Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River New Hampshire and MaineNew Hampshire and MaineNavigation Improvement Project

Port Safety Forum Briefing16 September 2015

Jennifer Flanagan

16 September 2015In Partnership with NH PDA-Division of

Ports & HarborsProject ManagerNew England District

US Army Corps of EngineersBUILDING STRONG®

Project SponsorState of New Hampshire Pease Development AuthorityState of New Hampshire – Pease Development Authority

Division of Ports and Harbors (New Hampshire Port Authority)

• Geno J. Marconi, Director, New Hampshire Port Authority

• David R Mullen Executive Director Pease Development Authority• David R. Mullen, Executive Director, Pease Development Authority

Avery Lane - Sea-3 LPG Terminalbelow Upper Turning Basin

BUILDING STRONG®

below Upper Turning Basin

Existing Federal Project and Project Area

BUILDING STRONG®

Why Improve Portsmouth Harbor?y Portsmouth is New Hampshire’s Largest Port and Only Deep Draft Port

The 1964-66 Project (1962 R&HA) – 35-foot channel, 400 feet wide, designed for 35,000 DWT bulk carriers

The 1990-92 Modification (WRDA86) – Improved the Downstream Reaches below and Between the Bridges –– designed for 40-45,000 DWT bulk carriers. g gState of NH was Sponsor. Channel entrance reach widened opposite Naval Shipyard Channel widened along Badgers Island Turning/Maneuvering Area between Lift Bridges Expanded Upper Harbor Improvements not economically justified at that time.

2014 Upper Harbor Improvements – Ships continued to increase in size Users 2014 Upper Harbor Improvements – Ships continued to increase in size. Users looking to widen upper turning area so that upper terminals can also safely receive 45,000 DWT carriers up to 800 feet long.

BUILDING STRONG® 4

BUILDING STRONG®

Upper Terminals Planning Constraints: The River’s

I-95 Bridge

The River s Limiting Factors

• The study authority references a basin of “1000

Route 1 Sarah

references a basin of 1000 feet”, but no vessels need exactly that.

T l f hi ldLong Bridge (2015-2018)

• Two classes of ships could benefit from a wider upper turning basin: 680-foot long ships need 1020 feet, and 747-foot long ships need747-foot long ships need 1120 feet. (EM 1110-2-1613 – Section 9-2)

• The river channel and Route 1A

Memorial Bridge(2013-2014)

bridges restrict ultimate vessel size in waterway to 800 feet. Terminals and carriers would use these

BUILDING STRONG®View NW Upriver

ships if the current basin was widened. These ships would require a 1200-foot wide basin.

Structural Alternatives for a Wider Upper Basin

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER

MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

PROJECT FEATURES

Existing 35-Foot Federal Channel and Turning Basin Turning Basin Expansion Proposed Alternate Southwest Basin Location

BUILDING STRONG®

Alternate Upstream Basin Location

Ship – 770 LOA

Recommended Plan Detail

Widen existing upper turning basin to 1200 feetturning basin to 1200 feet

Retain existing 35-foot j t d thproject depth

728,100 CY sandy glacial , y gtill plus 25,300 CY rock

Ocean Placement ofOcean Placement of dredged material and rock.

BUILDING STRONG®

Placement of Dredged Material

Options for Sandy Glacial Till Material (728 100 CY)Options for Sandy Glacial Till Material (728,100 CY)• Federal Base Plan (least costly plan) for placement of sandy dredged material is at an

ocean site about 10 miles east of the harbor entrance between the Isles of shoals and Boon Island seaward of the territorial sea.

• Beneficial use as nourishment material placed in nearshore feeder bar systems off of eroding area beaches in Maine and Massachusetts at non-Federal cost.

Town of Wells, ME Town of Salisbury, MAyCity of Newburyport, MA Town of Newbury, MA

Options for Rock (25,300 CY)• A proposal by the town of Kittery, Maine to beneficially use the rock removed to create

a wave break for town’s small boat harbor at Pepperell Cove has been dropped.

• Placement at the Isles of Shoals North site if designated.

• Placement at the Cape Arundel Disposal Site.

• Placement seaward of the Star-Cedar island Breakwater at Isles of Shoals

BUILDING STRONG®

Ocean Disposal Site Options• Portland Disposal Site (PDS) 59 il t f(PDS): 59 miles; too far

• Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS): p ( )56 miles; too far

• Cape Arundel Disposal Site (CADS): 32 milesSite (CADS): 32 miles, and only for 80K CY or less

• Isles of Shoals Historic Ocean Site (IOS): not recommended due to local importance / lobster industry

• IOS North (IOS-N): “likely selectable”;

BUILDING STRONG®

likely selectable ; Federal Base Plan

10

Alternative Disposal Options (by others)

Nearshore SandSand

Placement Sites &

Rock BermPEPPERELL COVEPEPPERELL COVE

Rock Berm Site

TERRITORIAL SEATERRITORIAL SEA

BUILDING STRONG®11

Economic Summary

Total Project First Cost $20,770,000

A A l C t $1 060 000Average Annual Costs $1,060,000

Average Annual Benefits $3,290,000

Benefit to Cost Ratio 3.1 to 1

Net Annual Benefits $2,230,000

Price Levels(FY15) October 2014

Discount Rate 3.375 percent

BUILDING STRONG®

PED Phase requires additional investigations / refinement of

PED Phase

PED Phase requires additional investigations / refinement of construction methods.

Explore subsurface ledge areas in the expanded turning basin to better- Explore subsurface ledge areas in the expanded turning basin to better determine the horizon between the glacial till and bedrock.

- Hydrographic survey of the proposed enlarged turning basinHydrographic survey of the proposed enlarged turning basin.

- Develop rock removal plan to minimize impacts to listed species, particularly from blasting.p y g

- Coordination with resource/regulatory agencies in our preparation of an Environmental Assessment for this project.

- Be prepared to use Isles of Shoals North ocean placement site; prepare Ocean Dumping Act Section 103 Site Selection memo for EPA concur.

BUILDING STRONG®13

Construction Sequence

Mobilization Late-Sept to Mid-Oct

Dredging of Till Overburden Mid-Oct to Mid-Feb

Drilling and Blasting Concludes Mid-March

Rock Removal Mid-March to Mid-April

Demobilization Late AprilDemobilization Late April

BUILDING STRONG®

Project Implementation Schedule

P j t A d b th Ci il W k R i B d 21 A t 2014Project Approved by the Civil Works Review Board 21 August 2014

Chief of Engineers Report Signed 8 February 2015

Assistant Secretary of the Army Transmits Reports to Congress 15 June 2015

Design Agreement Execution mid October 2015

Project Partnering Agreement Execution* TBDj g g

Contract Award* TBD

Contract Completion* TBD

* Project requires Authorization in order to receive funding.

BUILDING STRONG®

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS

NEW HAMPSHIRE PEASE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – DIVISION

OF PORTS AND HARBORSENGINEERS HARBORS

BUILDING STRONG®

Portsmouth Harbor Navigation Improvement Project