# Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for

the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal

Site(s) in Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut

and New York



# APPENDIX I

Draft Site Management and Monitoring

Plan for Eastern Long Island Sound

Disposal SiteThe following document is a draft Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the

Eastern Long Island Sound Dredged material disposal site ( ELDS )

.

This document has been developed and agreed to pursuant to the Water Resources

Development Act Amen dments of 1992 (WRDA 92) to the Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for the management and monitoring of ocean disposal activities, as

resources allow, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Office and the

U.S. Army Co rps of Engineers New England District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

New England District New England, Office of Ecosystem Protection

696 Virginia R oa d 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100

C oncord, MA 01742 Boston, MA 02109TAB LE OF CONTENTS

1 .0 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

2 .0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND AUTHORITIES

................................ ......... 3

2.1 M anagement

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

2.2 Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5

2.3 Dredged Material Disposal Authorities

................................ ................................ .... 6

3 .0 MANAGEMENT PLAN

................................ ................................ ................................ . 7

3.1 Specific Man agement Practices

................................ ................................ ................ 9

3.2 Modification to Management Plan

................................ ................................ ......... 10

4 .0 BASELINE ASSESSMENT

................................ ................................ ......................... 11

4.1 Site Characteristics

................................ ................................ ................................ . 11

4.2 Physical Characteristics

................................ ................................ .......................... 12

4.3 Sedi ment and Water Quality

................................ ................................ .................. 14

4.4 Bioaccumul a tion

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 6

4.5 Living Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 7

4.6 Site Capacity

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25

5.0 DISPOSAL HISTORY

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 26

6.0 MONITORING PROGRAM

................................ ................................ ......................... 27

6.1 Monitoring Methods

................................ ................................ .............................. 27

6.2 Material Movement

................................ ................................ ................................ 28

6.3 Biological Characteristics

................................ ................................ ...................... 31

6.4 Water and Sediment Quality

................................ ................................ .................. 32

6.5 Quality Assurance

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 34

7 .0 ANTICIPATED SITE USE

................................ ................................ ........................... 34

8 .0 REVIEW AND REVISION OF THIS PLAN

................................ ............................... 35

9 .0 COORDINATION AND OUTREACH

. ................................ ................................ ....... 36

10 .0 FUNDING

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 36

11.0 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 37

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean Grain Size and Total Organic Carbon

................................ ............................. 15

Table 2. Ecological Parameters of Benthic Infauna

................................ ................................ 18

Table 3. Average Catch per Unit Effort

................................ ................................ .................. 20

Table 4 . Endangered Marine Mammals and Reptiles

................................ .............................. 2 2

Table 5

. Endangered or Threatened Birds

................................ ................................ .............. 23

Table 6

. D isposal Events at NLDS

................................ ................................ ......................... 26

Table 7

. DAMOS Survey Activities

................................ ................................ ....................... 30ELDS SMMP April 2016

L IST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the Eastern Long Island Sound Dredged M aterial Disposal Site

............ 1

Figure 2. Station L ocations of Meteorological and O cean B uoys

................................ .......... 13

Figure 3. Mean Finfish Abundanc e

................................ ................................ ......................... 19

Figure 4. NOAA Fisheries 10 x 10 m inute E FH square s

................................ ........................ 25

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A : Monitoring Plan

Attachment B: Scow Log Sample

- Dredging Quality Management S ystemELDS SMMP April 2016

ACRONYMS AND KEYWORDS

aRPD Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CPUE Catch per Unit Effort

CSDS Cornfield Shoals Dredged Material Disposal Site

CT Connecticut

CTD E EP Connecticut Departme nt of E nergy and E nvironmental Protection

(formerly CT DEP)

CWA Clean Water Act

CZM Coastal Zone Management

DAMOS Disposal Area Monitoring System

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DMMP Dredged Material Management Plan

EIS Environmental Impact Sta tement

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

ELDS Eastern Long Island Sound Dredge Material Disposal Site

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ITM Inland Testing Manual

LIS Long Island Sound

LISS Long Island Sound Study

MPRSA Marine P rotection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

NAD83 North American Datum 1983

NBDS Niantic Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLDS New London Dredged Material Disposal Site (formerly NLDN)

NMFS National Marine Fis heries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NY New York

NYDOS New York State Department of State

N Y SDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OSI Organism Sediment Index

QA Quality Assurance

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act

RIM Regional Implementation Manual

SMMP Site Management and Monitoring Plan

TOC Total Organic Carbon

USACE

- NAE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USFWS USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WLIS Western Long Islan d Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site

WRDA Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102

- 580)

QA Quality Assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project PlanELDS SMMP April 2016

1 

### 1.0 I NTRODUCTION

Long Island stretches eastward from New York City t o Montauk over a dista nce of 110 miles

and has a m aximum width of 23 miles . It has a population of approx imately 8 million (2014

census). The Long Island Sound region is adjacent to one of the most densely populated and

industrialized regions in North America. Connecticut has a population of approximately 3.6

million (2014 census) with the highest population density being found in communities along

western and central Long Island Sound, and in the greater Hartford area.

Cargo and petroleum products are shipped through Long I sland Sound to and from the New

York City area and several ferries traffic people and goods between Long Island and

Connecticut

. Maintenance of adequate navigation depth in marine terminals, port facilities, and

private marinas is vital to the economics o f the Long Island Sound (LIS) region. Both commercial

and recreational industries rely on the utility of such areas. To ensure continued use, economic

viability and safety of the region’s navigational channels and navigation

- dependent facilities,

periodic dredging must be performed to remove accumulated sediment. The US Army Corps of

Engineers New England District ( USACE

- NAE ) estimates that 52.9 million cubic yards

(mcy) of material will be needed to be dredged over the next 30 years in Long Island Sound

(2 015

- 2045). The eastern region needs are 22.6 mcy. Dredging needs exceed the capacity of

40,000 mcy available for open water disposal sites and alternatives in Long Isl and Sound.

P ursuant with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401

et seq. ), t he EPA has selected the Eastern Long Island Sound dredged material d isposal site

(ELDS) as the preferred alternative to provide for the long

- term needs of dredged material

disposal for the states of Connecticut and New York. E LDS includes a portion of the previously

used New London site (NLDS).

Prior to use of the site, each project must receive a permit issued by USACE under Section 103 of

the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1413 (hereafter cited as "MPRSA § 103") with concurrence by the

E PA. As discussed further in this document, the USACE

- NAE will coordinate with resource

agencies on an individual project basis, as needed, for ESA, EFH, and other consultations.

Management plans for designated ocean dredged material disposal sites are requ ired pursuant to

§102(c) of the MPRSA, as amended by §506(a) of the Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) of 1992. In accordance with MPRSA (section 103(a)) disposal activities at the site "will

not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine

environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities." The purpose of this Site

Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) is to synthesize prior site monitoring results and

outline a management plan and monitoring program for the proposed site that complies with the

requirements of MPRSA.

The SMMP serves as a framework to guide the development of future project

- specific

sampling and survey plans created under the monitoring program. The data gathered from theELDS SMMP April 2016

2 monitoring progr am will be routinely evaluated by EPA, USACE

- NAE, and other agencies

such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

( US FWS), and state regulatory agencies (see Section 9.0), to determine whether modifications

in site u sage, management, testing protocols, or additional monitoring are warranted. The

SMMP will be reviewed on an annual basis by EPA and USACE

- NAE and will be revised as

necessary.

To ensure that ocean dredged material disposal sites are managed to minimize ad verse effects

of disposal on the marine environment, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

(MPRSA) §102(c) as amended by §506(a) of the Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) of 1992, requires the completion of a Site Management and Monitori ng Plan

(SMMP) upon designation of a site [MPRSA Section 102(c ) ( 3)].

MPRSA further requires that an SMMP established for sites like the ELDS include a schedule

for review and revision of the plan to occur not less than 10 years after adoption of the plan

, and every 10 years thereafter. Prior to the revision for the ELDS SMMP, EPA and USACE

–

NAE will review the plan annually and to ensure that the intent of the original procedures and

protocols continue to meet the management objectives of the ELDS , and w ill continu e to be

used. EPA and USACE

- NAE are requesting comment on this document

.

The ELDS site encompasses 50% of the western portion of the existing New London Disposal

Site (NLDS), along with an adjacent area immediately west of the NLDS ( i.e., Site s NL

- Wa and

NL

- Wb). The ELDS (western portion) is located to the south of the mouth of Thames River

estu ary. It has a total area of 2.0 nmi 2 (8.6 k m 2 ). The closest upland points to the a lternative

site are Goshen Point, Connecticut, approximately 1.2 n au tical miles (nmi), or 2.2 kilometers

( km)

, to the north, and Fishers Island, New York, 1.4 nmi (2.6 km) to the southeast.

T he NLDS portion of the ELDS has been an active open

- water dredged material disposal site

with an area of 1.0 nmi 2 ( 3.4 km 2 ). Water depths range from approximately 46 to 79 feet (14

to 24 m). Most of the site is located within Connecticut waters, with the remainder of the site

located in New York State waters. The dredged material mounds can rise up to 14 to 20 feet

(5 to 6 m) above the surrounding seafloor. The sediments at the site are heterogeneous, but

consist predominantly of fine sand and silt/clay. The NLDS is bisected by a 1,000

- f oo t (300

-

m) wide submarine transit corridor that was established to minimize conflicts between

d isposal buoy positions and submarine traffic to and from the Submarine Base in Groton,

Connecticut; disposal operations are monitored by the USACE to maintain a minimum water

depth of 46 feet (14 m) within the corridor.ELDS SMMP April 2016

3 Figure 1. Location of the Easter n Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site

(EPA, 2016).

The 1.5 nmi 2 western portion of the ELDS site was referred to as (s ite NL

- Wa ) and (Site NL

Wb) in the site designation . Site NL

- Wa has an area of 1 nmi 2 (3.4 km 2 ). Water dept hs range

from approximately 45 feet (14 m) in the north to 100 feet (30 m) in the south. Site NL

- Wa

consists of mostly sandy areas, but also contains an area of boulders and rocks in the northern

part of the site. The water depth of parts of the boulder area is shallower than 59 feet (18 m).

Site NL

- Wb has an area of 0.5 nmi 2 (1.7 km 2 ). It consists of an extension of the sandy areas

of Site NL

- Wa. The southwestern corner of the site contains an area of bedrock and boulders.

W ater depths at Site NL

- Wb r ange from approximately 59 feet (18 m) in the north to 95 feet

(28 m) in the south (EPA, 2016)

.

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND AUTHORITIES

The intent of this SMMP is to provide a management framework and monitoring program that

strives to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the marine environment from dredged

material disposal at ELDS

. To this end, the SMMP identifies actions, provisions, and

practices necessary to manage the operational aspects of dredged material disposal at ELDS

.

Section 4 0 CFR § 228.10(a) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations requires that the impact ofELDS SMMP April 2016

4 disposal at a designated site be evaluated periodically.

