as PCBs, DDE (formally known as Deposition Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) and pesticides. [4] [16] Sediments in Paulsboro Harbor are 

classified as primarily medium grain sand some gravel and silt. [17] 

Acoustic Environment 

The Port is currently an active port in an industrialized area and is located directly across the river 

from Philadelphia International Airport. The Borough of Paulsboro law states that construction 

noise (i.e., operating tools and equipment) cannot occur between the hours of 8PM and 7AM 

Monday through Friday. [18] 

Critical Habitat Currently, there is no designated critical habitat in the state of New Jersey along the Delaware 

River. [19] 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: none in Gloucester County, NJ. The closest military installations are 

the Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (Navy) over 25 miles north of the port, in Pennsylvania, and 

Fort Dix (Army) and McGuire Air Force Base (Air Force) both 37 mi east of the port in New Jersey. [20] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial areas to the east and north of the port. 

Residential areas border the port to the southeast and east. The RiverWinds Community center 

and recreational lands are to the east. The Philadelphia International Airport is north of the port, 

directly across the river from the Port. The port borders undeveloped lands to the west. [21] [2] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAULSBORO 

Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Transportation Access to Interstate 295 via US-130, which travels through residential areas. Rail capabilities are 

currently being developed including on-dock rail infrastructure. [22] [2] [1] 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 33 properties and historic 

districts in Gloucester County, although none are located within the Paulsboro borough. [23] 

Cultural & Historical One submerged shipwreck to the east of the port and one visible shipwreck to the north of the port. [24] 

Visual Industrial viewscape at the port. View from closest residential areas partially obstructed by 

vegetation. Refinery equipment at the port is partially visible from all directions. [2] 

Total minorities: Gloucester County 17.2%; NJ 30.8%. [25] 

Low-income: Gloucester County 8.1%; NJ 10.4%. [25] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: census block groups to the east and southeast of the port vary from 7 Justice percent total minority to over 75 percent total minority; the census tract for the port and its 

surroundings are over 26 percent low income, the highest in the vicinity. [26] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [27] 

Commercial fishing engagement in communities surrounding the port is low. [28] 

Commercial fishing reliance in communities surrounding the port is low. [28] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Gloucester County in 2012: 6,867. [29] 

Recreational fishing engagement in communities surrounding the port is low. [28] 

Recreational fishing reliance in communities surrounding the port is low. [28] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 28 - Oct 26, 2015): 6-52. [30] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug 83.3%, special craft 9.8%, tanker 6.2%. [30] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Population: Gloucester County 289,098. [25] 

Labor Force: Gloucester county 148,835; employed 138,254; unemployment rate 7.1%. [29] 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in NJ local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 26.6%; 

charges 8.5 %; property taxes 55.9%; sewerage charge: 3.3%; utility revenues 2.6%. [31] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Paulsboro necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to be 

limited to increasing the soil bearing capacity at the quayside, which would have little impact on existing terrestrial and upland 

resources due to the industrial setting of the site. There is no anticipated impact to sediments or marine resources associated 

with the port modifications identified above. Noise associated with the port modifications identified above is not likely to be 

above existing ambient levels; however, day/night restrictions may be required for certain activities that have the potential to 

disturb surrounding communities. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port 

machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring 

would likely be required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. 

Road access to the port would depend on local roads neighboring residential areas. To the extent that construction materials 

are transported by truck, impacts to traffic may occur. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects in the areas surrounding the port, there is potential for a disproportionate impacts on minority or lowincome communities. 

Under the current BP remediation plan, the environmental and socioeconomic condition of the site has been evaluated. Many 

design revisions and mitigation measures, including traffic impacts to residential neighborhoods, are being considered as part 

of the Terminal development project. Additional modifications should be coordinated with the current BP remediation plan. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1 SJPC (South Jersey Port Corporation). Paulsboro Marine Terminal. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 29]. Available from: 

http://southjerseyport.com/facilities/paulsboro-marine-terminal/. 

2 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

3 DNV GL. Assessment of Ports for Offshore Wind Development in the United States. Document No. 700694-USPO-R-03; 

2014. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAULSBORO 

Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W 

4	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Delaware River Main Stem and Channel Deepening Project Environmental 

Assessment. Philadelphia District; 2009. 

5	 Delaware Riverkeeper Network & National Wildlife Federation. Delaware River Deepening - Dumped Again. 2007. 

6	 NJ DEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). Division of Fish & Wildlife: Delaware River Shad Fishing 

Report. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 29]. Available from: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/del_river_rpt15.htm. 

7	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

8	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

November 2]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

9	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

10	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

11	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Philadelphia District. A Supplement Biological Assessment for Potential Impacts 

to the New York Bight Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Sturgeon. Biological Assessment. USACE; 2011. 

12	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

13	 New Jersey Birding & Wildlife Trails. Salem River Wildlife Management Area. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2015 November 4]. 

Available from: 

http://www.njwildlifetrails.org/PineBarrensTrails/Sites/tabid/1698/Scope/site/Guide/DELBAYSH/Site/10/Default.aspx. 

14	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 November 2]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

15	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

16	 Delaware River Basin Commission. Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report: Covering Monitoring Developments and Data 

Collected or Reported during 1999-2003. Monitoring Report. 2004. 

17	 S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. Expert Report Paulsboro Terminal Site. Expert Report. Bethesda: State of New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; 2009. Available from: http://www.nj.gov/dep/nrr/settlements/sspapaulsboro-report-112009.pdf. 

18	 Borough of Paulsboro, NJ. Chapter 43 Noise Ordinance. [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2015 November 2]. Available from: 

http://ecode360.com/11292239. 

19	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) New Jersey Field Office. Frequently Asked Questions about Endangered 

Species in New Jersey. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 November 2]. Available from: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/endangered/esfaq.html#22. 

20	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

21	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

22	 Progressive railroading. Rail Developments Emerge at Four U.S. Ports. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/intermodal/news/Rail-developments-emerge-at-four-US-ports--41070. 

23	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

24	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

25	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

26	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

27	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

28	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

29	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

PAULSBORO
 Paulsboro Marine Terminal | Paulsboro, New Jersey | 39° 50’ 50” N, 75° 14’ 52” W 

30	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/ports/all. 

31	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

WILMINGTON, DE 

Wilmington, Delaware | 39° 43’ 00” N, 75° 31’ 18” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

WILMINGTON, DE 

Wilmington, Delaware | 39° 43’ 00” N, 75° 31’ 18” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Diamond State Port Corporation (Quasi-public Agency) 

Operator: Diamond State Port Corporation (Quasi-public Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Bulk cargo and containers; Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) 

Primary Cargos Handled: Produce, Steel, Forest products, Dry bulk materials, Petroleum products, and 

Automobiles [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: Not available 

Terminal Land Area: 308 acres 

Shortest Distance to Wind 83.1 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Delaware Lease Area 

Commercial Port Employment: Not available 

Located at the confluence of the Delaware and Christina Rivers, 65 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, the Port of Wilmington is 

owned and operated by the Diamond State Port Corporation (DSPC), a corporate entity of the State of Delaware. [1] 

The Port of Wilmington covers over 308 acres and is readily accessible to interstate I-95. Rail access to the Port is available 

via Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, with railcar loading docks located next to terminal warehouses. Future 

expansion is planned to provide more storage capacity for existing and future commercial businesses. [1] 

The Port facilities include seven deepwater general cargo berths, a tanker berth, a floating berth for Ro-Ro vessels on the 

Christina River, and an Auto and Ro-Ro berth on the Delaware River. Cargo handling equipment includes: a new 100-ton 

mobile harbor crane and two multi-purpose gantry cranes, each with 50-ton capacity and one with 75-ton heavy lift capacity. 

All cranes are capable of high speed container operations and the handling of breakbulk, bulk and heavy lift cargoes. [1] 

The Port of Wilmington covers 306 acres and has 4,000 feet of wharf with an alongside depth of 38 feet. The Delaware River 

Channel depth is 40 feet at Mean Low Water (MLW), and the Christina River Channel depths correspond to the depths at the 

berths. Berths 5 through 7 have a depth of 35 feet at MLW, while Berths 1 through 3, the floating berth, the petroleum berth, 

and the Auto and Ro-Ro berth have a depth of 38 feet at MLW. [1] Dry storage facilities include: nearly 33 acres of open space 

used for Ro-Ro, containers, steel, wind energy components, and lumber as well as 250,000 sf of dry warehouse space. [1] 

The USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Philadelphia District is responsible for maintaining the authorized 40-foot depth 

in the Delaware River navigation channel from Newbold Island in Bucks County north of Philadelphia. The federal channel 

serves ports in Paulsboro, Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington. [2] The Philadelphia District is in the process of deepening 

the Delaware River main channel from 40 feet to 45 feet from the Atlantic Ocean to the marine terminals in Philadelphia and 

Camden. The project is 75% complete and will be finished by 2017. 

Currents play an important role in navigation, as the transit of deep-draft vessels entering the estuary destined for port 

facilities in the reach from Wilmington to Philadelphia is scheduled to take advantage of flood currents and higher tidal 

stages, to assure maximum bottom clearance in high shoaling rate areas. [2] 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 61 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 11.6 

Overhead Draft (m) 11.5 

Number of Berths 7 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Size of Storage Area (m2) 88,000 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U 

Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) U 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, DE 

Wilmington, Delaware | 39° 43’ 00” N, 75° 31’ 18” W 

Criteria (units) Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 100 

Quayside Length (m) 935 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

U = Unknown 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing Dredging Blasting 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityc 

     

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye      

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve channel depth to 8.1 m; improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

e Improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic 

(Limited information on benthic environment in immediate port area). The Delaware Estuary hosts 

the world’s largest horseshoe crab population. Other important benthic species found in the area 

include the blue crab and American oyster. [3] 

Fish & EFH 

The portion of the Delaware River where the Port is located is classified as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are 

endangered species found in nearshore estuaries and rivers, including the Delaware River and 

Delaware Bay. Many anadromous fish, including American shad, also utilize the Delaware River 

for spawning. [4] [5] The Delaware River is one of the major striped bass spawning areas along the 

Atlantic coast. The main spawning grounds are located between Wilmington, DE and Marcus 

Hook, PA. [2] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, DE 

Wilmington, Delaware | 39° 43’ 00” N, 75° 31’ 18” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

The Port Area is within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Area, which is 

classified as severe non-attainment for ozone (composed of nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile 

Air Quality organic compounds [VOCs]) and as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). [2] A CO 

Maintenance area is an area in where the CO levels formerly exceeded the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), but have now been reduced to and meet the NAAQS. 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this landscape 

include wetlands along the banks of the Delaware River. [6] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. [7] The North 

Atlantic right whale, fin whale, and humpback whale, have been documented in the Delaware River 

Estuary. Other species that are occasionally seen in the Delaware Bay include the blue whale, 

sperm whale, and sei whale. It is unlikely that these species will be found near the Port. Other 

marine mammals that are known to occur in the Delaware River include bottlenose dolphin, short 

beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise and harbor seal. [2] 

Four federally listed endangered species of turtles including the leatherback, loggerhead, Kemp’s 

ridley, and hawksbill turtles, have been identified in the Delaware River and the Estuary. The 

green sea turtle, which is listed as threatened in NJ, is also known to occur in the Delaware River 

and Estuary. These species could potentially occur near the Port. [2] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The Northern long-eared bat is 

listed as threatened in New Castle county. [8] The second largest population of migrating shorebirds 

in North America is located in Delaware Bay. Commonly observed species include sanderlings, 

sandpipers, ruddy turnstones, and red knot. [3] At the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, 

approximately 37 miles south of the Port, many species of waterfowl and shorebirds have been 

observed. At the Salem River Wildlife Management Area, approximately 8 miles southeast of the 

Port, additional bird species have been known to occur including the Ross’s goose, orchard oriole, 

European starling, and common grackle. [9] 

The Delaware River (Segment ID’s= NJDELAWARE RIVER 2, 8, 14-19) is listed as impaired 

according to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2012 Integrated Report – 

Appendix A. The Delaware River is listed as impaired for chlorodane in fish tissue, DDT (formally 

Water Quality known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in fish tissue, mercury in fish tissue, deildrein in fish 

tissue and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue throughout the waterway. [10] (Data were 

used from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection [NJDEP] given the proximity of 

sites and because of the lack of data from the State of Delaware.) 

