158 
Question. Does the 35’ mound at the Mud Dump site pose a hazard to navigation? 
At projected levels of dredged material disposal, what is the future capacity of the 
Mud Dump site? 
Answer. The mound in the northwest corner of the site presently does not pose a 
navigational hazard. A continued buildup of this mound could have resulted in a 
hazard. However, since direct dumping of dredged material in this area was directed 
to other areas, there has been erosion of the mound. An EPA sponsored survey in 
1980 indicated that the height of the apex of the mound had decreased about four 
feet since 1978. 
Because of the many variables involved, it is not possible to firmly predict the life 
of the Mud Dump site. However, based on the information available at this time, we 
estimate the useful life of the site to be in the neighborhood of 10 years. 
Question. Do you concur with the estimate in the Draft EIS on the Mud Dump 
Site that relocation of the disposal site to a 106 mile location would result in in- 
creased transportation costs of between $43 million to $66 million without any envi- 
ronmental benefit? 
Answer. Based on the transportation cost of $0.06/yd ?/nmi and annual dredging 
of 8 to 11 million yds, estimated additional annual costs of $48 to $66 million are 
correct. However, the cost of transportation of dredged material varies with several 
factors, and the $0.06/yd 3/nmi may now be on the low side. Thus, these projected 
annual costs may be slightly low. 
The Draft EIS, on page xiii, stated that relocation of the 106 mile site would 
result in ‘“‘. . . added economic costs without significant environmental benefits. . . .” 
This conclusion was reached after balancing the environmental benefits and envi- 
ronmental detriments of such a move to the affected areas. The specific reasons for 
rejecting the 106 mile site are summarized on page 2-7 of the Draft EIS and ex- 
plained more completely on page 2-9. We believe these reasons are still valid, and 
so concur with the conclusion that relocation to the 106 mile site would result in 
increased costs without significant environmental benefits. 
Question. What would the energy costs be of moving the site to the 106 mile loca- 
tion? Would it be logistically possible to dispose of dredged materials from the New 
York Harbor at the 106 mile site? 
Answer. The energy costs are a substantial portion of the estimated $48 to $66 
million annual costs. Logistically, it is “possible” to dispose of the dredged materials 
from New York Harbor at the 106 mile site. However, because such factors as more 
open water to traverse and hauling time, the logistics of disposal at the 106 mile site 
would be more complicated than disposal of a site nearer shore. As explained in the 
Draft EIS, these costs and delays of relocating the site to the 106 mile site would not 
be offset by significant environmental benefits. 
Question. What research and monitoring have been performed on the Mud Dump 
Site and, in summary form, what are the findings? 
Answer. A list of studies conducted in the vicinity of the Mud Dump site and sum- 
maries of the results of these studies from the Draft EIS on that site are attached. 
The composite evaluation of the results of these studies provided the basis for rec- 
ommending the permanent designation of the Mud Dump Site. Continuing research 
and monitoring activities by EPA and the Corps of Engineers are currently ongoing 
at the site. 