2.1 Management

Management of the disposal site involves: regulating the times, quantity, and physical/

chemical chara cteristics of dredged material that d isposed at the site; establishing disposal

controls, conditions, and requirements; and monitoring the site environment to verify that

potential unacceptable conditions which may result in significant adverse impacts are not

occurring from past or continued use of the disposal site and that permit terms are met.

In addition, the plan also incorporates the six requirements for ocean disposal site management

plans discussed in MPRSA § 102(c)(3), as amended. These are:

1. C on sideration of the quantity of the material to be disposed of at the site, and the

presence, nature and bioavailability of the contaminants in the material [§102(c)(3)

Section II C];

2. A baseline assessment of conditions at the site [§102(c)(3) Section III];

3. A program for monitoring the site [§102(c)(3) Section IV];

4. S pecial management conditions or practices to be implemented at each site that are

necessary for protection of the environment [§102(c)(3) Section V.A);

5. C onsideration of the anticipated use of the site over the long term, including the

anticipated closure date for the site, if applicable, and any need for management of the

site after closure [§102(c)(3) Section VI);

6. A schedule for review and revision of the plan (which shall not be reviewed and

revi sed less frequently than 10 years after adoption of the plan, and every 10 years

thereafter) [§102(c)(3) Section VII).

40 CFR Section 228.10(c) requires that a disposal site be periodically assessed based on the

available body of pertinent da ta. Recognizi ng and correcting any potential unacceptable

condition before it causes an adverse impact to the marine environment or presents a

navigational hazard to commercial and recreational water

- borne vessel traffic is central to this

SMMP.

The practices that wi ll be applied to address these management goals at ELDS include

coordination among Federal and state agencies, testing of material for acceptability for

disposal at the site, review of general and specific permit conditions, review of allowable

disposal te chnologies and methods, implementation of inspection, surveillance and

enforcement procedures, periodic environmental monitoring at the site and at relevant

reference sites for comparative evaluation, and information management and record keeping.

2.2 Mo nitoringELDS SMMP April 2016

5 Section 40 CFR § 228.10(b) specifically requires consideration of the following types of

potential effects when evaluating impact at a disposal site:

 Movement of materials into sanctuaries or onto beaches or shorelines [228.10(b)(1)];

 M ovement o f materials towards productive fishery or shellfishery areas [228.10(b)(2)];

 Absence from the disposal site of pollutant

- sensitive biota characteristic of the general

area [228.10(b)(3)];

 Progressive

, non

- seasonal

, changes in water quality or sediment comp osition at the

disposal site when these changes are attributable to materials disposed of at the site

[228.10(b)(4)];

 Progressive

, non

- seasonal

, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or

benthic biota at or near the disposal site when thes e changes can be attributed to the

effects of materials disposed at the site [228.10(b)(5)];

 Accumulation of material constituents (including without limitation, human pathogens)

in marine biota at or near the site (i.e., bioaccumulation [228.10(b)(6)]).

 E valuating compliance with CWA or MPRSA permit conditions and conduct

enforcemen t actions where warranted and as appropriate;

The monitoring approach defined in this SMMP focuses on those factors that provide an early

indication of potential unacceptable e ffects. The plan also incorporates ongoing regional

monitoring programs in Long Island Sound that can provide additional information. The

identification of unacceptable impacts from dredged material disposal at ELDS will be

accomplished in part through com parisons of the monitoring results to historical (i.e.,

baseline) conditions, and in part through comparison to nearby reference locations

.

If site monitoring demonstrates that the disposal activities are causing unacceptable impacts to

the marine envir onment as defined under 40 CFR § Section 228.10(b), the site managers may

place appropriate limitations on site usage to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels. Such

responses may range from withdrawal of the site’s designation to limitations on the amoun ts

and types of dredged material permitted to be disposed or limitations on the specific disposal

methods, locations, or schedule.

Any proposal for the open

- water placement of dredged material from a particular project must

begin with an examination of th e nature of the material. Federal and non

- Federal projects

evaluated under MPRSA are subjected to the same qualitative analysis. In order to be

approved for open

- water placement, or most other placement options, dredged material must

be found suitable by applying the tiered testing protocols and evaluating the results

.

Material that includes silts, material with high organic content, and other shoal material from

harbors and areas with a history of contamination and industrial use are subjected to addition alELDS SMMP April 2016

6 chemical testing to determine the relative likelihood of suitability. For materials exhibiting

higher concentrations of contaminants in comparison to reference site values, project

proponents may elect not to incur the cost of further testing and inves tigate non

- open

- water

alternatives such as containment and treatment. For materials with chemical test results that do

not exhibit high concentrations of contaminants, or where the project proponents wish to

maintain the option of open

- water placement and other uses, the sediment is subjected to

further tests aimed at predicting the biological response to exposure to the material during

different phases of the placement process. These tests are generally described as bioassay

(toxicity) testing and bioacc umulation (tissue uptake of contaminants) testing.

The next tier of testing, the toxicity test, consists of exposing test organisms to the dredged

material and comparing survivability rates to those of organisms exposed to reference and

control materials. Where the dredged material exhibits greater toxicity to benthic test species

than the reference sediments (using statistical tests and nationally developed interpretation

guidance), project proponents may elect to forgo any further cost of testing for sui tability for

open

- water placement and seek alternate disposal options. Otherwise, material that exhibits

toxicity comparable to the reference sediments shall undergo bioaccumulation testing before

any determination on suitability for open

- water placement can be made. In general terms,

bioaccumulation involves a long exposure of test organisms to the sediment followed by

analysis of their tissues to determine the potential for uptake of contaminants form the dredged

material. The test results are evaluate d to determine the risk of exposure to ecological and

human health.

Dredged material that is determined through these testing protocols to pose no unacceptable

risk to the human or ecological health is deemed suitable for open

- water disposal . These

find ings may be accompanied by specific management requirements, such as limitation on

disposal rates to minimize water column concentrations.

2.3 Dredged Material Disposal Authorities

The primary authorities that apply to the disposal of dredged material in the U.S. are the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), WRDA, CWA and MPRSA. The RHA regulates

dredging and discharge of material in navigable waters and WRDA addresses research and

funding in support of specific water resource projects for various needs (i .e., transportation,

recreation). It also modifies other Acts, as necessary (e.g., MPRSA).

All dredging, dredged material transport, and disposal must be conducted in compliance with

permits issued for these activities. Surveillance and enforcement respo nsibilities at the

disposal site are shared between the USACE

- NAE and EPA with assistance from the U.S.

Coast Guard [33 USC Sec 1417(c)]. The permittee is responsible for ensuring compliance

with all project conditions including placement of material at t he correct location and withinELDS SMMP April 2016

7 applicable site use restrictions. EPA has enforcement responsibility under MPRSA. The EPA

and the USACE

- NAE will cooperate to ensure effective enforcement of permit violations.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344) authorizes the USACE to issue

permits for the disposal of dredged materials in the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and

ocean as long as the material meets guidelines developed by EPA pursuant to CWA

§404(b)(1). EPA's guidelines are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 230. These guidelines set forth

environmental standards and analytical requirements for use in determining when the USACE

should authorize disposal of particular dredged material at a particular location. The USACE

regulations governing the issuance of § 404 permits are codified at 33 CFR Parts 320

- 338.

Because Long Island Sound is an estuary, it falls within the geographical jurisdiction of

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as described above. However, in 1980, Congress enacted

the “Ambro A mendment,” an amendment to the MPRSA requiring that the disposal of

dredged material in Long Island Sound from all Federal projects and non

- federal projects that

exceed 25,000 cubic yards (19,114 cubic meters) of dredged material comply with the

MPRSA prov isions, also known as the Ocean Dumping Act.

Under Section 103 of MPRSA, the USACE

- NAE is assigned permitting responsibility for

dredged material, subject to EPA review and concurrence that the material meets applicable

ocean disposal criteria. The USACE

- NAE is required to use EPA

- designated open

- water

disposal sites for dredged material disposal to the maximum extent feasible. If EPA

designated sites are not available, the USACE

- NAE may select ocean disposal sites. The

USACE

- NAE may select a site if a de signated site is unavailable and the selected site may be

used for two, 5

- year periods.

All projects authorized for dredged material disposal at ELDS are required to obtain a cut

State Water Quality Certificate from the CTDE E P pursuant to Section 401 of t he CWA [33

U.S.C., § 1341]. A state water quality certificate is also required for Federal disposal

projects that receive authorization from the USACE

- NAE

. To receive certification, the

dredged material discharge must be consistent with the provisions of the CWA and the

Connecticut Water Quality Standards (Sections 22a

- 426 through 22a

- 363f of the

Connecticut General Statues

- Structures, Dredging, and Fill) and water quality certification

is made in conjunction with issuance of a state permit under this st atute. In some cases

applicants may qualify for authorization under a state Programmatic General Permit, which

is a more expedited process (CTDEP, 2001).

3.0 M ANAGEMENT PLAN

All dredged material projects using ELDS are subject to CWA Section 404, althoug h private

projects larger than 25,000 cubic yards and all Federal projects will also be authorized underELDS SMMP April 2016

8 MPRSA Section 103. The site will be managed in a manner that ensures the following site

management goals are met:

 Ensure and enforce compliance with p ermit conditions;

 Minimize loss of sediment from the disposal site;

 Minimize conflicts with other uses of the area;

 Maximize site capacity;

 Minimize environmental impact from sediments placed at the site; and

 Recognize and correct conditions that could lea d to unacceptable impacts.

EPA and the USACE

- NAE will jointly manage ELDS and will als o coordinate with the states

of Connecticut and New York. The effectiveness of the management approach depends on

having efficient planning processes, consistent complian ce and enforcement, a robust yet

flexible monitoring plan, and an effective communication structure that includes timely

receipt and review of information relevant to the site management goals. To this end, the

New England Regional Dredge Team meets quart erly and includes participation by the

relevant Federal and state agencies and standard agenda items of monitoring and compliance

at open water sites including ELDS . In addition, EPA and USACE

- NAE have an annual

meeting dedicated to the review of monitori ng data, setting of monitoring objectives, and

scoping of investigations for each open water site.

Management of ELDS has historically included and will continue to include the following

practices for the disposal site:

 Evaluation of the suitability of mat erial for disposal in accordance with the applicable

requirements for the specific type of project (i.e., MPRSA and CWA) ;

 Specification of disposal conditions, location, and timing in permits as appropriate

(e.g., disposal will not occur between June 1 and September 30 to ensure that dredging

windows for fisheries are met or disposal may be restricted during spring tides to

ensure that water quality criteria are not exceeded outside the boundaries of the site);

 Enforcement of all permit conditions;

 Disposal specified to occur at the specified target coordinates (to be determined on an

annual basis) ;

 To ensure compliance, all scows placing material at ELDS are required to utilize tracking

instrumentation in accordance with the USACE

- NAE Dredging Quality Man agement

(DQM) system to allow determination of actual placement locations;

 Positioning of disposal coordinates are set each year with the intent of minimizing

environmental impacts and maximizing long

- term site capacity ;

 Limiting the buildup of material in height above the bottom such that it is not a hazard

to navigation or more likely to be mobilized by storm events;

 Conducting disposal site monitoring in a consistent, systematic manner; andELDS SMMP April 2016

9  Specification of de

- designation (i.e., closure) conditions and d ates as appropriate

[§102(c)(3) Section VII).