Sediment Deposition 

and pesticides. [2] 

Currents & Tides 

Currents play an important role in navigation, as the transit of deep-draft vessels entering the 

estuary destined for Wilmington is scheduled to take advantage of flood currents and higher tidal 

stages, to assure maximum bottom clearance in high shoaling rate areas. [2] The limit of salt 

intrusion during high flow conditions is generally near Wilmington, DE, but can approach the 

Philadelphia area under low flow conditions. [11] The mean tidal range at the mouth of the Christina 

River (RM 70) is 5.6 feet. [12] 

Sediments in the area are fine-grained. A sediment deposition area is present at the mouth of the 

Christina River, which lies directly north of the Port. [13] Studies conducted by the USACE in the 

channels of the Delaware River found the sediments contained a variety of toxins and metals such 

as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), DDE (formally known as Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) 

Acoustic Environment In Wilmington, DE the noise limit for industrial areas is 85 dBA with no time restrictions. [14] 

Critical Habitat There are no critical habitat designations in the state of Delaware along the Delaware River. [15] [16] 

Military Use Areas Military installations near port: No military installations in or near New Castle County, DE. [17] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [24] 

Commercial fishing engagement low in all surrounding areas. [25] 

Commercial fishing reliance low in surrounding communities. [25] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in New Castle County in 2010: 19,905. [26] 

Recreational fishing engagement low in all surrounding areas. [25] 

Recreational fishing reliance low in surrounding communities. [25] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 28 – Oct 26, 2015): 4-30. [27] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug 80.1%, passenger 8.2%, cargo 7.4%, search and 

rescue 1.6%. [27] 

Population: New Castle County 542,784. [22] 

Labor Force: New Castle County 282,787; employed 267,094; unemployment rate 5.5%. [28] 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in DE local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 42.1%; 

charges 11.0 %; property taxes 22.4%; utility revenues 12.6%. [29] 

WILMINGTON, DE 

Wilmington, Delaware | 39° 43’ 00” N, 75° 31’ 18” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial and residential areas lie west and 

Land Use & Existing north of the port. The Cherry Island Landfill lies directly north of the port and the Delaware 

Infrastructure Memorial Bridge is about 1 mile south. Undeveloped lands border the port to the southeast and 

across the channel, to the east. [18] [19] 

Transportation Access to Interstate 495 just west of the port. Port is in the vicinity of intersections between 

Interstates 495, 295, and 95. Rail service to the terminal. [19] 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 82 properties and districts 

listed in the City of Wilmington, DE. These include the Bellevue Range Rear Light Station, which is Cultural & Historical just north of the port. [20]
 

One known shipwreck on the southeast border of the port. [21]
 

Visual Varied viewscapes with industrial development at the port and to the south along the Delaware 

Bridge. To the east, commercial and residential views alternate with undeveloped viewscapes. [19] 

Total minorities: New Castle County 33.3%; DE 30.0%. [22] 

Low-income: New Castle County 10.7%; DE 11.7%. [22] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: Census block group encompassing the port has highest rate of total Justice minority population (> 75%) and the census tract encompassing the port has the highest share of 

individuals below poverty level (> 26 %). [23] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Wilmington, DE necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to 

be relatively extensive, and include increasing the bearing capacity at various points within the terminal. This would have 

minor impact on existing terrestrial and marine resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Noise associated with the port 

modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels; due to the industrialized nature of the 

surrounding environment. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port 

machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring 

would likely be required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. Cranes may 

produce visual impacts from the water because of the overall low height of the built environment. To the extent that there are 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects to areas surrounding the port there may be disproportionately high 

impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 Port of Wilmington Delaware. Our Port. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Oct 29]. Available from: 

http://www.portofwilmington.com/mainframesets/Main_OurPort.htm. 

2	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Delaware River Main Stem and Channel Deepening Project Environmental 

Assessment. Philadelphia District; 2009. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, DE
 Wilmington, Delaware | 39° 43’ 00” N, 75° 31’ 18” W 

3 Delaware Riverkeeper Network & National Wildlife Federation. Delaware River Deepening - Dumped Again. 2007. 

4 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). Division of Fish & Wildlife. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 

29]. Available from: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/del_river_rpt15.htm. 

5 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 

1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

6 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

7 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

8 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

9 New Jersey Birding & Wildlife Trails. Salem River Wildlife Management Area. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2015 November 4]. 

Available from: http://www.njwildlifetrails.org/PineBarrensTrails/Sites/tabid/1698/Scope/site/Guide/DELBAYSH/Site/10/Default.aspx. 

10 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 November 2]. Available from: http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

11 Patrick Center for Environmental Research. Impact of Aquatic Vegetation on Water Quality of the Delaware River Estuary. 

West Trenton: Delaware River Basin Commission; 1998. Final Report 98-5F. Available from: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/aquaticveg-delestuary1998.pdf. 

12 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

13 Sommerfield CK, Madsen JA. Sedimentological and Geophysical Survey of the Upper Delaware Estuary. Delaware River 

Basin Commission; 2003. Available from: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/survey_upper-del-est.pdf. 

14 Municode Library. Article III. - Noise Control and Abatement; Sec. 11-56 Definitions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 November 4]. 

Available from: 

https://www.municode.com/library/de/wilmington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIWICO_CH11EN_ARTIIINOCOAB. 

15 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. [Internet]. [cited 

2015 November 3]. Available from: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. 

16 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species - Delaware. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 November 4]. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/map/state/DE.html. 

17 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

18 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) Tool. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

19 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

20 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

21 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

22 USCB (US Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

23 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). [Internet]. 

[cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

24 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

25 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

26 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism Economic Baseline 

Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study BOEM 2012-085; 2012. 

27 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Wilmington DE. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/996. 

28 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

29 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

BALTIMORE 

Multiple Terminals | Baltimore, Maryland | 39° 13’ 57” N, 76° 33’ 32” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

BALTIMORE 

Multiple Terminals | Baltimore, Maryland | 39° 13’ 57” N, 76° 33’ 32” W 

Port Overview 

Owner:	 Maryland Port Administration (Quasi-public Agency) 

Operator:	 Maryland Port Administration (Quasi-public Agency); PortsAmerica (Private 

Corporation) operates Segirt Marine Terminal 

Primary Existing Uses:	 Commercial Shipping, Cruises 

Primary Cargos Handled:	 Automobiles; Forest Products; Steel [1] 

Typical Operating Hours:	 7:00 AM – 4:00 PM [2] 

Terminal Land Area:	 Up to 1,200 acres 

Shortest Distance to Wind 186.7 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area:	 Virginia Lease Area (by vessel transit distance) 

Commercial Port Employment:	 15,000 people [3] 

The Port of Baltimore is one of America's busiest deepwater ports. It is located on a 32 square mile area of the Patapsco 

River and its tributaries, approximately 12 miles northwest of the Chesapeake Bay. The Port is located nearly 150 miles 

inland from the Atlantic Ocean. [4] 

The Port of Baltimore, operated by the Maryland Port Administration (MPA), includes five terminals: 

1.	 Dundalk Marine Terminal (DMT) - a 570 acre multi-use facility capable of handling Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro), containers 

and breakbulk cargo activities. 

2.	 Fairfield/Masonville Marine Terminals (FMMT) - 117 acres focused on Ro-Ro auto processing. 

3.	 South Locust Point Marine Terminal (SLPMT) - 79 acres focused on forest products breakbulk movements 

4.	 North Locust Point Marine Terminal (NLPMT) - a 90 acre multi-use facility capable of handling breakbulk, liquid bulk, RoRo and containerized cargo. 

5.	 Seagirt Marine Terminal (SMT) - a 284 acre international container terminal, which is operated by Ports America under a 

50 year concession with the MPA. 

The terminals are served by rail and have immediate access to major highways. 

The Maryland Port Administration has been working closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in constructing 

and maintaining a system of channels to allow large, deep draft commercial shipping vessels to call on the Port of Baltimore. 

In addition to the shipping channels, a number of anchorage areas have been established within the Port of Baltimore for 

vessels requiring layover for various reasons. The two groups are currently working on implementing a Dredged Material 

Management Program (DMMP) to ensure that the channels are maintained for navigation. [5] [4] 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 213 Size of Storage Area (m2) 5,000,000 

[6] 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 15.2 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) 12.8 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U 

Number of Berths 13 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro 

Berth & Ramps (t/m2) U 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 86.4 

Quayside Length (m) 505 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, 

Rail; 

highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BALTIMORE
 Multiple Terminals | Baltimore, Maryland | 39° 13’ 57” N, 76° 33’ 32” W 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

etc.) 

U = Unknown 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing Blasting 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityc 

    

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye      

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

e Improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Extensive industrial development in the area and port-related activities have had a severe impact on 

the biota in the Harbor. Few mollusks and crustaceans can be found in the area, and no oyster bars 

are known to exist in the Harbor today. 

Benthic 

The surface layer of fluid mud that exists in most of the Port area provides a poor substrate for 

many benthic species. The benthic communities that survive in the Port area are not well developed 

and are primarily comprised of pollution-tolerant species. [4] 

Fish & EFH 

The Patapsco River is classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). [7] The Patapsco River also serves as a migratory pathway for anadromous 

species such as American shad, hickory shad, yellow perch, white perch, alewife, and blueback 

herring. [8] 

Air Quality 

Baltimore is located in the Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) and 

is classified as a non-attainment area for the 1-hour (Severe-15) ozone (O3) and 8-hour (Moderate) 

ozone standards as well as the carbon monoxide (CO) (Moderate) standard. [9] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BALTIMORE 

Multiple Terminals | Baltimore, Maryland | 39° 13’ 57” N, 76° 33’ 32” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Terrestrial Biota 

The tidal wetlands that once occupied the area have been virtually eliminated by industrial and 

commercial development, reducing the quality of environmental resources in the area. The 

remaining wetlands in Baltimore Harbor consist primarily of patches of phragmites reed, which are 

less valuable to fish and wildlife. [4] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. [10] [11] 

Marine mammals and sea turtles are not typically seen in the waters around the Port. The Port is 

located approximately 150 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. Marine mammals, such as whales 

and dolphins, and sea turtles are found further south in the lower Chesapeake Bay. There is 

anecdotal information about sightings of dolphins, seals, manatees, and sea turtles throughout the 

upper Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River; however, they are infrequent. [12] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The Northern long-eared bat was 

identified as threatened in Baltimore county. [11] 

There are two documented colonial waterbird nesting sites located on the shoreline of the Patapsco 

River. [13] An established colony of black-crowned night herons, nest at Sollers Point near the 

northern end of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, while herring gulls nest on Sparrows Point. 

