Mr. Arthur Newell, Assistant Director of DEC’s Bureau of Marine Resources, briefed the Council on the Port of New York Dredged Material Management Plan, which seeks to develop environmentally safe and cost-efficient methods of disposing of the material annually dredged from the navigation channels, berthing areas, and other areas of the port. Some of this material is contaminated with heavy metals and various organic contaminants (pesticides, PCB’s, dioxin).

Two disposal alternatives under consideration which have created a great deal of environmental concern are the creation of artificial containment islands and the use of pits in either the harbor or the ocean seafloor for placement of this dredged material. A document circulated a year or two ago delineated three "feasible" zones for pits/islands as a contingency, if all other options (such as contaminant control, decontamination or beneficial use of dredged material) failed. Mr. Newell suggested that Zone 1, Raritan Bay, will likely be removed from further consideration as a site for either containment island or pit disposal because of the bay’s valuable living resources. Zone Two is located in the Lower Bay, while Zone 3 is several miles offshore in the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The subaqueous borrow pit options include the use of existing pits and the digging (and then refilling) of new pits. Some existing pits in the harbor are now considered to represent significant bottom habitat for marine invertebrates and finfish.

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency in the development and implementation of the Dredged Material Management Plan for the Port of New York/New Jersey. Mr. Newell indicated that use of dredged material for positive purposes, such as habitat creation, is the preferred option. He noted, for example, an existing deep pit in Grassy Bay, in Jamaica Bay, that suffers persistent low-oxygen conditions. This pit could be filled with contaminated dredged material and then capped with clean material to bring it back to the same level as the ambient bottom of the area. This would represent an improvement in the habitat condition of the area.

Councilor Fred Schwab expressed concern that no toxic materials should be introduced into the marine environment through this dredged material management plan. Mr. Newell answered that USACE was aware of the dangers of toxic sediment. Chairman Wise explained that many contaminants have low solubility. When these substances are introduced into the marine environment, a large fraction attaches to silt and clay particles suspended in the water. These particles (and their burden of associated contaminants) settle to the bottom of man-made pits and navigation channels, which function essentially as sediment traps. Therefore, dredged material periodically removed from existing channels is typically fine-grained and often contaminated, while digging a new channel usually involves digging through relatively unpolluted glacial sands.

Mr. Newell stated that dredging to maintain the navigation depths of the channels of the port (termed "maintenance dredging") typically produces 5-10 million cubic yards of material annually. Due to the controversy over identifying acceptable disposal options, maintenance dredging is far behind schedule. Previously, 25% of the material had been deemed hazardous, but better testing procedures and revised standards have resulted in 75% of the material now being categorized as mildly-to-severely contaminated. Mr. Newell noted that much of the "clean" sediment is going to cover a 23-square mile designated "remediation area" around the historic Mud Dump Site. Much of the most polluted material is not being dredged right now, pending resolution of the disposal questions. According to the September 1998 working draft of the Dredged Material Management Plan, very few options are listed for New York’s disposal of Category III (most polluted) materials. New Jersey is very active in proposing both decontamination projects and landfill sites for its Category III material. Plans are "in the works" to truck Category III materials out of the state to Utah and to Pennsylvania for strip mine remediation.

Councilor Tom Knobel asked why, given its track record and vested interest in getting the dredging done and the materials dumped, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) was the state agency responsible for coordinating New York State’s involvement in the USACE planning process. How does DEC reconcile the need for maintaining navigation channels with improving fish habitat? Mr. Newell responded that Governors Pataki and Whitman funded this plan with the intention of taking into consideration all state interests. The DEC is a regulatory agency, not a proponent of dredging, and its vested interest is to try to get the dredging done and the materials disposed in the most environmentally sound way.

Mr. Wise stated that the Army Corps of Engineers usually develops awesomely voluminous and detailed plans and reports; does a succinct summary exist of the options under consideration in this planning exercise? Mr. Newell responded that the September 1998 DMMIWG (Dredged Material Management Integration Work Group)document contained such a summary, and it would be distributed to MRAC. Comments can be addressed to DMMIWG at any time. Mr. Newell noted that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on this project will shortly be available at public libraries and may also be put on the web. He stated that a major objective of the bi-state management plan and the Harbor Estuary Comprehensive Management Plan is to reduce the contaminants being discharged into the waters of the Harbor, so that, in the future, the contaminant load of sediments will be reduced. In response to a question from Councilor Bob Doxsee, Mr. Newell stated that he could not confirm that New Jersey Governor Whitman had prohibited disposal of contaminated material in New Jersey waters by any mechanism, including containment islands and subaqueous borrow pits.

Chairman Wise will secure and distribute to the Council the USACE document of September 1998. He informed the Council that SUNY/Stony Brook’s Marine Sciences Research Center (his employer) is under contract with the Empire State Development Corporation to study potential losses of fish habitat if sections of the New York City waterfront were diked off and then filled with dredging materials, and, if this did result in reductions to available fish habitat, would it be feasible to create artificial habitats elsewhere in the Harbor to offset this loss. This project just began and will take several years. Mr. Newell added that the bi-state plan included this option, and there is major concern about potential habitat loss and its mitigation. New York has allocated for this study about $1 million of its $65 million investment in the joint plan.

Councilor Doxsee asked if there had been a response to the Council’s letter last year to the Commissioner of DEC urging that disposal options involving creation of artificial containment islands and use of subaqueous pits be no longer considered in the Dredged Material Management Plan for the Port of New York and New Jersey. Chairman Wise said that he could not recall if a response had been received and he would check his files.