3.1 Specific Management Practices

In addition, special management practices may exist at ELDS for individual projects based on

site monitoring data and long

- term management goals:

 Specification of the dredged m aterial volume that can be placed at specific locations

within the site or the total dredged material volume placed at the site;

 Modifications to the site designation or to disposal methods, locations, or time of

placement; and

 Requirement for additional monitoring focused on a specific aspect of a project.

40 CFR Section 228.10(c) requires that a disposal site be periodically assessed based on the

available body of pertinent da ta. Recognizing and correcting any potential unacceptable

condition before it c auses an adverse impact to the marine environment or presents a

navigational hazard to commercial and recreational water

- borne vessel traffic is central to this

SMMP. Both agencies will cooperate to ensure effective enforcement of all disposal

requirements

. The MPRSA gives authority to EPA to enforce permit conditions.

The USACE

- NAE will provide EPA with summary information on each project at two stages

of the dredging and disposal process. A Summary Information Sheet will be provided when

dredging operati ons begin, and a Summary Report will be submitted when dredging operations

have been completed.

The following list represents special conditions that are to be applied to projects using ELDS

.

These conditions may be modified on a project

- by

- project basis, based on factual changes

(e.g., administrative changes in phone numbers, points of contact) or when deemed necessary

as part of the individual permit review process:

 At least ten working days in advance of the start date, the First Coast Guard District,

Ai ds to Navigation Office shall be notified of the location and estimated duration of the

dredging and placement operations.

 At least ten working days in advance of the start date, the Coast Guard Captain of the

Port Long Island Sound shall be notified of th e location and estimated duration of the

dredging and placement operations.

 The Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound shall be notified at least two hours prior to

each departure from the dredging site.

 The DQM system must be operational on each disposal scow and record each

placement event. This information is automatically uploaded to a USACE

- NAE

database.ELDS SMMP April 2016

10  For the initiation of placement activity and any time placement operations resume after

having ceased for one month or more, the permittee or the p ermittee's representative

must notify the USACE

- NAE

.

 The permittee must notify the USACE

- NAE upon completion of dredging for the

season by completing and submitting the form that the USACE

- NAE will supply for

this purpose.

 Except when directed otherwise by the USACE

- NAE

, all placement of dredged

material shall adhere to the following: The permittee shall release the dredged material

at a specified set of coordinates within the site. All placement is to occur at the

specified coordinates with the scow at a complete halt. The USACE

- NAE will provide

the coordinates. This requirement must be followed except when doing so will create

unsafe conditions because of weather or sea state, in which case placement within a

specified distance (generally less than 350 f t.) of the specified coordinates with the

scow moving only fast enough to maintain safe control (generally less than two knots)

is permitted. Placement is not permitted if these requirements cannot be met due to

weather or sea conditions. In that regard, s pecial attention needs to be given to

predicted conditions prior to departing for the placement site.

 EPA and the USACE

- NAE (and/or their designated representatives) reserve all rights

under applicable law to free and unlimited access to and/or inspection of (through

permit conditions): 1) the dredging project site including the dredge plant, the towing

vessel and scow at any time during the course of the project; 2) any and all records,

including logs, reports, memoranda, notes, etc., pertaining to a speci fic dredging

project (Federal or non

- Federal); 3) towing, survey monitoring, and navigation

equipment.

 If dredged material regulated by a specific permit issued by the USACE or Federal

authorization is released (due to an emergency situation to safeguard l ife or property at

sea) in locations or in a manner not in accordance with the terms or conditions of the

permit or authorization, the master/operator of the towing vessel and/or the Disposal

Inspector shall immediately notify the USACE

- NAE of the incident

, as required by

permit. The USACE

- NAE shall copy EPA on such notification no later than the next

business day. In addition, both the towing contractor and the USACE

- certified

disposal inspector shall make a full report of the incident to the USACE

- NAE and EPA

within ten (10) days.

3.2 Modifications to the Management Plan

Based on the findings of the monitoring program, modifications to the site use may be

required. Corrective measures such as those listed below, but not limited to, will be developed

by E PA and the USACE

- NAE

.

 Stricter definition and enforcement of di sposal permit conditions;ELDS SMMP April 2016

11  Implementation of more conservative evaluation procedures on whether sediments

proposed for dredging are suitable for open

- water disposal;

 Implementation of special ma nagement practices to prevent any additional loss of

contaminants to the surrounding area;

 Excavation and removal of any unacceptable sediments from the placement site (an

unlikely, worst case scenario given that the permitting program should exclude such

material from the site to begin with, and since excavation could make matters worse by

releasing contaminants during the process);

 Closure of the site as an available dredged material placement area (i.e., to prevent any

additional placement at the site).

 Use of marine mammal observers during disposal operations;

 Establishment of dredging windows;

 Compliance with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson Stevens Act and

Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerns

In addition to management practices for the placement site and for individual projects, each

SMMP must also include a monitoring plan as described in Section 6.0. Coordination and

outreach should occur on both a regular and as needed basis and include state and Federal

agencies, scientific experts, and the public. To ensure communications are appropriate and

timely, site management activities and monitoring findings will be communicated through a

combination of scientific reports and peer

- reviewed publications, participation in symposia,

and public meetings and fact sheets.

4 .0 BASELINE ASSESSMENT

MPRSA 102(c ) ( 3)(A) as amended by WRDA 92 requires that the SMMP include a summary

of baseline conditions at the site. Baseline conditions are reported in the Environmental

Impact Statement for the site designation (EPA, 2016 )

. This section provides a brief site

description and overview of disposal at ELDS , more detailed information is found in the

SEIS , DAMOS reports, and mo nitoring data from EPA, CTDEEP, and the Long Island

Sound Study

.

4.1 Site Chara cteristics

Much of the seafloor in eastern Long Island Sound consists of an east

- west trending

depression with depths ranging from 100 to 200 feet (30 to 60 meters). The bottom

topography is irregular due to submerged reefs and shoals, exposed bedrock, an d scoured

areas. Depressions in Long Island Sound formed as a result of erosion of sediment by tidal

currents. Shoals are either areas of sediment deposition (such as the Mattituck Sill), or glacial

deposits of rocks and boulders.ELDS SMMP April 2016

12 The ELDS site is a 2 x 1 nm area that encompasses the previously used NLDS site and

previously studied areas (NL

- Wa and NL

- Wb)

. The following are the corner coordinates

(NAD83): 41°16.81’ N, 72° 04.57' W; 41°15.81’ N, 72° 04.57' W; 41°16.81’ N, 72° 04.57'

W; 41°15.81’ N, 72° 0 7.22' W. This location is approximately 10.4 km south of South End

Point, East Haven, Connecticut. The boundary excludes a bedrock area to the north from

disposal.

The NLDS site is a 1 x 1 nm area that has been used for disposal. The seafloor at the activ e

NLDS slopes down toward the south; depths range from 46 feet (14 m) in the center of the

site to 79 feet (24 m) at its southern boundary. The site has well

- defined dredged material

mounds, shown in regular bathymetric surveys by the DAMOS program ( e.g., AECOM 2009;

2012). In areas without mounds ( i.e., near the westernmost and southeastern parts of the site),

the seafloor is comparatively flat. The seafloor of most of Site NL

- Wa is also flat, with water

depths predominantly betw een 60 and 80 feet (18 and 30 m) except the southern boundary

which has a depth of 137 feet (42m)

. NL

- Wb is similar with depths increasing to 95 feet

(30M) at its southern end. However, the seafloor is shallower and more irregular in the

boulder area in the north

- central part of th e site (also excluded from the boundaries of the

EL DS , where water depths range from approximately 45 to 66 feet (14 to 20 m).

4.2 Physical Characteristics

The physical parameters that are important in the transport and dispersion of sediment include

curr ents, waves, and the density structure of the water column and were studied in the SEIS

. Currents directly affect the transport and dispersion of sediment by imparting shear stress to

the surface sediments and transporting suspended sediments

.

Long Island Sound has outlets at both ends: at The Race in the east and through the East River

at the west. The mean range of the tide in the study increases from east to west, from 1.9 feet

at Lake Montauk Harbor on the eastern tip of Long Island, to 7.4 feet at Gree nwich Harbor

and the New York Harbors in western LIS. Spring tides are generally less than a foot higher

and lower than the mean. Extreme tides can be up to 2 feet lower, or 7 feet higher than the

mean (EPA,2016)

.

The magnitude of the tides also varies ve rtically throughout the water column with stronger

currents occurring near the surface. Peak near

- surface tidal currents through The Race are

typically 3.9 ft/s (1.2 m/s) and can exceed 5.3 ft/s (1.6 m/s) during spring tides (EPA , 2016).

Westward from Th e Race, tidal current velocities decrease rapidly as Long Island Sound

widens. Tidal currents in the western and c entral basins are typically 0.7 to 1.0 ft/s (0.2 to 0.3

m/s).

Near

- bottom currents are strongest in eastern Long Island Sound, with peak ne ar

- bottom

velocities of 2.0 to 2.3 ft/s (0.6 to 0.7 m/s) during spring tides. Near

- bottom currents weaken

toward western Long Island Sound to only 0.7 ft/s (0.2 m/s).ELDS SMMP April 2016

13 As part of the physical oceanography study for the SEIS, significant wave heights were

r ecorded at seven mooring stations during three seasons. Four mooring s tations (see Figure 2 )

were located in eastern Long Island Sound (Stations 1, 2, 3, and 7) together with wave

measurements at the CLIS buoy. W ave height in the deeper waters o f eastern Long Island

Sound were homogenous compared to Block Island sound waves which were larger and for

longer periods. Mean significant wave heights in eastern Long Island Sound are largest in the

winter and maximum wave heights reached 8 feet (2.5 m).

Figur e 2: Station locations of meteorological/ocean buoys, as well as mooring and ship

survey stations ( EPA, 2016 )

In recent years, the largest wave heights in Long Island Sound occurred on August 28

- 30,

2011 (Tropical Storm Irene) and October 28

- 31, 2012 (Superstorm Sandy). The significant

wave heights during these storms peaked at 13 feet (4 m) at the CLIS buoy. The wave periods

during these unusual storms are important to sediment transport because the depth to which

wave motions extend increases with the wave period. During winter storms the dominant

wave periods reach up to 5 or 6 seconds (s) in Long Island Sound; during Tropical Storm

Irene and Superstorm Sandy, longer wave periods were observed with values reaching 8 s at

the CLIS buoy.ELDS SMMP April 2016

14 Ove r time, as currents move over this mound, hydraulic forces act on the sediment particles in

the form of shear and lift. The response of the particles to these forces is determined by

current speed, particle size, shape, density, and any friction or cohesio n exerted by adjacent

sediment grains.