Additionally, a variety of waterfowl species, including mallards, scaup, bufflehead, goldeneye, 

ruddy duck, canvasback, Canadian geese, and black duck, winter in the Harbor area. [4] 

Water Quality 

The Patapsco River (Segment ID MD-02130906), has been listed as impaired according to 

Maryland’s Final 2014 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality. The Patapsco River Lower North 

Branch (LNB) is impaired due to sulfates and chlorides. This area is also polluted by sewage leaks, 

stormwater runoff, and trash. All waterbodies within the Patapsco LNB have a designated use, 

which is to support water contact recreation and protection of aquatic life. [14] [15] 

Currents & Tides In addition to inflow from the Patapsco River, water circulation around the Port is influenced by tidal 

flow and wind. The mean tidal range at the Port is 1.14 feet. [16] 

The bottom sediments in the Chesapeake Bay and the approach channels to Baltimore Harbor are 

predominantly clayey silt, with some locations of sand-silt-clay. The upper Chesapeake Bay, near 

Sediment Deposition the mouth of the Patapsco River, is a zone of sediment deposition in the Harbor. Typical of urban 

harbors, sediments in the area contain a variety of trace metals and organic contaminants; including 

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and DDT (formally known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). [4] 

Acoustic 

Environment 

Noise in the vicinity of the port is caused by equipment on land and aboard ships. In general, the 

noise level in the Harbor is not disturbing to animal or human users of the area. [4] 

Critical Habitat Although there are federally and state listed endangered species in the Baltimore Harbor area, the 

area has not been identified as critical habitat. [17] 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: one military installation in Baltimore, MD; The Surface Forces 

Logistics (Coast Guard) is 4 miles south of the port, along the Patapsco River. [18] The US Naval 

Academy is located approximately 20 miles south in Annapolis. 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

High and medium intensity developed industrial areas surround the Port. The Harbor is highly 

developed along all shorelines. [19] [20] 

Transportation Approximately 2.5 miles from Interstate 95 and 1.5 miles from Interstate 695 with access to 

Interstates 395 and 895. Direct rail access to berths, rail serviced by Norfolk Southern. [20] [6] 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: 291 properties and historic districts in the 

city of Baltimore, including the Fort McHenry National Monument, which is located directly east of 

the port. [21] 

There are six known shipwrecks within Baltimore Harbor. [22] 

Visual Industrial viewscapes throughout the Port and harbor. [20] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BALTIMORE
 Multiple Terminals | Baltimore, Maryland | 39° 13’ 57” N, 76° 33’ 32” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Environmental 

Justice 

Total minorities: City of Baltimore 71.9%; MD 45.8%. [23]
 

Low-income: City of Baltimore 27.2%; MD 9.8%. [23]
 

Area surrounding port: census block group for the port show less than 20% total minority
 

population. Surrounding census block groups in residential areas show more than 20% total
 

minority population. The percent of the population in poverty in the census tracts of the terminal and
 

surrounding Port areas is the lowest in the vicinity (<16%). [24]
 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [25] 

Commercial fishing engagement low in all the surrounding communities. [26] 

Commercial fishing reliance low in all surrounding communities. [26] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Baltimore County 2012: 22,273. [27] 

Tourism & Recreational fishing engagement low in all the surrounding communities with the exception of 

Recreation Baltimore itself where it is medium. [26]
 

Recreational fishing reliance low in all surrounding communities. [26]
 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to Port (Oct 04 – Nov 01, 2015): 9-78. [28] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): tug 54.2%, cargo 9.7%, passenger 8.9%, special craft 

8.9%, sailing vessels 6.1%. [28] 

Population: City of Baltimore 621,445. [23] 

Socioeconomic Labor Force: City of Baltimore 294,340; employed 268,824; unemployment rate 8.4%. [27] 

Resources Main sources of fiscal revenues in MD Local Jurisdictions: property taxes 27.0%; intergovernmental 

revenues 29.0%; individual income tax 15.0 %; insurance trust revenues 5.4%. [29] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Baltimore necessary to support offshore wind development are anticipated to have 

minimal impact on existing terrestrial and upland resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Minimal dredging at select 

terminals may be necessary; however, the anticipated impact to sediments or marine resources will be minor; given the 

ongoing maintenance dredging that occurs within the Harbor and surrounding channels. Noise associated with the port 

modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels; due to the industrialized nature of the 

surrounding environment. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port 

machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring 

would likely be required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. Potential for relevant 

socioeconomic impacts are low. No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or 

low-income communities are anticipated. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1 World Port Source. Port of Baltimore. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 29]. Available from: 

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/commerce/USA_MD_Port_of_Baltimore_311.php. 

2 Maryland Port Administration. Port of Baltimore Operating Hours. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Oct 30]. Available 

from: http://www.mpa.maryland.gov/forms/content/ports-america-baltimore-operating-hours-update. 

3 Martin Associates. The Economic Impacts of the Port of Baltimore 2010. Prepared for the Maryland Port 

Administration; 2011. 

4 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland Draft Feasibility 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland Port Administration; 1997. 

5 Maryland Port Administration. Port of Baltimore Strategic Plan 2015. 2015. 

6 Port of Baltimore. Marine Terminals. [Internet]. [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://pobdirectory.com/terminals.php. 

7 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

8 Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Patapsco River. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 29]. Available from: 

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/hotspots/patapsco.aspx. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

BALTIMORE
 Multiple Terminals | Baltimore, Maryland | 39° 13’ 57” N, 76° 33’ 32” W 

9	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 

2015 October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

10	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' 

Jurisdiction. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

11	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

12	 Baltimore Sun. Manatee in Baltimore harbor? [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2010/10/manatee_in_baltimore_harbor.html. 

13	 Parsons Brinckerhoff. East Coast Marine Highway Initiative M-95 Study Final Report. East Coast Marine 

Highway Initiative Awarding Authority; 2013. Available from: 

http://www.portofnewbedford.org/documents/ECMHI%20M-95%20Study%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

14	 Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland's Final 2014 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality. 

Baltimore, MD 2015. Available from: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Documents/Integrated_Report_Secti 

on_PDFs/IR_2014/MD_Final_2014_IR_Part_A-E.pdf. 

15	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

16	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides & Currents. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 29]. 

Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datums.html?id=8574680. 

17	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 Oct 29]. Available from: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper.jsp. 

18	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://militarybases.com/. 

19	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis 

(EVA) Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

20	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

21	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

22	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

23	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 

2015 October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

24	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

25	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 

28]. Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

26	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 

28]. Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

27	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

28	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/ports/all. 

29	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

HAMPTON ROADS 

Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

HAMPTON ROADS 

Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Virginia Port Authority (State Agency) 

Operator: Virginia International Terminals, LLC (Private Corporation); The Peck Company 

(Private Corporation) – operates Peck Marine Terminal 

Terminals at Port of Hampton Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT); Norfolk International Terminals (NIT); 

Roads: Portsmouth Marine Terminal (PMT); Peck Marine Terminal (Peck) 

Primary Existing Uses: Breakbulk Cargo; Shipbuilding; Military [1] 

Primary Cargos Handled: Mineral Fuel; Oil; Wood; Cereals; Fertilizers; Miscellaneous Grain Seed Fruit; Food 

Waste; Animal Feed; Machinery [2] 

NNMT NIT PMT Peck 

Typical Operating Hours 7:00 AM – 11:00 AM, 5:00 AM – 7:00 PM 5:00 AM – 7:00 PM 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM 

12:00 PM – 4:00 PM Monday-Friday; Monday-Friday [3] Monday-Friday [4] 

Monday-Friday [3] 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM 

Saturday [3] 

Land Area 165 acres [2] 567 acres [2] 287 acres [2] 55 acres [5] 

Shortest Distance to Wind Approximately 56.3 miles (average distance of 4 terminals) 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: Virginia Lease Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 374,000 people [2] 

The Port of Hampton Roads is a deep draft port located on the Mid-Atlantic coast, off the lower end of the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Port is located at the confluence of three tidal rivers – the James, the Nansemond, and the Elizabeth. The Atlantic Ocean 

Channel (AOC) and Thimble Shoals Channel (TSC) make up the approach channels to the Port of Hampton Roads. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District is responsible for maintaining these Federal navigation channels to 

ensure safe passage for all vessel traffic. [6] 

The Port consists of six terminals spanning across multiple municipalities in Virginia. The terminals highlighted here are the 

Newport News Marine Terminal (Newport News, VA), Norfolk International Terminals (Norfolk, VA), Portsmouth Marine 

Terminal (Portsmouth, VA), and Peck Marine Terminal (Chesapeake, VA). The Port is fully authorized and permitted for 

future marine terminal expansion. [2] The Port also has an expansive intermodal rail and is connected to several major 

highways and roads, including Interstate 95, Interstate 64, Interstate 564, US Route 460, US Route 17, and US Route 58. [2] 

Hampton Roads is also home to multiple large shipyards (both private and US Navy) as well as Naval Station Norfolk, which 

is the largest naval station in the world. [7] 

In 2015, the Virginia Mine Minerals and Energy commissioned three reports to assess the readiness of Virginia ports to 

support offshore wind energy. [8] 

Capability Area Criteria (units) NNMT NIT PMT Peck 

Potential Use Staging Port Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Port 

Access 

Port Access Channel Width (m) 304.8 304.8 304.8 304.8 

Port Access Water Depths (m) 10.7 11 13.1 8.8 

Overhead Draft (m) 12.2 12.2 12.2 15.2 

Number of Berths 9 5 3 1 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U U U U 

Quayside Length (m) 285 305 360 126.5 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAMPTON ROADS
 Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

Capability Area Criteria (units) NNMT NIT PMT Peck 

Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking U U U U 

Storage Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U U U U 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U U U U 

Size of Storage Area (m2) 61,000 217,000 30,000 80,937 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes No 

Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U U U N/A 

Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth & 

Ramps (t/m2) U U U N/A 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 162 72 44 U 

Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 40 U U 

Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure 

(rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

Rail; 

highway 

Rail; 

highway 

Rail; 

highway 

U = Unknown 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Blasting Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Quayside 

Capabilitiesb   Peck   

Ro-Ro 

Capabilityc      

Cranesd       

Storage 

Capabilitiese     

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

Peck denotes Construction Activity only required at the Peck Marine Terminal 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m for all terminals 

b Increase Quayside Length of Peck to 170 m; Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Suitable for Jacking of 

all terminals 

c Provide Ro-Ro Capability for Peck; Improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m for all terminals; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berths and 

Ramps to 10 t/m2 for all terminals d Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability for all terminals; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m for all terminals e Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 for all terminals 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAMPTON ROADS 

Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

An assessment of the benthic habitat conducted for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion in 

Portsmouth, located at the mouth of the Elizabeth River west of Norfolk International Terminals, 

indicates much of the existing benthic habitat within the area of the Port is degraded. [6] Three Benthic commercially important benthic species are found in the vicinity of the Port, including hard clam, 

blue crab, and oyster. Hard clams constitute a major fishery in Hampton Roads during the 

[9] summer. 

Air Quality 

and meet the NAAQS. [12] 

Fish & EFH 

The lower Chesapeake Bay and waters around the Port are classified as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). [10] The James River and tributaries also 

serve as a migratory pathway for anadromous species such as American shad, blueback herring, 

alewife, and striped bass. [11] 

The Port is located in the Hampton Roads Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) and is in 

attainment for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of the 8-hour ozone (O3) standard, which is 

classified as maintenance. An O3 Maintenance area is an area where the O3 levels formerly 

exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), but have now been reduced to 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port’s terminals is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. 

Wildlife species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Remnant habitats in this 

landscape include wetlands, forests, and shrublands/grasslands. [13] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Water Quality 

considered not supporting of Fish Consumption Use due to PCBs in several fish species. [18] [19] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. [15] Two species that are known to 

occur in Newport News county are listed including the bald eagle (recovery) and the Northern longeared bat (threatened). [17] The Piping Plover, a federally and state listed threatened species, is 

also known to nest on coastal beaches, including Craney Island. Peregrine Falcons nest on 

bridges and other elevated structures throughout Hampton Roads. [9] 

The James River, Nansemond River, Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads Harbor, and several 

surrounding tributaries (Segment ID VA-G01E-03-PCB) where the Port is located, are classified as 

impaired according to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2012 Impaired Waters – 

303(d) List. These waters are impaired due to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The area is 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

[14] [15] blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whales.
 

Within the coastal inshore and offshore waters of the Chesapeake Bay and adjacent Atlantic
 

Ocean, bottlenose dolphins, humpback whales, and short-beaked common dolphins are found. [16]
 

Loggerhead sea turtles and leatherback sea turtles are also found in these waters. These marine
 

mammals and sea turtles have been seen in the harbor and around the Port. [16]
 

Currents & Tides 

Water circulation around the Port is influenced by inflow from the James River, Elizabeth River, 

and the Nansemond River, as well as tides and wind. The mean tidal range in the harbor is 2.43 

feet. [20] 

The sediment in these waters is considered to be contaminated by metals and PCBs and has 

resulted in impairment of these waters. Sediments within the Hampton Roads Harbor are classified 

Sediment Deposition as fine grain mud, with some very find sand, traces of shell debris and some organic material. The 

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission sites sediment pollution as one of the main issues 

facing the Chesapeake Bay. [21] [22] 

Acoustic Environment 

Highway and local street traffic represent the dominant sources of existing noise in the Hampton 

Roads port area. In the vicinity of the Norfolk Naval Air Station (NAS), aircraft operations also 

contribute to the existing noise environment. [9] 

Known or potential populations of threatened or endangered species, and species of special 

Critical Habitat concern, have been identified in the Port area; however, no critical habitat has been identified in 

the vicinity of the Port. [17] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAMPTON ROADS 

Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: Fort Monroe (Army), Fort Eustis (Army), Naval Station Norfolk 

(Navy), Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads (Navy), Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek 

(Navy), Norfolk Naval Shipyard (Navy), Joint Expeditionary Base (Navy), Naval Air Station Oceana 

(Navy), Sector Hampton Roads (Coast Guard), and Langley Air Force Base (Air Force). [23] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

NNMT: High intensity developed land with commercial and industrial areas to the immediate areas 

north and south of the terminal along the coastline. Residential areas located across Interstate 664 

about a third of a mile north and east of the terminal. There are little to no open areas in the 

immediate vicinity of the terminal. [24] 

NIT: High intensity developed land with commercial and industrial areas to the immediate areas 

north and south of the terminal along the coastline. Residential areas located along Virginia State 

Route 337 less than a mile southeast of the terminal. Some open land (Capt. Slade Cutter Athletic 

Park) northeast of the terminal and there are no forested lands in the immediate vicinity. [24] 

PMT: High intensity developed land with commercial, industrial, and residential areas in the 

immediate areas around the terminal. Residential areas located across US highway 58 less than a 

mile west and southwest of the terminal. There are little to no open areas in the immediate vicinity 

[24] of the terminal.
 

Peck: Low and medium intensity developed land with commercial and industrial areas in the
 

immediate area around the terminal. Some open land and forest land to the immediate east and 

northeast of the terminal, up to and across Interstate 464. [24]
 

Transportation 

NNMT: Access to Interstate 664 to the southeast and US highway 60. [24] 

NIT: Access to Virginia State Route 337 and US highway 564. [24] 

PMT: Access to Virginia State Route 164 and US highway 58. [24] 

Peck: Access to Interstate 464. [24] 

All four terminals serviced by rail. [24] 

Cultural & Historical 

NNMT: Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 28 properties or 

districts in the area, although not at the terminal. Three known shipwrecks west of the terminal. [25] 

[26] 

NIT: Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 59 properties or districts
 

in the City of Norfolk, although none at the terminal. [25]
 

One known shipwreck to the south of the port. One known shipwreck southwest of the terminal
 

near Craney Island Fuel Terminal. One shipwreck northwest of the terminal. [26]
 

PMT: Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 24 properties or districts
 

in the city of Portsmouth, although not particularly in the area of the terminal. [25]
 

Ten known shipwrecks south of the port. One known shipwreck west of the terminal before the
 

Virginia State Route 164 bridge. [26]
 

Peck: Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 8 properties or districts
 

in the City of Chesapeake, although none at the terminal. [25]
 

Two shipwrecks, both north and northwest of the terminal. [26]
 

Visual 

NNMT: View from the closest residential areas partially blocked by Interstate 664. Industrial 

viewscape at the terminal characterized by stacks of shipping containers, warehouses, and several 

large cranes. Coal stacks located due south from the terminal. [24] 

NIT: Industrial viewscape at terminal. View from the closest residential areas partially blocked by 

vegetation. View from Virginia State Route 337 and across the railroad tracks characterized by 

large stacks of shipping containers, vast concrete landscape, and large cranes. [24] 

PMT: Industrial viewscape at the terminal. View from Virginia State Route 164 characterized by 

large stacks of shipping containers, vast concrete landscape, and large cranes. View from closest 

residential areas are obstructed by Virginia State Route 164. [24] 

Peck: Industrial viewscape at the terminal. View from Interstate 464 characterized by large 

storage containers, warehouses, several large cranes, and open lands. [24] 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAMPTON ROADS 

Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Environmental 

Justice 

NNMT: Total minorities: city of Newport News 49.1%; VA 30.5%. [27]
 

Low-income: city of Newport News 15.2%; VA 11.3%. [27]
 

Area surrounding terminal: Census block group to the east and northeast of the terminal has
 

highest rate of total minority population (> 90%) and to the east of the terminal is the census tract 

with the highest share of individuals below poverty level (> 75 %). [28]
 

NIT: [17] Total minorities: Norfolk 51.8%; VA 30.5%. [27] Low-income: Norfolk 19.2%; VA 11.3%.
 

Area surrounding terminal: Census block group to the northeast of the terminal has highest rate of
 

total minority population (> 51%) and to the west of the port is the census tract with the highest 

share of individuals below poverty level (> 60 %). [28]
 

PMT: Total minorities: City of Portsmouth 58.5%; VA 30.5%. [27]
 

Low-income: City of Portsmouth 18.4%; VA 11.3%. [27]
 

Area surrounding terminal: Census block group to the southwest of the port has highest rate of 

total minority population (> 99%) and to the west of the port the highest share of individuals below
 

poverty level (> 72%). [28]
 

Peck: Total minorities: Chesapeake 49.1%; VA 30.5%. [27]
 

Low-income: Chesapeake 15.2%; VA 11.3%. [27]
 

Area surrounding terminal: Census block group immediately surrounding the port has a total
 

minority population (> 67%) and the share of individuals below poverty level is (> 42%). [28]
 

Tourism & Recreation 

Recreational fishing reliance in surrounding communities is low. [30] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings (Hampton Roads area): 16.5 million pounds (U.S. rank 20); VA 381.7 million 

pounds. [29] 

Commercial fishing engagement in surrounding communities high near NNMT, medium around 

NIT, low otherwise. [30] 

Commercial fishing reliance in surrounding communities is low. [30] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in VA Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA in 2012: 

15,209. [31] 

Recreational fishing engagement high in surrounding communities is high near NNMT and NIT, 

low otherwise. [30] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

(Information on daily vessel arrivals and departures not readily available.) [32] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

NNMT: Population: City of Newport News 180,719. [27] 

Labor Force: City of Newport News 90,692; employed 85,047; unemployment rate 6.2%. [31]
 

NIT: Population: City of Norfolk 242,803. [27]
 

Labor Force: City of Norfolk 112,971; employed 105,789; unemployment rate 6.4%. [31]
 

PMT: Population: City of Portsmouth 95,535. [27] 

Labor Force: City of Portsmouth 45,364; employed 42,128; unemployment rate 7.1%. [31]
 

Peck: Population: City of Chesapeake 222,209. [27]
 

Labor Force: City of Chesapeake 116,496; employed 110,362; unemployment rate 5.3%. [31]
 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in VA local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 33%; 

charges 16%; property taxes 31%; utility revenues 4%. [33] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Hampton Roads, necessary to support offshore wind development, are anticipated to 

be limited to increasing the bearing capacity of various points at the Terminal, which would have little impact on existing 

terrestrial and upland resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Minimal dredging at select terminals may be 

necessary; however, the anticipated impact to sediments or marine resources will be minor. Noise associated with the port 

modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels; due to the industrialized nature of the 

surrounding environment. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAMPTON ROADS
 Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring 

would likely be required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. 

Because of the many military installations in the area and community engagement in commercial and recreational fishing, 

activities should be well coordinated to avoid use conflicts. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects to areas to the northeast or east of NNMT, northeast and west of NIT, west and southwest of PMT and 

surrounding Peck, there may be disproportionately high impacts on minority or low-income communities. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 World Port Source. Virginia Ports. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/index/USA_VA.php. 

2	 Virginia International Terminals, LLC. The Port of Virginia. [Internet]. 2015 Available from: 

http://www.portofvirginia.com/. 

3	 The Port of Virginia. Normal operating hours for facilities. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 10]. Available 

from: http://customerservice.portofvirginia.com/link/portal/57066/57076/Article/15/Normal-operating-hours-forfacilities. 

4	 CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). Locate a Port of Entry. [Internet]. [cited 2015 December 10]. 

Available from: http://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports. 

5	 The Peck Company. Peck Marine Terminal. [Internet]. 2015 Available from: http://www.peckmarineterminal.com/. 

6	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered Species Biological Opinion for Maintenance of 

Chesapeake Bay Entrance Channels and use of sand borrow areas for beach nourishment. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Norfolk District; 2012. FINERl2012/01586. 

7	 Naval Technology. The biggest naval bases in the US. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 December 10]. Available from: 

http://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurethe-biggest-naval-bases-in-the-us-4144545/. 

8	 DMME (Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy). DMME Completes Offshore Wind Power Port 

Readiness Evaluation. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 January 6]. Available from: 

https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/OffshoreWindPortEvaluation.shtml. 

9	 Virginia Department of Transportation. Hampton Roads Crossing Study Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation; 2001. FHWA-VA-EIS-99-01-F. 

Available from: http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/studyhro-crossing-feis.pdf. 

10	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

11	 Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. Fish Passage Program. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/fish-passage/. 

12	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 

2015 October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

13	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

14	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' 

Jurisdiction. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

15	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

16	 Engelhaupt A, Aschettino J, Jefferson TA, Richlen M, Engelhaupt D. Occurence, Distribution, and Density of 

Marine Mammals Near Naval Station Norfolk & Virginia Beach, VA: Annual Progress Report. Final Report. 

Virginia Beach, Virginia August 2015. Available from: 

http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/files/5814/3923/0416/Engelhaupt_A._et_al._2015_­

_Norfolk_Surveys__Density_-_Final.pdf. 

17	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species: Project Reviews in Virginia. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 

2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://fws.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=f6e84e675ba1461b8ae6a351adea1429. 

18	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

19	 Virginia Department Environmenal Quality. Virginia Water Quality Assessment. Integrated Report. Richmond 

2014. Available from: 

March 18, 2016 Page 7 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

HAMPTON ROADS
 Multiple Terminals | Hampton Roads, Virginia | 36° 56’ 37” N, 76° 23’ 09” W 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterQualityAssessments/IntegratedReport/2012/ir12_Integrat 

ed_Report_All_Final.pdf. 

20	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides & Currents. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8638610. 

21	 Rule JH. Chemical Extractions of Heavy Metals in Sediments as Related to Metal Uptake by Grass Shrimp 

(Palaemonetes pugio) and Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology. 1985;14:749-757. 

22	 Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality. [Internet]. [cited 2015 December 

2]. Available from: http://www.hrpdcva.gov/departments/water-resources/chesapeake-bay-water-quality/. 

23	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://militarybases.com/. 

24	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

25	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

26	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

27	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 

2015 October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

28	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

29	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 

28]. Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

30	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 

28]. Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

31	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

32	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/ports/all. 

33	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 8 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

MOREHEAD CITY 

General Cargo Terminal | Morehead City, North Carolina | 34° 43’ 11” N, 76° 41’ 57” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

MOREHEAD CITY 

General Cargo Terminal | Morehead City, North Carolina | 34° 43’ 11” N, 76° 41’ 57” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: North Carolina State Ports Authority (State) 

Operator: North Carolina State Ports Authority (State) 

Primary Existing Uses: Bulk and Breakbulk Shipping 

Primary Cargos Handled: Sulfur Products; Metal Products; Phosphate [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Monday-Friday (General Cargo Terminal) [1] 

Land Area: Over 150 acres [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 107 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: North Carolina Wind Energy Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 1,300 people 

The Port of Morehead City is a deepwater, commercial port located about four miles from the Atlantic Ocean through 

Beaufort Inlet. The Port is located within the confluence of the Newport River and Bogue Sound and serves as a significant 

import and export location for a number of mining and manufacturing firms that are vital to North Carolina’s economy. The 

General Cargo Terminal handles bulk and breakbulk cargo, but does not handle shipping containers. In addition to its 

commercial significance, the Port is a strategic fast-strike military port for launching forces, equipment, and munitions. 