As part of the PO study, the bottom stress was simulated for conditions during Superstorm

Sandy (October 28

- 31, 2012). This storm produced the largest significant wave height ever

observed in Long Island Sound (13 f eet [4 m]). The extreme value analysis for significant

wave heights for summer

- fall conditions suggests that this wave height would occur once

every 30 years. The maximum sustained (15

- minute average) wind speed of 46 knots (23.6

m/s) occurred on October 29, 2012 during the S uperstorm Sandy.

Stability of dredged material at the sites was assessed using the models to assess t he shear

stress on bottom of ELDS . The maximum bottom stress values during 2013 were below .75

Pa for ELDS with the exception of the southwestern corner of the site, located in an area of

bedrock and boulders, where the maximum bottom stress is 0.76 Pa. The relatively low

maximum bottom stresses at the ELDS are consistent with the observations made by the

DAMOS program at the NLDS site which compared pre

- storm and post

- storm bathymetric

surveys and concluded that there was little movement of the dredged sediments due to a major

storm (SAIC, 2003). Low bottom stress is also consistent with the top ography of the NLDS

,

which indicates that surface sediments are not reworked by storms and tidal currents ( e.g.

, SAIC, 2004; AECOM, 2009).

Climate change may result in changes to physical conditions of Long Island sound due to an

increase in storm frequency and intensity . Increase in storms may result in unexpected

shoaling of sediments and coastal erosion. These storms will result in additional dredging

needs but may also present additional opportunities for ben eficial use of dredged material.

4.3 Sediment and Water Quality

Total Organic Co ncentration ( TOC ) in eastern Long Island Sound sediments in the area

between Bartlett Reef and Mattituck Sill is less than 0.5% in most areas. The mean TOC

concentration measured at the ELDS ( NLDS portion) was 2.4% representing disposal of

material

.

The predominant grain size within the ELDS was sand, although sediments were on average

finer

- grained within the NLDS portion (due to the disposed dredged material) than at areas

outside of the NLDS. Specifically, at the NLDS, the mean sand content was 53%, while the

mean sand content at areas outside the NLDS r anged from 72% to 85% (Table 1 ). The mean

silt and clay content at the NLDS was 39%, which was approximately 2.5 times higher than

the mean silt and clay content at all other areas outside the NLDS (m ean of 18%). The

highest silt and clay content was 78% , which was located in the area of the NLDS that

received most of the dredged material in the previous decade (AECOM, 2009).ELDS SMMP April 2016

15 The predominant sediment grain size observed during the 2014 SPI/PV survey throughout

most of the ELDS was a fine sand layer overlying silt and clay. These grain sizes were

consistent with findings by a more extensive SPI/PV survey conducted in 2007 at the NLDS

and at off

- site reference stations (AECOM, 2009); they were also con sistent with the findings

of the 2015 sediment chemistry survey.

Table 1. Mean Grain Size and TOC Content in Sediments at ELDS

Site 2015 Sediment

Chemistry Survey 2013 Benthic

Survey 2014 SPI/PV

Survey

Gravel Sand Silt and Clay Total Organic Carbon

G ravel Sand Silt and Clay Total Organic Carbon Predominant

Grain Size

Percent Percent

New London Alternative

NLDS 9.4 54.7 35.9 1.7 7.3 50.6 42.1 3.0 Fine sand,

overlying silt+clay NL

- Wa 2. 2 85.2 12.6 0.5 6.3 79.7 14. 0 1. 3

NL

- Wb 2.2 82.9 15.0 1.0 n /a Fine sand

Off

- site

– east of NLDS 0.4 71.8 27.8 0.4 n/a Very fine sand

Source: EPA, 2016

M etal, PAH, Pesticides, and PCBs concentrations were tested in 2015 (EPA, 2016)

. Most

were below the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Eff ects Range

Low [ER

- L] and Effects Range

- Median [ER

- M] values

. The 2010 assessment of PAHs at the

Seawolf Mound at the NLDS was conducted by the DAMOS program through the collection

of 16 vibracores in 2010 (AECOM, 2012). The 2010 survey results indicated that PAH

concentrations in the surface sediment (upper 1.7 feet [0.5 m]) were similar across the

Seawolf Mound stations and were consistent with pre

- dredge characterization of the capping

material. Only one sample had a HMW PAH concentration slightly abov e the ERL value, but

the total PAH concentrations of all individual stations was below the ERL value

.

I n order to be determined as suitable for placement at ELDS , sediment must meet chemical

and biological criterion that are defined as protective of water quality. In addition, screening

level modeling is performed to further evaluate the potential for water column effects as part

of the suitability determination. Given this level of testing, the SMMP does not require

specific water column monitoring at EL DS . Rather, it relies on the National Estuary

Program’s Long Island Sound Study’s (LISS) routine measurements; if issues are identified

by this monitoring that indicate a potential relationship to ELDS , then a monitoring plan will

be developed consistent with LISS methodologies.ELDS SMMP April 2016

16 ELDS is expected to exhibit similar water quality conditions to the central basin of Long

Island Sound. The average annual salinity (30 psu) is expected to be higher than those sites

farther to the west and water temperatures in th e summer and fall are expected to be slightly

lower.

Minor spatial variations of bottom temperatures in the eastern region of LIS were observed as

part of the site designation. Water entering from Block Island Sound was slightly cooler than

in Long Island Sound throughout the summer (June

- August). The southern side of the Long

Island Sound had the warmest bottom temperatures in the summer.

Du r ing the PO study, the highest near

- bottom salinity in Long Island Sound occurred

consistently at near The Race, wh ere the inflow from Block Island Sound is most influential.

The lowest salinity values were measured consistently on the southern side of Long Island

Sound furthest from the mouth of the Connecticut River

.

The water column in the Sound is well

- mixed from fall through late spring, but increased

freshwater runoff and increasing water temperatures cause buoyant, warmer water to become

layered over more dense, colder water during the summer and early fall. Hypoxic events,

prevalent in the summer in the wester n and central Long Island Sound, do not extend to

eastern Long Island Sound. Water column concentrations of contaminants measured at the

Cornfield Shoals and at the Central Long Island Sound were low or not detected.

The bottom sediments in the area of Long Island Sound where ELDS is located are composed

primarily of fine silts and clays, characteristic of a low

- energy environment. Although some

of the sediment placed at the site has contained a higher fraction of coarse material than the

ambient sedime nt, the consistent, rapid return of areas within NL DS that have been the target

of dredged material placement to a healthy benthic community similar to set reference areas

confirms the success of the suitability testing procedures

.

The vigorous circulation in the eastern basin of Long Island Sound ensures that the water

properties are rapidly mixed in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. Consequently,

measurements of water quality parameters (salinity, temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen

etc.) show only subtle variations. The temporal variability associated with seasonal cycles in

runoff and biological productivity are a much more substantial factor that affect the water

quality in eastern Long Island Sound.

4. 4 Bioaccumulation

Previous st udies reviewed clam, worm, and lobster tissue at the NLDS site (EPA, 2004).

Most recently, f

our dredging projects with bioaccumulation data were examined as part of the

site designation. Data included worm (Nereis virens) and clam (Macoma nasuta)

bioaccum ulation testing and comparisons to risk

- based tissue concentrations. The projects

evaluated included the Americas Styrenics project (2014 ) , US Coast Guard Academy (2013)

, Patchogue River Federal Navigation Project ( 2011 ) , and the North Cove Federal Navig ationELDS SMMP April 2016

17 Project ( 2003 ) . For all projects n o bioaccumulation tissue exceeded FDA Action/Tolerance

Levels for protection of human health. In addition, risk model results did not exceed risk

values for carcinogenic and non

- carcinogenic risks from exposure thro ugh the food chain

(EPA, 2016).

4.5 Living Resources

Zooplankton include metazooplankton (organisms larger than 200 μm) and microzooplankton

(organisms between 35 and 200 μm in size). Overall, the seasonal patterns in

metazooplankton abundances and spec ies composition over the last 60 years seem to be

rela tively unchanged in Long Island. Specifically, peak abundances during the periods 1952

-

1953, 2002

- 2004, and 2008

- 2009 occurred between April and June of each year; minimum

abundances occurred between De cember and February.

Routinely reported taxa have included the following: Arthropoda (copepods, mysids, crab

larvae, amphipods, barnacle nauplii, and cladocerans); Annelida (polychaete larvae);

Mollusca (gastropod and bivalve larvae); Echinodermata (sea star larvae); Chordata

( Oikopleura sp.); Bryozoa; and Chaetognatha ( e.g. , the arrow worm, Sagitta elegans )

. Copepods accounted f

or 80 to 90% of the abundances. The seasonal metazooplankton cycles

are dominated by the copepods Acartia hudsonica, Temora lon gicornis, and Pseudocalanus

sp. in winter and spring, and by the copepods Acartia tonsa, Paracalanus crassirostris, and

Oithona similis in the summer and fall

.

As for phytoplankton, there is a distinct decreasing gradient in mesozooplankton biomass and

abu ndances from west to east in Long Island Sound. Based on 2002 to 2009 data from the

CTDEEP z ooplankton monitoring program, the mean annual total mesozooplankton

abundance is 4 and 3 times higher in western and central Long Island Sound, respectively,

comp ared to eastern Long Island Sound.

The benthic community within the ELDS (NLDS, Site NL

- Wa, and Site NL

- Wb) is primarily

made up of the three major taxonomic groups: Annel ida, Arthropoda, and Mollusca ( EPA,

2016)

.

A ll of the stations assessed during th e 2014 SPI survey (EPA, 2016) at the ELDS were

classified as Stage III succession except for the two westernmost stations at Site NL

- Wa.

Sediments at the NLDS were heavily bioturbated with numerous burrows and evidence of

subsurface feeding. The stations were classified as either Stage I on III, Stage II on III, or

Stage III. Stations at NL

- Wb exhibited Stage II sucession with a fairly dense shell layer. The

shell lag and pebbles on the substrate had encrusting and attached epifauna on them

suggesting a f

airly stable substrate. The aRPDs at the NLDS ranged from 1.9 to 4.7 cm with a

mean of 3.1 cm , indicating good habitat quality. At Site NL

- Wa, the aRPDs was at least 2.8

cm at the various stations, also indicating good habitat quality. Conditions were s imilar at

Site WL

- Wb; sediments from all four stations were bioturbated with some evidence ofELDS SMMP April 2016

18 subsurface feeding, and the shell lag and pebbles also had encrusting and attached epifauna,

suggesting a fairly stable substrate. Reference stations located 1.5 nmi (2.8 km) to the east

from the NLDS ( i.e., Stations NLON

- REF) had evidence of two polychaetes typical of Stage

III succession. These organisms were Saccoglossus kowaleswski as evidenced by its

distinctive fecal coil on the surface, and Chaetopterus va riopedatus as evidenced by its thick

parchment tube in the sediment through which it pumps water. The aRPD at Stations NE

REF ranged from 2.5 to 6.8 cm with a mean of 4.6 cm. At Stations NLON

- REF, the aRPD

ranged from 2.2 to 4.6 cm with a mean of 3.6 cm. These depths are indications of good

habitat quality (EPA , 2016 )

.