In 2014, 142 ships and 464 barges made port calls at the Port of Morehead City carrying more than 220,000 tons of break 

bulk and almost 1.6 million tons of bulk cargo, contributing an estimated $1.1 billion to North Carolina’s economy [1] [2] The port 

area has two areas designated as Foreign Trade Zones. [1] 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 3.9 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) 17 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 244 Size of Storage Area (m2) 225,000 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 14.3 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

Ro-Ro 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) 76 

Number of Berths 15 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) 3.9 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) 12.7 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 113 

Quayside Length (m) 1,188 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking Yes Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

U = Unknown 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOREHEAD CITY 

General Cargo Terminal | Morehead City, North Carolina | 34° 43’ 11” N, 76° 41’ 57” W 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving Utility Tower Extension 

Utility Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Quayside 

Capabilitiesa    

Storage 

Capabilitiesb     

Ro-Ro Capabilityc      

Cranesd       

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications a Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 

b Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

c Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

d Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Noise  Visible infrastructure 

 Discharges  Species injury, mortality, displacement 

 Trash & debris  Space use conflicts 

 Traffic  Demand for local labor, goods, services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic Shellfish beds and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) occur throughout Bogue Sound, providing 

important habitat for benthic and fish resources. [3] 

Fish & EFH 

Bogue Sound has extensive eelgrass beds that have been designated as Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) for their high value to blue 

crab, juvenile fish, and shrimp. [3] The Sound also serves to transport larval stages of fishery 

resources. The State of North Carolina defines Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) as tidal salt waters 

that provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially important fish and 

shellfish. Neither Morehead City Harbor nor Bogue Sound are located within a designated PNA. 

(15 NC Administrative Code 3B .1405). 

Air Quality Morehead City is located in the Southern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR) and is classified as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants. [4] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Coastal wetlands in the area include tidal salt marshes along the shorelines of Bogue Sound. 

Many types of wetland communities are present including smooth cordgrass marsh, needlerush 

marsh, saltmeadows, and high marsh. The beach and dune community in the area could be 

considered depauperate in both plants and animals, due to human presence and its constant 

exposure to salt spray, shifting sands, wind, and sterile soils with low water retention capacity. [5] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOREHEAD CITY 

General Cargo Terminal | Morehead City, North Carolina | 34° 43’ 11” N, 76° 41’ 57” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. [6] 

Five species of sea turtles (hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green and loggerhead) and the 

West Indian manatee are also listed as endangered or threatened for Carteret County. [7] The sea 

turtles and the West Indian manatee may forage in SAV beds in Bogue Sound during warmer 

summer months. 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover and the red knot 

are listed as threatened in Carteret county. The roseate tern is listed as endangered. The 

shoreline of Bogue Sound supports bird-nesting habitat. Colonially nesting waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

and wading birds) are commonly found in the area. [7] 

(Information on bats in this area is not readily available.) 

The waters closest to the Port in Bogue Sound have been listed as impaired according to the 2014 

Category 5 Water Quality Assessments – 303(d) List. Bogue Sound is impaired because of 

mercury in fish tissue and pathogens. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study has been 

Water Quality completed for mercury in fish tissue but a TMDL is currently needed for pathogens. The North 

Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) has designated Bogue Sound as Class SA waters, 

suitable for shellfishing plus primary and secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation. It has 

also been designated as having Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) due to its high quality. [8] 

Currents & Tides 

Morehead City is located within the confluence of the Newport River and Bogue Sound. High tidal 

flushing occurs through Beaufort Inlet, where tidal currents reach speeds up to 6.8 feet per 

second. The mean tidal range is about 3.1 feet. [9] 

Within the inner harbor, sediment consists predominantly of very fine to fine sands that are derived 

from Bogue and Back Sounds and the Newport River. Coarser sediments are concentrated in the Sediment Deposition channels. Dredged material testing conducted on sediments from the Harbor indicate only trace 

contaminants. 

Acoustic Environment The Port is currently an active port in an industrialized area. A detailed noise and traffic study 

should be performed prior to modification to fully assess the impacts of noise. 

USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have proposed designating critical 

habitat for the threatened loggerhead sea turtle along the beaches surrounding Bogue Sound. [7] 

Critical Habitat State Protected Species (vascular plants and vertebrate animals) are also found on Bogue Banks, 

on the southern shore of Bogue Sound. 

Military Use Areas Military installations near port: MCAS Cherry Point (US Marine Corps), Camp Lejeune (US Marine 

Corps), MCAS New River (US Marine Corps). [10] 

Land Use & Existing 

Infrastructure 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial and residential areas to the east and 

west of the port along US Hwy 70. [11] Port industrial area available for development on Radio 

Island, across Newport River. [1] 

Transportation Access to Interstates 95 and 40 through US highways 70 and 18 and train service from Norfolk 

Southern. [1] 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: Morehead City Historic District, 

Morehead City Municipal Building, Beaufort Historic District. [12] 

One known shipwreck to the east of the port. [13] 

Visual Industrial viewscape at port. Undeveloped land to the east on Radio Island and to the south on 

Goat Island and Fort Macon State Park. [14] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

limited and, overall, have little impact on existing biological resources, as this area is already an active port in an 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOREHEAD CITY 

General Cargo Terminal | Morehead City, North Carolina | 34° 43’ 11” N, 76° 41’ 57” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Total minorities: Carteret County 13.0%; NC 35.1%. [15] 

Low-income: Carteret County 14.4%; NC 17.5%. [15] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: Census block group to the northeast of the port has highest rate of total Justice minority population (> 40%) and to the northwest of the port the highest share of individuals below 

poverty level (> 32 %). [16] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Recreational fishing reliance high in Harkers Island, Atlantic Beach and Cedar Point. [18] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Port of Beaufort-Morehead City 6.4 million pounds (US rank 76); NC 50.2 

million pounds. [17] 

Commercial fishing engagement high in Morehead City and Beaufort. [18] 

Commercial fishing reliance high in Beaufort and Harkers Island. [18] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Carteret County in 2010: 3,762. [19] 

Recreational fishing engagement high in Morehead City, Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, Harkers Island 

and Emerald Isle. [18] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Aug 14 - Sept 09, 2015): 12-39. [20] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): pleasure crafts 33.7%, tug boats 21.4%, sailing 

vessels 14%. [20] 

Population: Carteret County 67,198. [15] 

Socioeconomic Labor Force: Carteret County 30,894; employed 29,048; unemployment rate 6.0%. [21] 

Resources Main Sources of fiscal revenues in NC local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 33.2%; 

charges 25.1 %; property taxes 20.4%; utility revenues 9.8 %. [22] 

Potential port modifications to the Morehead City Port, necessary to support offshore wind development, are anticipated to be 

industrialized setting. The potential for reduction or loss of habitat (benthic and terrestrial) exists; however, the habitat is 

Anticipated Impacts 

degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with the port modifications 

identified above could potentially produce noise above existing ambient levels (i.e., pile driving). Time of year and day/night 

restrictions may be required for certain activities that have the potential to disturb sensitive communities. Air quality impacts 

would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving 

activities. Individual, port specific air quality analyses and monitoring would likely be required to assess any localized air 

quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. 

Road access to the port depends largely on US Hwy 70, which crosses commercial and residential areas, as well as historic 

districts to the east and west of the port. To the extent that construction materials are transported by truck, impacts to traffic 

may occur as well as to visitation to the nearby historic districts. Cranes may produce visual impacts against some 

viewscapes. To the extent that port modifications interfere with commercial and recreational fishing, the communities of 

Beaufort (commercial) and Harkers Island (recreational) have the potential to require communication to minimize user 

conflicts. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or environmental effects to areas to the north of the port 

there may be disproportionately high impacts on minority or low-income communities. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1 Port of Morehead City. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ncports.com/port-of-morehead-city. 

2 North Carolina State Ports Authority. Economic Contribution of the North Carolina Ports. [Internet]. 2014 Available from: 

http://www.ncports.com/elements/media/files/economic-contribution-north-carolina-ports.pdf. 

3 NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). Submerged Aquatic Habitat (SAV) 

Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 9]. Available from: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/habitat/SAV. 

4 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 15]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

5 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

6 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

7 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

MOREHEAD CITY
 General Cargo Terminal | Morehead City, North Carolina | 34° 43’ 11” N, 76° 41’ 57” W 

8	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

9	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

10	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

11	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 11]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

12	 NC SHPO (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office). GIS Web Service. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/. 

13	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

14	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. 

15	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

16	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

17	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

18	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

19	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies.. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-085; 2012. 

20	 MarineTraffic. Port of Morehead City. [Internet]. [cited 2015 September 10]. Available from: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/2766/USA_port:MOREHEAD_CITY. 

21	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 September 10]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

22	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State and Local Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 10]. Available from: http://www.census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

WILMINGTON, NC 

Wilmington, North Carolina | 34° 11’ 31” N, 77° 57’ 15” WW 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

WILMINGTON, NC 

Wilmington, North Carolina | 34° 11’ 31” N, 77° 57’ 15” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: North Carolina State Ports Authority (State Agency) 

Operator: North Carolina State Ports Authority (State Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: International seaport; Industry; Food Processing, and Research Center [1] 

Primary Cargos Handled: Containers, Breakbulk, and Bulk Cargoes of Chemicals, Coal, Forest Products, 

General Merchandise, and Cement [1] 

Typical Operating Hours: 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM [2] 

Terminal Land Area: 280 acres [3] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 35.3 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: North Carolina Wind Energy Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 250 people [3] 

Wilmington, NC is located in New Hanover County in southeastern North Carolina. The Port of Wilmington, NC is located on 

the Cape Fear River, just above the confluence with the Brunswick River, approximately 26 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. 

The Port of Wilmington offers nine berths with a total of almost 6,800 feet of concrete deck and pile wharf and open apron 

areas of up to 300 feet. The channel depth at the Port is 42 feet at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The depth at Berths 1 

and 2 is 38 feet at MLLW, and depth at Berths 3 through 9 is 42 feet at MLLW. The Port of Wilmington is accessible to 

regional and national highway and rail networks. [2] 

The Port controls 150 acres of additional land that is available for development. [2] 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port Yes Storage Area Bearing Capacity (t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 152 Size of Storage Area (m2) 305,000 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 13.4 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) 12.8 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) U 

Number of Berths 9 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) U 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 225 

Quayside Length (m) 308 Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

U = Unknown 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing Blasting Dredging 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access      Capabilitiesa 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, NC 

Wilmington, North Carolina | 34° 11’ 31” N, 77° 57’ 15” W 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing Blasting Dredging 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityc 

     

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye      

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications a Improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; Reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

e Improve Ro-Ro Berth Width to 8 m; improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Benthic The Cape Fear River is classified as a primary shellfish nursery area; however, the area is closed 

to harvest due to the presence of metals in these waters. [4] 

Fish & EFH 

Cape Fear River is classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). [5] Anadromous species such as blueback herring, American shad, hickory shad, 

alewife, and striped bass, use the Cape Fear River as spawning and nursery areas. Additionally, 

endangered species such as the Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon also use the Cape Fear 

River as spawning and nursery areas. [6] 

Air Quality The Port of Wilmington is located in the Southern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality Region, and 

is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants. [7] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area surrounding the Port is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. There are more open spaces and 

forested lands downstream of the Port; including a 173 acre reserve on Bald Head Island, 

approximately 25 mile south of the Port. [8] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, NC 

Wilmington, North Carolina | 34° 11’ 31” N, 77° 57’ 15” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. The West 

Indian manatee was also listed as endangered for New Hanover county. [9] The right whale and 

humpback whale commonly occur in North Carolina’s coastal waters; however, they are rarely 

seen in the Cape Fear River. Bottlenose dolphin and the harbor porpoise, as well as the manatee 

have been found within the Cape Fear River system. [6] 

Four species of sea turtles are listed as either threatened or endangered for New Hanover county 

including; hawksbill, leatherback, green and loggerhead sea turtles. The green, loggerhead and 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are known to nest on the beaches of North Carolina near the mouth of 

the Cape Fear River and also, occasionally, enter the lower Cape Fear estuary. [10] [6] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The Northern long-eared bat and 

the piping plover are listed as threatened in New Hanover county. [10] A variety of birds are likely to 

occur seasonally in the area of the Port, since coastal North Carolina is part of the Atlantic Flyway. 

Bald Head Island, located approximately 25 miles south of the Port, is a common stopover spot. [11] 

[12] 

Both the Cape Fear River (Segment ID NC18-71) and Brunswick River (Segment ID NC18-77) are 

classified as impaired according to the North Carolina 2014 Category 5 Water Quality 

Assessments – 303(d) List. Brunswick River is impaired from its origin to the intersection with the 

Cape Fear River because of depleted dissolved oxygen and mercury in fish tissue. The Cape Fear Water Quality River is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, mercury in fish tissue, and high pH. Areas of the Cape 

Fear River south of the Port are impaired for metals other than mercury including; arsenic, nickel 

and copper among other parameters. [13] Waters are classified as SC, tidal saltwater supporting 

secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life. [4] 

Currents & Tides 

In addition to the inflow from the Cape Fear River, water circulation in this area is influenced by 

tidal flow and wind. The mean tidal range is 3.8 feet. Tidal currents reach speeds of 3.4 to 5.1 feet 

per second around the Port. [2] 

Sediment Deposition (Limited sediment data available). Sediments are predominantly silts and clay. [6] 

Acoustic Environment 

The Port is currently an active port in an industrialized area. Ambient noise at the Port includes 

heavy equipment, cranes, conveyors, large vehicles and rail transit. The City of Wilmington’s 

noise ordinance requires that daytime noise, be below 75 dbA. Noise levels for nighttime and 

weekend activities differ. [14] [4] 

Critical Habitat 

The Lower Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) includes 

Cape Fear River from Eagle Island downstream to the mouth of the river at Bald Head Island and 

supports populations of two Federally and State Endangered animals: manatee and shortnose 

sturgeon. Also supported is the Federal and State Threatened American alligator. The site also 

provides important habitat for other animal species that are rare in North Carolina, including 

Carolina diamondback terrapin. This portion of the river is considered to be of State significance 

due to the habitat provided to these rare species. [6] 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: no military installations in New Hanover County, NC. The Military 

Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (Army) is 14 miles south of Wilmington, NC, near the entrance of the 

navigation channel. [15] 

Medium intensity developed industrial land to the north and south, along the channel, with the 

Land Use & Existing closest residential areas about a third of a mile inland, to the east. Some undeveloped or 

Infrastructure developed open land across the channel less than a third of a mile to the west in Eagle Island and 

Clarks Island. [16] [17] 

Transportation 

Immediate access to US Routes 17, 11, 421, which connect to Interstates 40 and 140, 8 miles to 

the northeast. Port access is also available via US Routes 74, 76, and 421 and Interstate 95. 

Serviced by rail. [17] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, NC 

Wilmington, North Carolina | 34° 11’ 31” N, 77° 57’ 15” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: 25 historic properties and districts in 

Wilmington, NC. [18] 

One known shipwreck to the west of the port. [19] 

Visual 

View from closest residential areas partially blocked by vegetation. View from channel of industrial 

landscape with large cranes, storage containers, and warehouses. View of undeveloped land 

across the channel, to the west of the port. [17] 

Environmental 

Justice 

Total minorities: New Hanover County 21.8%; NC 35.1%. [20] 

Low-income: New Hanover County 16.9%; NC 17.5%. [20] 

Area surrounding port: two census block groups encompass the port (and surrounding residential 

areas) and vary from <20% total minority population in the northern block group to 41-75% total 

minority population in the southern block group. Two census tracts encompass the port (and 

surrounding residential areas) and vary from <10% individuals below the poverty level in the 

northern tract to >26% in the southern tract. [21] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in New Hanover County in 2010: 13,375. [24]
 

Tourism & Recreation
 Recreational fishing engagement is high in Wilmington and low in all surrounding communities. [23] 

Recreational fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [23] 

Socioeconomic 

Resources
 

property taxes 19.4%; hospital charges 15.4%; utility revenues 9.2%. [27]
 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [22] 

Commercial fishing engagement is high in Wilmington and low in all surrounding communities. [23] 

Commercial fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [23] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 28 – Oct 26, 2015): 1-12. [25] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): cargo 68.7%, tanker 15.6%, tug boats 12.5%, 

special craft 3.1%. [25] 

Population: New Hanover County 206,403. [20] 

Labor Force: New Hanover County 109,507; employed 103,164; unemployment rate 5.8%. [26] 

Main Sources of fiscal revenues in NC local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 36.0%; 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Wilmington, NC necessary to support offshore wind development, are anticipated 

to have minimal impact on existing terrestrial and upland resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Minimal dredging 

and land clearing may be necessary to enhance bearing capacity in the terrestrial and marine environment; however, the 

anticipated impact to sediments or marine resources will be minor given the regular maintenance dredging that occurs within 

the surrounding channels. In addition, the potential for reduction or loss of terrestrial habitat exists; however, the habitat is 

degraded and likely does not support a diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with the port modifications 

identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels due to the industrialized nature of the surrounding 

environment. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as well 

as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring would likely be 

required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. Potential for relevant 

socioeconomic impacts are low. However, because of engagement in commercial fishing in some communities, activities 

should be well coordinated to avoid use conflicts. To the extent that there are high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects there may be disproportionately high impacts on minority or low-income communities to the south of 

the port. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1 World Port Source. Port of Wilmington. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Nov 2]. Available from: 

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/review/USA_NC_Port_of_Wilmington_210.php. 

2 North Carolina Ports. Port of Wilmington. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 30]. Available from: 

http://www.ncports.com/port-of-wilmington/. 

3 Wilmington NC Magazine. A look at what the Port of Wilmington means to the Port City. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 

Nov 2]. Available from: http://www.wilmingtonncmagazine.com/global-reach. 

4 North Carolina State Ports Authority. Cold Storage Facility Port of Wilmington: Administrative Action, Environmental 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, NC
 Wilmington, North Carolina | 34° 11’ 31” N, 77° 57’ 15” W 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. EA and FONSI. Wilmington August 2014. 

5	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

6	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvements Study - Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Assessment. Draft. Wilmington District 2014. Available from: 

http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/navigation/Dredging/Projects/Wilmington%20Harbor%20Feasibility%2 

0Report%20June%202014.pdf. 

7	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

October 30]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

8	 The Nature Conservancy. Northeast Habitat Map. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa7c93736ec643a39764ea54339df6d8. 

9	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

10	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available 

from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

11	 North Carolina Birding Trail. Bald Head Island. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 30]. Available from: 

http://ncbirdingtrail.org/sites/2012/8/1/bald-head-island.html. 

12	 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Bat Fact Sheet. [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2015 October 30]. Available 

from: http://216.27.39.103/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/FactSheets/nongame_bat_hires.pdf. 

13	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 30]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

14	 City of Wilmington, North Carolina. City of Wilmington Noise Ordinance. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 30]. Available 

from: https://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/Portals/0/documents/Police%20Department/documents/Noise%20Ordinance.doc. 

15	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

16	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

17	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

18	 NC SHPO (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office). GIS Web Service. [Internet]. Undated [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/. 

19	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions 

Database. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

20	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

21	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

22	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

23	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

24	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study 

BOEM 2012-085; 2012. 

25	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Wilmington NC. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/209. 

26	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

27	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

db 

CHARLESTON 

Columbus Street Terminal | Charleston, South Carolina | 32° 49’ 20” N, 79° 55’ 39” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

CHARLESTON
 Columbus Street Terminal | Charleston, South Carolina | 32° 49’ 20” N, 79° 55’ 39” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: South Carolina Ports Authority (Quasi-public Agency) 

Operator: South Carolina Ports Authority (Quasi-public Agency) 

Primary Existing Uses: Common Breakbulk, Bulk, Rolling Stock, Heavy-Lift, and Project Cargo [1] 

Primary Cargo Handled Paper; Automobiles 

Typical Operating Hours: 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM Monday-Friday [1] 

[1] Terminal Land Area: 155 acres 

Shortest Distance to Wind 111.8 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area: North Carolina Wind Energy Area 

Commercial Port Employment: 187,600 people [1] 

The Port of Charleston includes five public terminals owned and operated by the South Carolina Ports Authority; Wando 

Welch Terminal (WWT), Columbus Street Terminal (CST), Union Pier Terminal (UPT), North Charleston Terminal (NCT) and 

Veterans Terminal (VT). Columbus Street Terminal (CST) is Charleston's premier combination breakbulk and container 

terminal. With dockside warehouses, dockside rail access, more than 3,800 feet of berth space, and post-Panamax and 

Suez-class container cranes, CST is multipurpose facility. The Terminal was recently converted from a container handling 

facility to a modern, large-scale Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) and project cargo terminal. [1] 

The CST is located on the Cooper River side of the Charleston peninsula, downriver of the US Highway 17 Bridge. The 

terminal is 14.4 nautical miles from the Charleston Harbor entrance. The terminal covers a total of 155 acres and has 3,500 

feet of berth. The berths at the terminal are maintained to a depth of -45 feet Mean Low Water (MLW). Access from the 

terminal to I-26 is via Morrison Avenue and East Bay Street. Existing rail access to this terminal includes an on-terminal 

intermodal rail yard [2]. 

The Port of Charleston offers a maintained harbor depth of -45 feet (13.7 meters) MLW throughout the main shipping channel 

and -47 feet (14.3 m) MLW in the entrance channel. A harbor deepening project is currently underway to take the Port of 

Charleston's entrance channel to 54 feet and harbor channel to 52 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 305 Size of Storage Area (m2) 452,842 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 14.3 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) Unlimited Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) 381 

Number of Berths 32 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) U 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 500 

Quayside Length (m) U Crane Height Restrictions (m) U 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

U = Unknown 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLESTON 

Columbus Street Terminal | Charleston, South Carolina | 32° 49’ 20” N, 79° 55’ 39” W 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Cranesa       

Quayside 

Capabilitiesb      

Storage 

Capabilitiesc     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilityd      

Modification in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications a Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m b Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2

; improve Quayside Length to 170 m; make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking c Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

d Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Nearshore benthic habitat consists of patchy, hardbottom habitat, including oyster reefs, 

surrounded by large expanses of sand. Benthic organisms found in the harbor channels include 

Benthic mollusks, polychaetes, oligochaetes, nematodes, and amphipods. Organism and population 

numbers are not typically as stable or abundant as in surrounding wetlands and mudflats due to 

disturbance. [3] 

Fish & EFH 

Charleston Harbor’s tidally influenced reaches and adjacent wetlands are all considered Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon are endangered species found in the Cooper River. The Cooper River serves as a 

migratory pathway for anadromous species such as the shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

American shad, blueback herring, hickory shad, and striped bass. [3] 

Air Quality The Port of Charleston is located in the Charleston Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 

and is in attainment for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [3] 

Terrestrial Biota 

Most of the area in the immediate Port vicinity is developed and provides limited wildlife habitat. 