Additional surveys of mounds at the NLDS have shown that the benthic community readily

recolonizes, with Stage I/II communities well established as soon as eight months after a

disposal e vent and with historic mounds showing Stage III communities. In addition,

surveys show that all benthic communities are similar to those found at off

- site reference

stations (EPA, 2016).

Table 2 . Ecological Parameters of Benthic Infauna for the ELDS

(2013 Benthic Survey)

Site No. of

Samples Statistics Total

Individuals Species

Richness (R) Diversity

Index (H’) Pielou’s

Evenness (J’)

New London Alternative

NLDS 8 1 Minimum 259 60 2.84 0.68

Maximum 875 100 3.80 0.83

Mean 615 3.30 0.75

Total Species Richness 208

NL

- Wa 11 Minimum 187 33 1.32 0.38

Maximum 703 91 3.46 0.85

Mean 399 2.76 0.69

Total Species Richness 172

Off

- site 6 Minimum 59 21 2.33 0.53

Maximum 1,874 78 3.23 0.88

Mean 762 2.83 0.71

Tota l Species Richness 154

Source: EPA, 2016

Commercial/Recreational Fish and Shellfish Resources

Long Island Sound, a semi

- enclosed estuary, is an important economic resource for both

commercial and recreational/sport fisherman. The region is occupied by more than 105 fish

species; however, only a few of them are considered year

- round residents (Gottschall et al.,

2000). Most finfish species such as scup, bluefish, and striped bass migrate through the area

in response to seasonal variations in water tem perature, salinity, and access to spawning andELDS SMMP April 2016

19 nursery grounds in Long Island Sound.

F infish abundance and distribution show several patterns. The overall abundance of finfishes

and the species diversity has remained fairly stable since 1984 (EPA, 2016). However,

western and central Long Island Sound have shown significantly higher abundances compared

to eastern Long Island Sound, based on CTDEEP data from 1984 to 2012 (Figure 3). This is

likely a result of more extensive mud habitat in western and cent ral Long Island Sound that

supports greater fish densities (USEPA and USACE, 2004). Particularly, the shallow mud

and transitional substrates adjacent to the western and central basins in Long Island Sound

have the highest average catch per unit effort (C PUE).

Figure 3. Mean finfish abundance per tow by location during the CTDEEP Long

Island Sound Trawl Surveys , 1984

- 2012

(Source: CTDEEP, unpublished data, August 2013).

In 2013, trawl data was collected in eastern LIS. At the NLDS

, the most abundant finfish

species present was scup (1,137 individuals); it also had the greatest biomas s . T here was no

significant difference between the abunda nce or CPUE near and off of the three alternative

sites evaluated in the site des ignation for species of interest identified during the survey,

namely scup, winter flounder, striped bass, bluefish, windowpane flounder, and striped sea

robin (Table 4)

.ELDS SMMP April 2016

20 Tab l e 3 . A v era g e Cat c h p er Unit E f fo r t for Finfish Spec i es of Interest for the east ern

region of LIS

Species of Interest Average Catch per Unit Effort

(CPUE) P

- value

Near

- s ite Off

- s ite

Primary S cup 8.19 7.40 0.919

W inter f l ound e r 0.18 0.29 0.530

S tri p e d b ass 0.02 0.01 0.519

B lu ef i s h 0.01 0.00 0.374

Secondary W indo w pa n e flound e r 0.12 0.86 0.309

S tri p e d s e a robin 0.02 0.07 0.329

Source: EPA, 2016

Important commercial or recreational bivalve mollusk resources within Long Island Sound

include the bay scallop (

Argopecten irradians ), eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virg inica ),

northern quahog/hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ), softshell clam ( Mya arenaria ), and surf

clam ( Spisula solidissima ). Lobster (Homarus americanus), longfin squid (Loligo pealeii)

,

horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus), channeled whelk (Busycon cana liculatum), and

knobbed whelk (Busycon carica) . With the exception of lobster and longfin squid,

commercially and recreationally important shellfish resources of Long Island Sound occur in

shallow nearshore waters.

Based on the CTDE E P data, lobsters, whic h were most abundant on muddy substrate

, occurred

Sound

- wide in all seasons during the study period (i.e., 1984 to 2000)

. Prior to 1999, lobsters

were most abundant in western and central Long Island Sound. Since then, much of the

remnant lobster populati on has been concentrated in deeper waters of central Long Island

Sound and t he Race (EPA, 2016).

Endangered/Threatened Species

This section provides a summary of known endangered, threatened, and “special concern”

species within the Long Island Sound regio n. An endangered species is one whose overall

survival in a particular region or locality is in jeopardy as a result of loss or change in habitat,

overall exploitation by man, predation, adverse interspecies competition, or disease. Unless an

endangered sp ecies receives protective assistance, extinction may occur. Threatened or rare

species are those with populations that have become notably decreased because of the

development of any number of limiting factors leading to a deterioration of the environment. A

species may also be considered as a species of “special concern.” These may be any native

species for which a welfare concern or risk of endangerment has been documented within a

state (NYSDEC 2003). Endangered and threatened species are protected under the Federal

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. and under state law while species listed as

“special concern” are protected only by state law.ELDS SMMP April 2016

21 In 2015 and 2012, the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) and the Atlantic sturgeon

( Acipenser o xyrinchus oxyrinchus) were added to the federal endangered species list. The

bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the endangered species list in 2007.

No other changes to federally listed endangered species with potential habitat in the study

area were noted (Table 1 ). Two additional species are not expected to be offshore at the

disposal site but may be found nearshore are the Piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ) and

Upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)

. The Piping plover remains a th reaten ed species for

the states of CT and RI (USFWS, 2016)

, but is listed as an endangered species under the NY

state endangered species list. The U pland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) is not listed as a

federal species but listed as a state endangered s pecies for RI and threatened species for NY.

The red knot, piping plover, upland sandpiper are not expected to be present at ELDS with

any regularity because the forage or migrate to intertidal areas and under USFWS purview.

As part of the DSEIS, EPA coor dinated with USFWS and NMFS

.

Endangered and Threatened Mammals

Eight endangered marine mammals and reptiles were originally identified for the EIS study

area. In general, whales and other marine mammals are not frequently observed in LIS,

however, incide ntal sightings have resulted in the inclusion of several species on the endangered

species list for Connecticut and New York (EPA, 2004). Coordination with NMFS for ELDS

is ongoing. M arine mammals are not expected to spend significant portions of time wit hin the

ELDS and adverse impacts to mammals are not likely to occur.

Endangered and Threatened Reptiles

Sea turtles are the only endangered reptile species noted in the Long Island Sound area. Sea

turtles are highly migratory and are often found throughou t the world’s oceans (NOAA, 1995).

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, EPA requested input from resour ce and

state agencies (NOAA, US FWS, CTDEEP and NYSDEC) on the identification of Threatened

and Endangered Species in Long Island Sound. T heir assessment noted the five species of sea

turtles as possibly being found in the waters of Long Island Sound.

Use of Long Island Sound by turtles appears related to the availability of prey, annual

migration patterns, and age. The coastal waters of New York provide an important habitat for

juvenile Kemp’s ridley, green, and loggerhead turtles and adult

- sized leatherbacks.

Hawksbill turtles are only an incidental visitor to Long Island Sound, therefore Long Island

Sound is not considered important habita t to the Hawksbill turtle.ELDS SMMP April 2016

22 Table 4

– Endangered M arine M ammals and R eptiles for Connecticut and New York

Species Federal

Status CT Status NY Status

Humpback whale

( Megaptera novaeangliae ) Endangered NA* Endangered

Fin whale ( Balaenoptera

phys alus ) Endangered NA* Endangered

Right whale ( Eubalaena

glacialis ) Endangered NA* Endangered

Kemp's ridley sea turtle

( Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered Endangered Endangered

Loggerhead sea turtle

( Caretta caretta) Threatened Threatened Thre atened

Leatherback sea turtle

( Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered Endangered Endangered

Green sea turtle ( Chelonia

mydas ) Threatened Threatened Threatened

Hawksbill sea turtle

( Eretmochelys imbricata ) Endangered NA* Endangered

Notes: NA

– not listed *.

CT list accessed 12/29/15, effective 8/5/15.

http://www.ct.gov/dEep/cwp/view.asp?a=2702&q=323488&deepNav_GID=1628

NY list accessed 12/23/15 http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html

- last updated 8/8/2007

Endangered and Threatened Fish

Two endangered fish may be located in the vicinity of ELDS , the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser

brevirostrum) and the At lantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). The original

SMMP identified the shortnose sturgeon as federally endangered as well as endangered in both

CT and NY. The Atlantic sturgeon was listed as “threatened in inland waters” for the state of

Con necticut in the prior SMMP and is now a federally protected endangered species. The state

of CT now lists it as endangered. Sturgeon are not expected to be impacted by disposal

activities at ELDS as they are highly mobile species.

Shortnose sturgeon occu r in the lower Connecticut River from the Holyoke Pool to Long

.

Unlike other anadromous species such as salmon and shad, shortnose sturgeon do not appear

to make long

- distance offshore migrations

. It can be inferred that shortnose sturgeon utilizes

portio ns of Long Island Sound since it is known to spawn in the Connecticut River. ShortnoseELDS SMMP April 2016

23 sturgeon have not been observed in Long Island Sound during CTDE E P trawls since 1984.

T he Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) is listed as “threatened in inland

waters” for the state of Connecticut (CTDEP, 2003). This designation means that the Atlantic

sturgeon is not protected within the waters of Long Island Sound under the Connecticut’s

endangered species legislation, but a moratorium on harvesting the species in Long Island

Sound has been enacted. In February 2003, a proposal was made to change the status of the

Atlantic sturgeon to “endangered in all state waters” (personal communication Tom Savoy,

Connecticut Marine Fisheries Division) , and is still under consideration at this time.

Atlantic sturgeon is an anadromous species that lives up to 60 years, reaching lengths up to 14

feet (4 meters) and weighing over 800 pounds (363 kilograms)

. Long Island Sound may be an

important feeding or resting area on

- the

- way to and from spawning areas in the Hudson River

because all sizes of Atlantic sturgeon have been seen or captured in the Sound. Atlantic

sturgeon were caught in all three basins of Long Island Sound but were mainly located in the

vicinity of Falkne r Island (Savoy and Pacileo, 2003).

Endangered and Threatened Birds

Long Island Sound is utilized by a wide diversity of marine and coastal birds including both

migratory and resident species. Open

- water bird species found in Long Island Sound include

wat erfowl, colonial water birds, and pelagic species. Shorebirds and raptors may occasionally

use open

- water habitats for foraging or as fly

- over during migrations, but are not likely to be

present in offshore waters.