Wildlife species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Habitats in the Harbor and 

adjacent lands include a number of wetlands, marshes, beaches, forests, and shrublands. [3] [4] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. Both the piping plover and red knot 

are listed as threatened in Charleston county. The bald eagle (recovery) and Bachman’s warbler 

(endangered) are also listed. [6] Furthermore, several species of shorebirds (American 

oystercatcher, willet, plovers, sandpipers, gulls/terns), seabirds (pelicans, skimmers, gulls, terns), 

and migratory birds (sandpipers, avocets) have been identified in the Port vicinity. Additionally, 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is also found around the Port. [3] 

Water Quality 

The Charleston Harbor system is not considered to be impaired under criteria of Section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act except for an area 0.5 miles southeast from the mouth of Shem Creek, which 

is several miles from the Port. [3] [7] 

Currents & Tides 

In addition to inflow from the Cooper River and Wando River, water circulation in Charleston 

Harbor is influenced by tidal flow and wind. Tidal currents near the entrance to the Charleston 

Harbor are typically 1.69 feet per second and currents near Fort Sumter and Drum Island can 

reach 6.75 feet per second. The mean tidal range in Charleston Harbor is 5.22 ft. [8] [3] 

Sediment Deposition 

Sediment in the Port vicinity is predominantly clay, silty sand, and inorganic silt. Sediment quality 

within Charleston Harbor ranges from poor to good, which is typical of an urban harbor. The 

sediment surrounding the Port is not considered to be significantly contaminated. [3] 

Acoustic Environment 

The Port of Charleston an active port in an industrialized area that has operated in an international 

harbor for centuries. Ambient noise from natural and artificial sources contribute to the typical 

noise characteristics of a busy harbor. 

All 11.2 miles of Folly Beach on Folly Island, located to the southeast of the Port, are designated 

as critical habitat for nesting loggerhead sea turtles. NMFS has proposed a rule to expand critical 

habitat for the North American right whale to include the Charleston Harbor; however, at the time 

of this writing this has not taken effect. [3] 

CHARLESTON 

Columbus Street Terminal | Charleston, South Carolina | 32° 49’ 20” N, 79° 55’ 39” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Critical Habitat 

Military Use Areas 

Military installations near port: There are three military installations in Charleston County, SC. The 

Naval Hospital Charleston (Navy), about 12.5 miles north; the Naval Weapons Station Charleston 

(Navy) is 11.5 miles north, and the Joint Base Charleston (Air Force) is 10.5 miles northeast. [9] 

High and medium intensity developed land with commercial and residential areas to the northwest 

Land Use & Existing and southwest of the port, where the city of Charleston is located. Largely undeveloped islands 

Infrastructure surround the Charleston peninsula, including Hog Island, Shute’s Folly Island, and Drum Island. [10] 

[4] 

Transportation Route to Interstate 26 runs through residential areas. Train service from the north and dockside rail 

service. [4] [1] 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: there are 93 properties or districts in the 

city of Charleston, including Castle Pickney on Shute’s Folly Island. [11] 

Cultural & Historical Two known shipwrecks north of the port, two known shipwrecks to the east, one known shipwreck 

to the southwest, and two known shipwrecks to the southeast. [12] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. Additionally 

the West Indian manatee was listed as endangered. Several species of whales could likely be in 

the vicinity depending on season and suitable habitat conditions including; humpback whales, 

North Atlantic right whales, Bryde’s whales, sperm whales and various species of beaked whales. 

Also, depending on season and suitable habitat, West Indian manatees, bottlenose dolphins, 

Atlantic spotted dolphins, harbor seals and hooded seals can occur. [5] 

Four federally listed species of sea turtle may also occur in the vicinity including the leatherback 

sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea, green sea turtle, and the loggerhead sea turtle. 

[3] [6] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLESTON 

Columbus Street Terminal | Charleston, South Carolina | 32° 49’ 20” N, 79° 55’ 39” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Visual 

Varied viewscapes at the port. Bridge and highway infrastructure blend with vegetative cover and 

open water to the north and east of the port. View of residential neighborhoods to the west of the 

port. Viewscape from the residential and commercial center of Charleston includes several large 

cranes, warehouses, and bridge infrastructure. [4] 

Total minorities: Charleston County 33.7%; SC 32.8%. [13] 

Low-income: Charleston County 18.2%; SC 18.1%. [13] 

Environmental Area surrounding port: Census block group to the north of the port has highest rate of total minority Justice population (> 75%) and the census tract encompassing the port and surrounding residential areas 

has the highest share of individuals below poverty level (> 26 %). [14] 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: Not available. [15] 

Commercial fishing engagement in Charleston is high and medium/low in surrounding 

communities. [16] 

Commercial fishing reliance in surrounding communities is low with exception to Folly Beach 

where it is high. [16] 

Tourism & Recreation 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Charleston County in 2010: 26,927. [17] 

Recreational fishing engagement in Charleston is low but is high/medium in surrounding 

communities. [16] 

Recreational fishing reliance in surrounding communities is low. [16] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 28 - Oct 26, 2015): 7-61. [18] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): pleasure craft 47.2%, cargo 21.8%, sailing vessel 

18.8%, tug 2.8%. [18] 

Population: Charleston County 358,736. [13] 

Socioeconomic Labor Force: Charleston County 189,718; employed 179,962; unemployment rate 5.1%. [19] 

Resources Main Sources of fiscal revenues in SC local jurisdictions: intergovernmental revenues 26.7%; 

hospital charges 19.0 %; property taxes 25.3%; utility revenues 8.0%. [20] 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Charleston, necessary to support offshore wind development, are anticipated to be 

limited to increasing the bearing capacity of various points at the Terminal, which would have little impact on existing terrestrial 

and upland resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Minimal dredging may be necessary; resulting in potential minor 

impact to marine resources, including patches of hard bottom in the surrounding vicinity. Noise associated with the port 

modifications identified above is not likely to be above existing ambient levels; due to the industrialized nature of the 

surrounding environment. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port 

machinery, as well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring 

would likely be required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. 

Road access to the port would depend on local roads neighboring residential areas. To the extent that construction materials 

are transported by truck, impacts to traffic may occur as well as to visitation nearby historic properties and districts. Because of 

engagement in commercial fishing in some communities, activities should be well coordinated to avoid use conflicts. To the 

extent that there are high and adverse human health or environmental effects to areas to the west of the port there may be 

disproportionately high impacts on low-income communities. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 South Carolina Ports. Columbus Street Terminal. [Internet]. 2015 Available from: http://www.port-ofcharleston.com/cargo-facilities-charleston-terminals-columbusStreet.asp. 

2	 Moffat Nichol. South Carolina State Port Authority 2011 Emissions Inventory Update. South Carolina Ports; 2013. 

Available from: http://www.port-ofcharleston.com/About/Environment/documents/2011_Air_Emissions_Inventory_Update.pdf. 

3	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Charleston District. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental 

Impact Statement: Charleston Harbor Post 45. Final EIS. Charleston, South Carolina June 2015. 

4	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLESTON
 Columbus Street Terminal | Charleston, South Carolina | 32° 49’ 20” N, 79° 55’ 39” W 

5	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

6	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available 

from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

7	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

8	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides Online and Current Predictions. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 9]. Available from: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov. 

9	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

10	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

11	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

12	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

13	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

14	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

15	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

16	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

17	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-085; 2012. 

18	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Charleston. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/2177/USA_port:CHARLESTON. 

19	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

20	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

SAVANNAH 

Multiple Terminals | Savannah, Georgia | 32° 06’ 39” N, 81° 07’ 33” W59” W 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

SAVANNAH 

Multiple Terminals | Savannah, Georgia | 32° 06’ 39” N, 81° 07’ 33” W 

Port Overview 

Owner: Georgia Ports Authority (State Agency) 

Operator: Georgia Ports Authority (State Agency) 

Terminals at Port of Savannah: Garden City Terminal; Ocean Terminal 

Primary Existing Uses: Commercial Shipping 

Primary Cargos Handled: Containers, Breakbulk, Automobiles, Refrigerated cargo, steel, Forest and Wood 

products, and Farm equipment 

Typical Operating Hours: Garden City Terminal: 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM [1] 

Terminal Land Area:	 Garden City Terminal: 1,200 acres [1] 

Ocean Terminal: 200 acres [1] 

Shortest Distance to Wind 199 miles 

Energy Area: 

Closest Lease Area:	 North Carolina Wind Energy Area 

Commercial Port Employment:	 Not available 

The Port of Savanah is located on the Savannah River in Savannah, Georgia. The Port, which is located approximately 17 

miles upriver from the Atlantic Ocean [2], includes two terminals—the Garden City Terminal and the Ocean Terminal. 

The Garden City Terminal is the fourth-busiest container port in the United States and provides access to 44% of U.S. 

consumers in 2-3 days. The terminal has almost two miles of uninterrupted berth along the Savannah River, 27 container 

cranes, and over 4 million square feet of warehouse space. Water depths alongside the berths range between 42 and 48 feet 

at Mean Low Water (MLW). [1] [3] 

The Ocean Terminal is a dedicated breakbulk and Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) facility that handles forest and solid wood 

products, steel, automobiles, farm equipment, and heavy-lift cargoes. The terminal has over a mile of berths, 82 acres of 

open storage and 82 acres of paved storage. Water depths alongside the berths are 42 feet at MLW. [1] [3] 

Within the harbor limits, the Savannah River is generally divided into two channels by a series of islands. The Savannah 

River federal channel has an authorized depth of -42 feet MLW and an authorized width of 500 feet. The Savannah Harbor 

Expansion Project will deepen the federal channel to -47 feet MLW. 

Capability 

Area Criteria (units) Capability Area Criteria (units) 

Potential Use 

Staging Port Yes 

Storage 

Capabilities 

Haul Route Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Port 

Storage Area Bearing Capacity 

(t/m2) U 

Access 

Port Access Channel 

Width (m) 152.4 Size of Storage Area (m2) 248,920 

Port Access Water Depths 

(m) 13.4 

Roll-On, 

Roll-Off 

(Ro-Ro) 

Ro-Ro Capability (Yes/No) Yes 

Overhead Draft (m) 12.8 Width of Ro-Ro Berth (m) 297 

Number of Berths 34 Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth 

& Ramps (t/m2) U 

Quayside 

Capabilities 

Quayside Bearing 

Capacity (t/m2) U 

Cranes 

On-site Cranes’ Capabilities (t) 156.3 

Quayside Length (m) 515 Crane Height Restrictions (m) 13.7 

Quayside Seabed Suitable 

for Jacking U Transportation Onshore Transportation Infrastructure (rail, highway, etc.) 

Rail; 

highway 

Port Classifications Existing Capabilities 

U = Unknown 

March 18, 2016 Page 2 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAVANNAH 

Multiple Terminals | Savannah, Georgia | 32° 06’ 39” N, 81° 07’ 33” W 

Potential Port Modifications Necessary to Support Offshore Wind 

Construction 

Activity 

Land 

Clearing 

Pile 

Driving/ 

Drilling 

Blasting Dredging Fill 

Placement 

Fill 

Compaction Paving 

Utility 

Tower 

Extension 

Utility 

Line 

Moves 

Aggregate 

Dumping 

Access 

Capabilitiesa     

Cranesb       

Quayside 

Bearing 

Capacityc 

     

Storage 

Capabilitiesd     

Ro-Ro 

Capabilitye     

Modifications in italics are assumed to be required based on port classifications 

a Improve overhead draft to 75 m 

b Provide On-Site Cranes with 600 t lifting capability; reduce Crane Height Restrictions to 50 m 

c Improve Quayside Bearing Capacity to 17 t/m2 and make Quayside Seabed Suitable for Jacking d Improve Haul Route Bearing Capacity and Storage Area Bearing Capacity to 10 t/m2 

e Improve Bearing Capacity of Ro-Ro Berth and Ramps to 10 t/m2 

Impact Producing Factors 

 Marine/estuarine sediment disturbance  Traffic 

 Soil disturbance/erosion  Air emissions 

 Sediment suspension & deposition  Visible infrastructure 

 Noise  Aquatic habitat alteration 

 Lighting  Species injury, mortality, or displacement 

 Discharges  Space use conflicts 

 Trash & debris  Demand for local labor, goods, & services 

Description of Existing Environmental & Socioeconomic Conditions & Anticipated Impact 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

(Limited information available on benthic environment in Port area). Heavy vessel traffic levels and 

high shoaling rates, accompanied by regular maintenance dredging, limit the establishment of Benthic benthic communities. The taxa collected most often include; polychaetes, malacostracans, 

gastropods, and bivalves. [4] 

Fish & EFH 

The Savannah River is classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). Anadromous species, such as American shad, hickory shad, and blueback 

herring, and striped bass, also use the Savannah River. Endangered species such as shortnose 

and Atlantic sturgeon are also known to use the estuarine portions of the Savannah River 

throughout the year. [5] [6] 

Air Quality 

Savannah is located in the Savannah (Georgia)-Beaufort (South Carolina) Interstate Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR) and is in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants. [7] 

Terrestrial Biota 

The land immediately surround the Port is an urban landscape and provides limited wildlife habitat. 

Wildlife species in the project area are typical for an urban landscape. Across the river from the 

Port is the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge (SWNR), which provides 29,000 acres of 

undisturbed habitat for animals, including waterfowl, American alligator, bobcat, and purple 

gallinule. [4] [8] 

March 18, 2016 Page 3 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currents & Tides Water circulation around the Port is influenced by an inflow from the Savannah River as well as 

tides and wind. The mean tidal range at the Port is 8.14 feet. [12] 

Sediment Deposition 

(Limited information available on sediment in the Port area). Sediments that are dredged annually 

for maintenance of channels include a mix of sand, silts, and clays. Due to the regular maintenance 

dredging that occurs, there is little evidence of surficial contamination. [4] 

Acoustic Environment 

Similar to most major ports, ship traffic, wharf/dock operations (loading and unloading vessels), 

and natural (wind, storms, biological, etc.) are the main sources of ambient noise. [4] The City of 

Savannah noise ordinance states that at any time an industrial area must limit noise output to 75 

dBA. [13] 

Critical habitat for several species has been designated around the Port. There is critical habitat 

designation for the shortnose sturgeon and Carolina heelsplitter (endangered freshwater mussel) in 

the Savannah River. Also critical habitat for the piping plover and loggerhead sea turtle has been 

designated in Chatham County. [14] [15] [16] 

SAVANNAH 

Multiple Terminals | Savannah, Georgia | 32° 06’ 39” N, 81° 07’ 33” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Military Use Areas Military installations near port: one military installation in Chatham County, GA; the Hunter Army 

Airfield (Army) is 7.5 miles south of the Port. [17] 

High intensity developed land with industrial areas border the Port to the north, south, and 

immediately to the west. The Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport is about two miles to the Land Use & Existing west of the Port. Residential areas in Garden City, GA lie about a third of a mile to the southwest. Infrastructure Undeveloped expanses of land lie across the River and to the east where the Savannah National 

Wildlife Refuge is located. [18] [2] 

Transportation Port is in the vicinity of the intersection between Interstate 95 and Interstate 516. Accessed to 

terminal borders residential area. Serviced by rail. [2] 

Cultural & Historical 

Nearby places in the National Register of Historic Places: 47 properties and districts in Savannah, 

GA. [19] 

Five known shipwrecks along the navigation channel leading to the port. [20] 

Visual 

Varied viewscapes from the Port. To the east, across the channel, Kings Island and the Savannah 

National Wildlife Refuge provide a naturalistic viewscape. Viewscapes to the north, west, and 

south of the port are industrial and residential. [2] 

Marine Mammals & 

Sea Turtles 

Water Quality 

GAR030601090102) has been classified as impaired for mercury in fish tissue. [11] 

Birds & Bats 

Endangered species listings from the USFWS were consulted. The piping plover and the roseate 

tern are listed as threatened in Chatham county. [10] The Savannah National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), located across from the Port, contains seasonally flooded wetlands that provide habitat to 

a variety of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. [4] 

(Information on bats in this area not readily available.) 

The mouth of the Savannah River as it enters the harbor (Segment ID GAR030601090318) is 

listed as impaired according to Georgia’s 2012 305(b)/303(d) List Documents. It is listed as 

impaired for dissolved oxygen. Approximately 25 miles upstream the Savannah River (Segment ID 

Critical Habitat 

Endangered species listings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were consulted. Five whale species that could 

potentially occur along the entire US Atlantic coast were identified as endangered or threatened: 

blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sperm whale. [9] Marine 

mammals that are known to occur in Chatham County and could potentially be present in the 

Savannah River estuary include: right whale, sei whale, sperm whale, blue whale, finback whale, 

false killer whale, humpback whale, and West Indian manatee. [4] 

The West Indian manatee and five species of sea turtles (hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, 

green and loggerhead) turtles have been identified as threatened or endangered in Chatham 

county. [10] Although they are known to occur in the Savannah River, their presence upriver is rare. 

[4] 

March 18, 2016 Page 4 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAVANNAH 

Multiple Terminals | Savannah, Georgia | 32° 06’ 39” N, 81° 07’ 33” W 

Resource Description of Existing Conditions 

Environmental 

Justice 

Total minorities: City of Savannah 59.0%; GA 24.3%. [21]
 

Low-income: City of Savannah 26.0%; GA 39.3%. [21]
 

Area surrounding port: census block groups on the southern boundary of the port have the highest 

percentage total minority population (>75%). The census tract encompassing the port and
 

industrial areas to the north has less than 16 percent poverty while the residential areas in Garden
 

City (south of the Port) have greater than 26 percent poverty. [22]
 

Commercial Fishing 

Commercial landings: 1.6 million pounds (US rank 120). [23] 

Commercial fishing engagement in Savannah is high and low in all surrounding communities. [24] 

Commercial fishing reliance is low in all surrounding communities. [24] 

Employment in tourism-related industries in Chatham County in 2010: 16,787. [25]
 

Recreational fishing engagement is high in Savannah and low in all the surrounding communities. Tourism & Recreation [24] 

Recreational fishing reliance low in all surrounding communities. [24] 

Commercial & 

Recreational 

Navigation 

Average daily vessel arrival and departures to port (Sep 28 - Oct 26, 2015): 6-52. [26] 

Main vessel types to and from port (30 days): cargo 49.2%, tug 22.8%, passenger 9.3%. [26] 

Population: City of Savannah 139,620. [21]
 

Labor Force: Chatham County 131,738; employed 122,144; unemployment rate 7.3%. [27]
 

Socioeconomic Main sources of fiscal revenues in GA Local Jurisdictions: property taxes 23.0%; intergovernmental Resources revenues 27.2%; hospital charges 9.0 %; sales and gross receipts taxes 11%; utility revenues 

[28] 10.9%. 

Anticipated Impacts 

Potential port modifications to the Port of Savannah, necessary to support offshore wind development, are anticipated to have 

minimal impact on existing terrestrial and upland resources due to the industrial setting of the site. Minimal dredging and land 

clearing may be necessary to enhance bearing capacity of the quayside and berths; however, the anticipated impact to 

sediments or marine resources will be minor; given the regular maintenance dredging that occurs within the Savannah River. 

In addition, the potential for reduction or loss of terrestrial habitat exists; however, the habitat is degraded and likely does not 

support a diverse community of organisms. Noise associated with the port modifications identified above is not likely to be 

above existing ambient levels due to the industrialized nature of the surrounding environment. Road access to the port 

depends on local roads across residential areas. To the extent that construction materials are transported by truck, impacts to 

traffic may occur. Air quality impacts would be the direct result of emissions from vessels, vehicles, and port machinery, as 

well as fugitive dust from earth moving activities. Individual, port-specific air quality analyses and monitoring would likely be 

required to assess any localized air quality impacts resulting from proposed modifications. Because of engagement in 

commercial fishing in some communities, activities should be well coordinated to avoid use conflicts. To the extent that high 

and adverse human health or environmental impacts occur in neighborhoods east of the site, minority and low-income 

populations may be disproportionately affected. 

Data Sources & Additional Information 

1	 Georgia Ports Authority. Port of Savannah. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 30]. Available from: 

http://www.gaports.com/PortofSavannah.aspx. 

2	 Google Earth. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. 

3	 Georgia Ports Authority. The Port of Savannah Fact Sheet. [Internet]. October 2013 [cited 2015 October 30]. Available 

from: 

http://www.gaports.com/DesktopModules/TileButtonDownload/Download.ashx?file=/Portals/2/Documents/FactSheets/P 

ort%20of%20Savannah%20-%2010-2013-PR%20-%20FINAL.pdf. 

4	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Savannah District. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Savannah Harbor 

Expansion Project. FEIS. 2012. Available from: 

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/SavannahHarborExpansion/FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement.as 

px. 

5	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [Internet]. [cited 2015 

September 1]. Available from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 5 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

SAVANNAH
 Multiple Terminals | Savannah, Georgia | 32° 06’ 39” N, 81° 07’ 33” W 

6	 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Savannah District. Georgia Rivers Supporting Anadromous Fish Habitat. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 November 3]. Available from: 

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Portals/61/docs/regulatory/rgpencl3.PDF. 

7	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Internet]. [cited 2015 

November 5]. Available from: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 

8	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Savannah, Georgia and South Carolina. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 November 

3]. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Savannah/wildlife_and_habitat/index.html. 

9	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. 

[Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals. 

10	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Endangered Species. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 December 7]. Available 

from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

11	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information. [Internet]. 

2015 [cited 2015 October 21]. Available from: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#imp_water_by_state. 

12	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Tides & Currents. [Internet]. 2015 Available from: 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datums.html?id=8670424. 

13	 Municode Library. Sec. 9-2034. - Noise disturbance prohibited. [Internet]. [cited 2015 November 4]. Available from: 

https://www.municode.com/library/ga/savannah/codes/code_of_ordinances?searchRequest=%7B%22searchText%22: 

%22noise%20blowing%22,%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22booleanSearch%22:false,%22stemmi 

ng%22:true,%22fuzzy%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22co. 

14	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Southeast Region 4. Critical Habitat Designated for Carolina heelsplitter. 

[Internet]. 2002 [cited 2015 November 3]. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2002/r02-053.html. 

15	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Shortnose 

Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 November 3]. Available from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm. 

16	 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. [Internet]. 

[cited 2015 November 3]. Available from: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. 

17	 Military Bases.com. US Military Bases. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://militarybases.com/. 

18	 MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2014 NLCD Evaluation, Visualization, and Analysis (EVA) 

Tool. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www.mrlc.gov/eva/viewer.html. 

19	 National Register of Historic Places. Database/Research. [Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm. 

20	 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Office of Coast Survey. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: 

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html. 

21	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2009-2013. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 

October 28]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

22	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN). 

[Internet]. [cited 2015 October 28]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen. 

23	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Commercial Fisheries Statistics. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index. 

24	 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Community Social Indicators. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map. 

25	 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Atlantic Region Wind Energy Development: Recreation and Tourism 

Economic Baseline Development. Impacts of Offshore Wind on Tourism and Recreation Economies. OCS Study BOEM 

2012-085; 2012. 

26	 MarineTraffic. Automatic Identification System-Port of Savannah. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 October 28]. Available 

from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ports/200. 

27	 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. 

28	 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). State Finances, 2012 Census of Governments. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 October 28]. 

Available from: http://census.gov/govs/local/. 

March 18, 2016 Page 6 

Prepared by ESS Group, Inc. under Task Order M15PD00001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Department of the Interior Mission 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; 

protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department 

assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their 

development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship 

and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who 

live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

(BOEM) primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on 

the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an environmentally sound and safe 

manner. 

The BOEM Environmental Studies Program 

The mission of the Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is to provide the 

information needed to predict, assess, and manage impacts from offshore energy 

and marine mineral exploration, development, and production activities on 

human, marine, and coastal environments.