19 birds were identified as endangered o r threatened in the study area and 13 were identified

as species of concern (EPA, 2016) . Of these species, only four are known to use offshore

open water areas (Table 3 ). Of these, only the Roseate tern is on the fe deral endangered

species list , the Lea st tern is listed as a threatened species in all states. The Piping Pl over,

sand piper, and red knot, sand piper are species are not likely to be present in offshore waters.

Table 5

- Endangered or Threatened B irds

Name Classifi

cation Season

Uses

LIS F ederal

Status CT

State

Status NY

State

Status RI

State

Status Offshore/

Open

Water Use

Common

tern ( Sterna

hirundo ) Colonial

Waterbird Spring

Early Fall - Special

concern* Threatened Occasional

Least tern

( Sterna

antillum ) Colonial

Waterbird Spring

S ummer - Threatened Threatened Threatened OccasionalELDS SMMP April 2016

24 Roseate tern

(Sterna

dougallii) Colonial

Waterbird Spring

Early Fall Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Occasional

Common

loon (Gavia

immer) Pelagic Winter

- Special

Concern* Special

Concern O ccasional

Notes: CT list accessed 12/29/15, effective 8/5/15.

http://www.ct.gov/dEep/cwp/view.asp?a=2702&q=323488&deepNav_GID=1628 NY list accessed

12/23/15 http://www .dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html

- last updated 8/8/2007

Essential Fish Habitat

In eastern Long Island Sound, EFH has been designated for 38 managed species (species with

active FMPs). Fifteen of these species have designated EFH within the vicinity of east ern LIS.

The data were compiled from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Guide

to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States (NOAA, 2014a).

This guide summarizes EFH designated by species and life stage for that species (i.e., eggs,

larvae, juveniles, and adults) in 10

- minute by 10

- minute squares1 of latitude and longitude

(hereafter referred to as just “squares”). Therefore, t he ELDS site is represented by NOAA as

square # 41107200 (Figure 5)

.

The five species th at may be found near ELDS are: bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), little skate

(Leucoraja erinacea), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), winter flounder

(Pseudopleuonectes americanus), and winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata). Eight endangered

marine mam mals and reptiles were originally identified for the EIS study area.

EPA has requested EFH consultation. Coordination with NMFS is ongoing. Although

temporary impacts to prey, adverse impacts to Essential Fish habitat is not likely to occur.

Additionally, monitoring under the DAMOS program has consistently demonstrated that the

benthic communities readily recover after disposal events (e.g., AECOM, 2009). Increased

turbidity immediately following dredged material disposal events could also temporarily

redu ce foraging ability due to decreased visibility in the water column.ELDS SMMP April 2016

25 Figure 4 . NOAA Fisheries 10 x 10 minute EFH squares (NMFS, 2016)

There are no cultural resources in the ELDS. EPA has consulted with the tribes and CT State

Historic Preservation office. There is one documented submerged wreck within the ELDS

area .1 nm west of the previously used NLDS site at 41°15.936’N, 72°05.292’W. A 200 foot

buffer will be maintained to avoid disposal near the wreck. This wreck is recorded in all

databases.

This wreck is an u nknown vessel in 57 feet (18 m) of water and ha s been classified by NOAA

as “submerged/dangerous.” No other information regarding this wreck ( e.g. , age, vessel type)

is available.

There are three “obstructions” within the boulder area of Site NL

- Wa (south portion of ELDS)

. The AWOIS database lists these obstructions as rocks in water depths of 45 to 48 feet (14 to 15

m). A fourth obstruction is located on the southern boundary of Site NL

- Wa. It is located at a

water depth of 59 feet (18 m), and was conf irmed by a private diver to be a buoy with lighting

hardware removed according to the AWOIS database.

4. 6 Site Capacity

The estimated site capacity of ELDS is 27 million cubic yards (EPA, 2016). Disposal has

occurred at the NLDS portion of the ELDS site ( see Disposal History). Capacity will be

modified by USACE in final SMMP.ELDS SMMP April 2016

26 5.0 D ISPOSAL HISTORY

The ELDS encompasses 50% of the previously used New London Site. At the New London

site, there is a known continuous record of use of any disposal site in Long Island Sound (EPA,

2004). According to USACE records, the beginning of detailed record keeping at NLDS, a

total of nearly 3.5 million cubic yards of dredged material has been placed at the site (see Table

4), but placement of dredged material in the vici nity of NLDS likely dates back to at least 1955.

The largest volume of material placed at NLDS has originated from maintenance and

improvement of the U.S. Navy facility in New London, but usage also includes a number of

smaller private projects

.

In 2016, a total of nearly 3.5 million cubic yards had been recorded as placed at the site since

1985 (see Table 4). The ELDS will receive volumes from Federal navigation projects in New

Haven, Stamford, Norwalk and Bridgeport harbors, with numerous smaller harbor s in

Connecticut and New York contributing to the total disposal volumes (EPA, 2004).

Beginning as early as 1984 , dredged material at ELDS has been placed at distinct mounds and

managed to maximize site capacity and containment of material (EPA, 2004). These mounds

have been monitored individually to assess stability, thickness of dredged material and benthic

recolonization status relative to previous survey results and in comparison to nearby reference

areas (Valente et al., 2012).

Table 6

- Disposal E vents at NLDS ( 50% of NLDS is part of the ELDS site)

Year Reported Placement

Volume (cubic yards )

1984 Total 223,689

1985 Total 374,154

1986 Total 1 93,500

1987 Total 171,245

1988 Total 91,850

1989 Total 41,800

1990 Total 126,222

1991 Total 65,262

1992 Total 79,320

1993 Total 21,930

1994 Total 7,650

1995 Total 847,325

1996 Total 504,400

1997 Total 12,325

1998 Total 7,300

1999 Total 23,250

2000 Total 5,300ELDS SMMP April 2016

27 2001 Total 1,995

2002 Total 11,425

2003 Total 4,450

2004 Total 8,000

2005 Total 8,700

2006 Total 382,135

2007 Total No disposal

2008 Total No disposal

2009 Total No disposal

2009

- 10 3,318

201 0

- 11 No disposal

2011

- 12 No disposal

2012

- 13 19,142

2013

- 14 No disposal

2014

- 15 180,676

Total Record 3,416,363

Source: USACE, D AMOS program

6.0 M ONITORING

The USACE

- NAE and EPA share responsibility for monitoring of the ELDS site. In

addition, monitoring data may be generated by the agencies or through coordination or use of

data gathered under other programs. Monitoring data from other agencies (e.g., CTDEEP

Trawl Surveys and Long Island Sound Study programs) will be utilized as appropriate to

maximize the availability of information at ELDS

.

EPA has the responsibility for determining that an unacceptable impact has occurred as a

result of dredged material disposal at ELDS

. However, such determinations will be made in

consultation with other agencies and be based on available monitoring data

. The data gathered

from the monitoring program will be routinely evaluated by EPA, the USACE

- NAE , and other

agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service

( US FWS), and state regulatory agencies. EPA is responsible for determining any modification

to site use or de

- designation.

6.1 Monitoring Methods

Monitoring surveys at ELDS fall into two general categories: confirmatory studies a nd

focused studies. Confirmatory studies are designed to test hypotheses related to expected

physical and ecological response patterns following placement of dredged material on the

seafloor at the active or recently active target locations within ELDS

. The data collected and

evaluated during these studies provide answers to strategic management questions inELDS SMMP April 2016

28 determining the next step in the site management process. Focused studies are periodically

undertaken within the monitoring program to follow up on any unexpected results from a

confirmatory survey (such as slower than expected recolonization following cessation of

placement at a given target location) or to evaluate inactive or historical placement areas

within the site (such as following the passage of a large storm).

The primary monitoring tools for confirmatory surveys are collection of acoustic and imaging

data. Acoustic surveys include the collection of bathymetric, backscatter, and side

- scan data.

The bathymetric data provide measurements of w ater depth that, when processed, can be used

to map the seafloor topography. The mapped data is used to track changes in the size and

location of seafloor features. Backscatter and side

- scan sonar data provide images that

support characterization of surf icial topography, sediment texture, and roughness.

Backscatter data can be processed into a seamless image with corrections for topography

while side

- scan sonar data retains a higher resolution image without correction for

topography. The comparison of s ynoptic acoustic data types has the greatest utility for

assessment of dredged material placement.

Sediment

- profile imaging (SPI) is a monitoring technique used to provide data on the physical

characteristics of the seafloor as well as the status of the benthic biological community. The

technique involves deploying an underwater camera system to photograph a cross section of

the sediment

- water interface. SPI is coupled with a plan

- view camera system to provide

imaging of a larger area of the seafloor to aid characterization of the benthic biological

community.

In addition to the above techniques, focused surveys may include any of the following:

 Collection of sediment or water samples for laboratory analysis

 Remotely operated vehicle surveys with camera and sampling capabilities

 Additional remote sensing techniques such as sub

- bottom profiling

Specifics on monitoring techniques and data processing and analysis can be found in the most

recent DAMOS contribution for N LDS (Carey , 2015).

6.2 Material Moveme nt

The following potent ial effects (as defined in 40 C F R 228 .10) will be discussed in this

section:

1. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries or onto oceanfront

beaches or shorelines.

2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shellfishery areas.ELDS SMMP April 2016

29 The site designation specifies that ELDS is a containment (non

- dispersive site); therefore

significant movement of materials out of the site is not expected. Loss of mound material

could mean that the material is being lost inappropr iately and may potentially impact areas

outside of the site

.

If material is transported beyond the site’s boundary , bathymetric surveys will be conducted

to ensure the c hang es in elevation for any mound is not greater than 1.0 feet (0.3 meter) over

an are a greater than 50 by 50 meters. B athymetric baseline data for new or modified mounds

will be collected after one year of consolidation. Bathymetric surveys of mounds (historic and

recently completed) and the entire site will also be performed periodically. Information on

mound size and height will be compared with previous data to determine if loss of material

has occurred and reported in DAMOS reports and available on the USACE website.

Data from the s ediment erosion modeling conducted during the site des ignation process

suggest the location of the ELDS is optimal for mound stability

.

Bathymetry will be used to define substantive changes in bathymetry and topography (greater

than 0.5 foot [15 centimeters]). Sediment profile imagery may also be used to eval uate

changes in sediment characteristics. The sediment profile imagery can be used to observe

layers of material too thin to detect by precision bathymetric methods and can also be used to

evaluate if the benthic community in the sediments has been disturb ed or is under stress

relative to the reference sites. Comparison of sediment profile imagery data from areas of

concern to reference areas will be used to determine whether the transported material has a

potential significant adverse biological effect (si nce it will be assessing benthic community

health).

Changes in bathymetry across the mound of more than 1.0 feet (0.3 meters) or development of

large areas of predominately muddy sediments not previously documented may be an

indication of substantial tran sport of material from the site. If such changes are documented,

Tier 3 characterization of sediment quality or further characterization of benthic communities

may be required.

For the portion of the ELDS site that has received dredged material disposal (N LDS),

monitoring results from four bathymetry surveys completed from 2000 through 2015, show

no evidence of substantial movement of materials from NLDS to adj acent areas. This

determination was made based on the following information:

Periodic bathymetric surveys of NLDS provide a means of comparison of depth changes in

the disposal site. Four bathymetric surveys were completed at NLDS since 2000, including a

focused survey in 2002 following the passage of a large coastal storm. Although Fishers

Island sh elters NLDS from long

- fetch easterly and southeasterly winds, it is exposed to the

west and southwest. As the October 2002 storm center tracked to the west of NLDS, a

significant southwesterly wind pattern developed. The bathymetric survey performed soonELDS SMMP April 2016

30 after this storm identified no large

- scale changes in the topography of the seafloor at NLDS.

The imaging survey did identify the presence of a shell lag deposit at some locations,

indicative of small

- scale winnowing of the surface sediments. However, t he occurrence of

advanced successional s p e ci es, well

- developed apparent redox potential discontinuity depths,

and the presence of numerous biogenic surface features (e.g. worm tubes, burrows) over the

shallower portions of the site provided evidence that t here was minimal disturbance of

surficial sediment

Periodic bathymetric surveys of ELDS provide a means of comparison of depth changes in

the disposal site. Several bathymetric surveys were completed at ELDS as part of the DSEIS

(Table 5 ).

The frequen cy of monitoring at a given site is driven by the amount of material placed at the

site as well as previous findings and other relevant factors such as the passage of a large storm

or reported issues in the area

.

Table 7

– DAMOS Survey Activit ies at NLDS

Survey Date Purpose of Survey Reference

October 20 15 Characterize the bathymetry and surficial sediment

properties of the entire site using multibeam bathymetry Battelle, data analysis is

process

September 2014 Characterize the physical and biological conditions over NLDS

and associated reference areas using sediment profile and

plan view imaging Carey and Fucile, 2015

(DAMOS Data Report

2015

- 01)

September 2010 Collection of cores to characterize the vertical distribution of

material at a capped moun d of dredged material at the site,

including a comparison of laboratory analytical

methodologies AECOM, 2012 (DAMOS

Contribution No. 189)

June

- July 2006 Performance of multibeam bathymetry, imaging, benthic

sampling, and coring to assess the recovery and stability of a

capped mound at the site AECOM, 2010 (DAMOS

Contribution No. 182)

October 2002 Performance of single beam bathymetry, imaging, and side

scan sonar to evaluate the stability of deposits at NLDS

following passage of a large coastal storm SAIC, 2003 (D AMOS

Contribution No. 1 49)

June 2001 Collections of cores and sediment grabs and performance of

imaging to assess the recovery and stability of a capped

mound at the site SAIC, 2004 (DAMOS

Contribution No. 152)

August 2000 Performance of si ngle beam bathymetry and imaging survey

over the entire site to assess stability and biological recovery

of placement mounds at the site SAIC, 2001 (DAMOS

Contribution No. 133)ELDS SMMP April 2016

31 6.3 Biological C haracteristics

The following potential effects (as def ined in 40 CFR 228 .10) will be discussed in this section:

1. Absence from the disposal site of pollution

- sensitive biota characteristic of the general

area.

2. Progressive, non

- seasonal, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or

benthic biota at or near the disposal site when these changes can be attributed to the

effects of materials disposed at the site.

3. Accumulation of material constituents (including without limitation, human pathogens)

in marine biota at or near the site.

Overall, based on results from 2001, 2006, and 2014 surveys, the benthic community within

NLDS has recovered to the level of the reference sites. The recovery of a healthy benthic habitat

coupled with the testing requirements for material placed at the site indicate tha t bioaccumulation

potential is not considered significant. This determination was made based on the foll owing

information:

Current theory holds that organism

- sediment interactions in fine

- grained sediments follow a

predictable sequence of development afte r a major disturbance such as dredged mater ial disposal

(Carey et al., 2015 ). This sequence has been subjectively divided into three successi onal stages

(Rhoads and Germano, 1986). Successional stage is assigned by assessing which types of species

or org anisms

- related activities are apparent in a SPI image. Stage 3 organisms, the most

developed, are deposit

- feeding infauna.

Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI) is a monitoring technique used to provide data on the physical

characteristics of the seafloor as well as the status of the benthic biological community. The

technique involves an underwater frame/camera system that can photograph a cross section of

the sediment

- water interface. Analysis of the resulting images for a standard set of

characteristics a llows comparison between different locations and different surveys. The

DAMOS Program has successfully used SPI for over 25 years. One of the main characteristics

described in SPI data is apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity (aRPD) depth. This paramet er

provides a measure of the integrated time history of the balance between near

- surface oxygen

conditions and biological reworking of sediments (Carey et al., 2015 ). As biological activity

increases, the aRPD depth increases as organisms move sediment pa rticles from the sediment

surface down deeper into the sediments.

The 2001, 2006, and 2014 surveys all assessed the benthic recolonization over mounds where

placement of dredged material has not occurred for multiple years. Recolonization was complete

ov er these mounds, consistent with expectations based on the standard theory of infaunal

succession. There was limited placement at the site between 2007 and early 2014, but with theELDS SMMP April 2016

32 increase in placement for the 2014

- 15 season and anticipated continued pla cement in 2015

- 16,

future surveys will be scheduled to track ).

6.4 W ater and Sediment Quality

Inclusive of 40 CFR 228 .10 the following types of potential effects when evaluating impact at the

disposal site discussed in this section include:

1. Progressive , non

- seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment composition at the

disposal site when these changes are attributable to materials disposed of at the site.

The water quality in Long Island Sound is strongly affected by runoff and discharges from its

u rban surroundings. The watershed of Long Island Sound has an area of approximately 16,250

square miles. The three largest rivers draining into Long Island Sound are, from east to west, the

Thames River, Connecticut River, and Housatonic River. The Connec ticut River enters the

eastern Long Island Sound between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, Connecticut. Covering

approximately 75% of the total drainage area and the Thames River enters the eastern Long Island

Sound between New London and Groton, Connecticut. C overing 9% of the drainage area. Except

for selected coastal areas, waters in Long Island Sound are classified as SA waters. The best uses

of Class SA waters are shellfishing for market purposes, primary and secondary contact recreation,

and fishing.

Tu rbidity measurements are made in the spring and summer, the most productive seasons in Long

Island Sound. CTDEEP has been monitoring turbidity indirectly by measuring water clarity

(using a Secchi disk) since June 2000. The average Secchi depth in Long I sland Sound is 7.5 feet

(2.3 m).

The predominant grain size within the ELDS was sand, although sediments were on average finer

grained within the NLDS (due to the disposed dredged material) than at areas outside of the NLDS.

Specifically, at the NLDS, the mean sand content was 53%, while the mean sand content at areas

outside the NLDS ranged from 72% to 85 %. The mean silt and clay content at the NLDS was

39%, which was approximately 2.5 times higher than the mean silt and clay content at all other

areas ou tside the NLDS (mean of 18%). The highest silt and clay content was 78% , which was

located in the area of the NLDS that received most of the dredged material in the previous decade

(AECOM, 2009).

The TOC concentrations at stations within and around the ELDS were similar. T he mean TOC

concentration measured at the NLDS was 2.4%, which was about 2.5 times higher than the mean

concentrations at all the other areas (mean of 0.9%). The highest TOC concentration measured

was 3.5%. The most recent assessments of physical and chemical characteristics at the NLDS by

the DAMOS program were conducted at the Seawolf Mound in 2006 and 2010 (AECOM, 2010;

2012). In the 2010 survey, sediments in the upper 1.7 feet (50 cm) contained 55 to 90% silt and

clay, and 1.2 to 2 .1% TOC , which was consistent with previous surveys at the mound.ELDS SMMP April 2016

33 Metal concentrations were sampled at individual station within the ELDS site. Mean metals

concentrations were approximately twice as high at the NLDS as at Sites NL

- Wa and NL

- Wb,

although no ne of the mean metal concentrations for those sites exceeded the ERL values. Metal

concentrations at the three stations from the eastern part of Site NL

- Wa located just to the west

of the NLDS, had lower concentrations than Stations located within the NLD S, suggesting that

dredged material is contained within the NLDS. Stability of the sediment at the disposal

mounds is also evidenced by the DAMOS program surveys; the 2006 assessment of surface

sediments at the Seawolf Mound found metals concentrations th at were similar across the

mound and that were consistent with pre

- dredge characterization of the disposed material

(AECOM, 2010).

Concentrations of Pesticides, PCBs and PAHs at ELDS are low and do not exceed the ER

- L

values. Additionally, surveys at the Seawolf Mound at the NLDS were conducted by the

DAMOS program through the collection of 16 vibracores in 2010 (AECOM, 2012). The 2010

survey results indicated that PAH concentrations in the surface sediment (upper 1.7 feet [0.5 m])

were similar across the Seawolf Mound stations and were consistent with pre

- dredge

characterization of the capping material. Only one sample had a concentration slightly above

the ERL value, but the total PAH concentrations of all individual stations was below the ERL

value.

A vailable data for the Long Island Sound region indicate that sediments in the open waters of

Long Island Sound are generally not toxic to benthic organisms. The toxicity tests during the

2013 benthic survey demonstrated that contaminants and physical con d itions at the ELDS do not

elicit a toxic response to exposed organisms.

In addition, the DSEIS evaluated the rate of dilution of the dissolved materials and very fine

suspended sediments that may remain in the water after disposal operations and the direct ion of

transport using, the circulation model FVCOM. The highest concentration occur after release.

The material was diluted by tidal circulation and moved rapidly. After 12 hours, the diluted

concentration was the range of 10

- 7

.

The STFATE predictions of the distribution of the disposed sediment on the seabed show t hat it

is contained within the site and the mound is elongated along the axis of the current. Under

mean flow conditions the maximum mound height after disposal from a 3,000 cy scow would be

0.21 feet (6.4 cm); under high flow conditions the maximum height would be 0.18 feet (5.5 cm).

STFATE predictions for the amount of material reaching the seafloor show that under both mean

and high flow conditions, 99

- 100% of the sand, silt, and clumps i n the scow would reach the

seafloor. Most of the clay also reaches the seafloor. Specifically, 83% of the clay is predicted to

reach the seafloor during operations under high flow conditions, and 96% of it would reach the

seafloor under mean flow conditi ons.

The STFATE simulations further show that the maximum relative concentration in the water

column within the ELDS falls below 0.25% within 120 minutes of release of dredged material

from the scow.ELDS SMMP April 2016

34 The longer

- term (greater than 100 hours from release ) transport and dilution of material in the

water column after disposal operations show maximum concentrations in the range of 10

- 7 at

locations on the coast of Connecticut, and Fishers Island and the North Fork of Long Island.

These values reflect furthe r dilution by a factor of approximately 100 from initial dilution at the

site. An exception exists at the west coast of Fishers Island where releases from the ELDS

would result in the maximum concentrations of 10

- 6

.

6.5 Quality Assurance

An important part of any monitoring program is a quality assurance (QA) regime to ensure that

the monitoring data are reliable.

Relevant laboratories are required to submit Quality Assurance (QA) sheets with all analyses on

a project

- specific basis (see RIM, ITM and Gree n Book for further details).

Monitoring activities will be accomplished through a combination of EPA and USACE

- NAE

resources (e.g. employees, vessels, laboratories) and contractors. Documentation of QA/QC is

required by both agencies for all monitoring ac tivities (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological

s ampling and testing). QA is documented in the form of Quality Assurance Project Plans

(QAPP) and/or Monitoring Work Plan. QAPPs are required for all EPA and USACE

- NAE

monitoring activities. Analytical met hods, detection limits, and QA procedures are contained in

the EPA and USACE

- NAE Regional Testing Manual (EPA/ USACE , 2004 )

.

7 .0 A NTICIPATED SITE USE

MPRSA 102(c)(3)(D) and (E) requires that the SMMP include consideration of the quantity of

the material to be placed in the site, and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the

contaminants in the material as well as the anticipated use of the site over the long term.

ELDS is designated to receive dredged material only. No other material may be placed in the

site.

Projected dredging volumes for all regions of Long Island Sound include a mix of large and

small Federal navigation projects and many small private dredging projects (marinas, boatyards,

and harbors, and a few large private projects), which i s consistent with the pattern of dredging in

Long Island Sound over the past 20 years.



### A total of 52.9 million cubic yards is expected to be dredged in Long Island Sound over the

next 30 years. Of that, approximately 22.6 million cubic yards of material are anticipated to

be dredged in eastern Long Island Sound

. Federal navigation projects with the rest of the

volume coming from other facilities in Long Island Sound Sediments projected for disposal are

expected to come primarily from maintenance dredging projects, although expansion dredging

may be required for deeper draft vessels or from increased commerce in Long Island Sound.ELDS SMMP April 2016

35 Dredging and disposal in Long Island Sound has historically been accomplished using a bucket

dredge to fill split hull or pock et scows for transport to the disposal site or by using hopper

dredges. These types of equipment are expected to be the primary mode of any open

- water

placement in Long Island Sound in the future, although placement is not specifically limited to

this equ ipment

.

Historically one third of the dredged material volume comes from large projects (>500,000 cubic

yards; 382,277 cubic meters), one third from medium sized projects

(200,000 to 500,000 cubic yards; 152,911 to 382,277 cubic meters), and one third fro m small

projects (<200,000 cubic yards; 152,911 cubic meters). The sediment properties are expected to

be variable although the predominant sediment type is likely be silty material (silts

, sandy silts,

etc.). About 70 percent of the maintenance material v olume can be characterized as silty material.

Approximately 10 percent the expansion material can be characterized as sands and clays.

All projects using ELDS for disposal must be either permitted or authorized under MPRSA and

the CWA (see Section 3.0). T he quality of the material will be determined on a project specific

basis under the testing requirements necessary to meet open

- water disposal requirements of either

CWA 404 or MPRSA 103. The quality of MPRSA material will be consistent with EPA’s

Ocean Du mping Regulations (40 CFR Part 227 ).

National guidance for determining whether dredged material is acceptable for open

- water

disposal is provided in the Ocean Testing Manual (Green Book; EPA and USACE

, 1991) and in

the Inland Testing Manual (ITM; EPA and USACE

, 1998). The Regional Implementation

Manual (RIM; Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material to be Disposed in Open

Waters, EPA New England Region/ USACE

- NAE, 2004 ), consistent with the Green Book a nd

the Inland Testing Manual, provides specific testing and evaluation methods for dredged material

projects at specific sites or groups of sites.

Site Capacity will be evaluated and reported by USACE

- NAE every three years.

8.0 R EVIEW AND REVISION OF THIS PLAN

MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(F) requires that the SMMP include a schedule for review and revision of the

SMMP, which shall not be reviewed and revised less frequently than 10 years after adoption of

the plan, and every 10 years thereafter. The EPA, the USACE

- NAE

, have agreed to review this

plan annually a s part of the annual agency planning meeting and coordinate with other state and

federal agencies periodically

.ELDS SMMP April 2016

36 9.0 C OORDINATION AND OUTREACH

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972 requires that Federal agencies

proposing activi ties within or outside the coastal zone, that affect any land or water use, or

natural resource of the coastal zone, ensure that those activities are conducted in a manner which

is consistent to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved State

coastal management programs. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process, EPA prepared a Federal determination of consistency with the Connecticut

, New York

,

and Rhode Island approved Coastal Zone Management Programs in April 2016.

Concurrence regarding the Section 7 of the Endan gered Species Act, and the Essential Fish

Habitat is being obtained during the NEPA process for the DSEIS from the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wil dlife Serv ice (USFWS) (EPA, 2016 ). The

NMFS and USFWS concurrence will confirm that the selection and use of ELDS will not

adversely affect threatened or endangered species or adversely modify critical habitat. EPA

anticipates that no further consultation will be required and no conservation recommendations

will be needed due to the use of ongoing and mutually agreed upon seasonal constraints on

disposal operations (June 1 through October 1) as well as the ongoing disposal site monitoring

program. The NMFS concurre nce will confirm that the selection and use of ELDS will not

adversely affect habitat.

Additionally, the New England Regional Dredging Team, comprised of representatives from

EPA, USACE

- NAE, NMFS, USFWS, and representatives fro m Connecticut, Massachusetts

, New York, and Rhode Island. The team meets approximately every six months to discuss

management and monitoring of New England dredged material disposal sites. Monitoring

activities may be discussed at these meetings or additional meetings may be coordi nated to

discuss the SMMP.

The EPA and the USACE will continue to inform and involve the public regarding the

monitoring program and USACE

- NAE monitoring reports are available at the USACE

- NAE website

( http://www.nae.USACE.army.mil/Missions/DisposalAreaMonitoringSystem(DAMOS)/DisposalSites/

CentralLongIslandSound.aspx) or information for the ELDS Site designation, SMMPs at the EPA New

England Regional Dredged Material Program website ( http://www.epa.gov/ocean

- dumping/dredged

material

- management

- long

- island

- sound ).

10.0 F UNDING

The c osts involved in site management and monitoring will be shared between EPA the USACE

NAE

. This SMMP will be in place until modified or the site is de

- designated and closed.

Those monitoring programs conducted under other Federal (i.e., Long Island Sound S tudy) and

state agencies (i.e., CTD E EP Trawl Survey) will depend solely on funds allocated to the

programs by those agencies or other supporting agencies

.ELDS SMMP April 2016

37 The timing of monitoring surveys and other activities will be governed by funding resources, the

fre quency of disposal at the site, and the results of previous monitoring data.

11.0 R EFERENCES

AECOM. 2010. Monitoring Survey at the New London Disposal Site, June/July 2006. DAMOS

Contribution No. 182. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, C oncord, MA.

AECOM. 2012. Monitoring Survey at the Seawolf Disposal Mound, September 2010. DAMOS

Contribution No. 189. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA,

136p.

Battelle. 2016, in preparation. Monitoring Survey at the New Lo ndon Disposal Site, October

2015.

Bokuniewicz, H.J. and R.B. Gordon. 1980. Sediment transport and deposition in Long Island

Sound. Advances in Geophysics 22: 69

- 106.

Carey, D.A. and E. Bellagamba Fucile. 2015, in preparation. Data Summary Report of the New

London Disposal Site and Vicinity Sediment Profile and Plan

- View Imaging Survey, September

2014. DAMOS Data Report 2015

- 01.

CTDEEP. http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view. asp?a=2702&q=323474&deepNav_GID=1628

Endangered, threatened and special concern species listed by county accessed 12/23/15

CTDEP. 2001. Coastal Permits Webpage http://www.dep.state.ct.us/L ISfact/coastal.htm

CTDEP. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Species Fact Sheets. Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division.

http://dep.state.ct.us/burn atr/wildlife/learn/esfact.htm.

EPA, 2004. Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal

Sites in Central and Western Long Island Sound Connecticut and New York, inclusive of

Appendices, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy.

EPA and USACE , 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of

the U.S.

– Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). USEPA Office of Water, EPA

- 823

- B

- 98

-

004.

EPA and USACE, 2004. Regional Implementation Manual for the Evaluat ion of Dredged

Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters.ELDS SMMP April 2016

38 EPA , 2016

. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of

Dredged Material Disposal Site(s) in Eastern Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York

. Prepared by EPA, Louis Berger & Associates, and UCONN. 444 pp.

NMFS.2016 http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/hcd/webintro.html NMFS EFH 10 x

10 squares

. a ccessed 4/4/16

NOAA. 1995. Our Living Oceans

– Report on the St atus of U.S. Living Marine Resources,

1995. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS

- F/SPO

- 19. 160 pp.

NY DEC. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html NYS DEC Endangered species list

accessed 12/23/15

R hoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano, 1986. Characterization of Organi sm

- Sediment Relations Using

Sediment Profile Imaging: An Efficient Method of Remote Ecological Monitoring of the

Seafloor (Remots System). Marine Ecology

- Progress Series. 8:115

- 128.ELDS SMMP April 2016

39 ATTACHMENT A : Monitoring Plan

1: Movement of the

Dredged Material 2: Absence of

Pollutant

Sensitive Bi ota 3: Changes in

W ater Quality 4: Changes in

Benthic Health

and Diversity 5: Accumulation of

Material

C onstituents in

Biota

Baseline taken within 1

year after disposal;

entire site bathymetry at

3

- 4 year intervals SPI within 1

- 3

years of disposal

and survey of

historic mounds

once every 5

years. Annual water

quality

measured in site

vicinity (LISS

Monitoring

program data) Annual CTDEEP

trawl survey data Sediment

bioaccumulation

potential estimated

for sediments

collected within site

and reference areas

at least every 5

years.

Mound changes by >

1.0 feet w/in 5 year

interval Significant

differences

between site and

reference areas Consistent

gradients in

measures of

long

- term water

quality changes

in vicinity Significant

differences in

community

composi tion or

abundance from

baseline or

contiguous areas

is found Significant increase

in bioaccumulation

potential relative to

baseline conditions

or reference areas

Bathymetry taken ≤ 2

months after 10

- year

storm SPI w/in 1

- 3

years of disposal

and survey of

historic mounds

once every 5 yrs. No additional

studies * No additional

studies * No additional

studies *

Mound changes by >

1.5 feet from last

survey Signific ant

differences

between site and

reference areas No additional

studies * No additional

studies * No additional

studies *

Bathymetry and

sediment survey w/in 1

km. of site boundary SPI at site and

reference areas;

grain size

analysis Water quality

mea sured at site

and reference

areas Studies may

include

measurement of

species

distribution at site

and reference

areas Studies may include

the collection of

biota from site and

reference areasELDS SMMP April 2016

40 ATTACHMENT B: Example Scow Log