VESSEL IMPACT STUDY REPORT FOR THE GOWANUS CANAL SITE · 2020-07-05 · GOWANUS CANAL Vessel Impacts Study Report 14 December 2012 11844.101 . w w w . b a i r d . c o m N a v i g

w w w . b a i r d . c o m

Baird

o c e a n s

e n g i n e e r i n g

l a k e s

d e s i g n

r i v e r s

s c i e n c e

w a t e r s h e d s

c o n s t r u c t i o n

N a v i g a t i n g N e w H o r i z o n s

GOWANUS CANAL Vessel Impacts Study Report

14 December 2012

11844.101

w w w . b a i r d . c o m

N a v i g a t i n g N e w H o r i z o n s

GOWANUS CANAL Vessel Impacts Study Report

Prepared for

National Grid

Prepared by

W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd.

For further information please contact

Dr. Alex Brunton at (905) 845-5385

11844.101

This report was prepared by W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. for National Grid.

The material in it reflects the judgment of Baird & Associates in light of the information

available to them at the time of preparation. Any use which a Third Party makes of this

report, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such Third

Parties. Baird & Associates accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any

Third Party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

.

B a i r d & A s s o c i a t e s

G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................................1

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 2

2.1 GIS Datasets .......................................................................................................................................2

2.1.1 Barge Locations ....................................................................................................................2

2.1.2 Barge Dimensions ................................................................................................................2

2.1.3 Dock Locations .....................................................................................................................3

2.2 AIS Data ..............................................................................................................................................3

2.2.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................3

2.2.2 AIS Dataset ............................................................................................................................3

3.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Historic Analysis of Moored Barges ................................................................................................5

3.1.1 Barge Locations ....................................................................................................................5

3.1.2 Barge Dimensions ................................................................................................................9

3.2 Vessel Traffic Analysis......................................................................................................................9

3.2.1 Active Docks .........................................................................................................................9

3.2.2 Vessel Movements ............................................................................................................. 12

3.2.2.1 Barge Activity Inferred from Tug Movements ............................................................. 18 3.2.3 Vessel Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 20

3.3 Vessel Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 22

3.3.1 Evidence of Vessel Impacts on Observed Flow Velocities ........................................... 23

3.3.2 Vessel Impacts with the Bed of the Canal ....................................................................... 25

3.3.3 Propeller Wash Impacts .................................................................................................... 29

3.4 Comparison of Results with USEPA Report ................................................................................ 33

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 34

5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 36



LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: DIGITIZED BARGE LOCATION MAPS

APPENDIX B: TRIP ANALYSIS SUMMARY

APPENDIX C: EXAMPLE TRIP PLOTS FOR EACH ACTIVE DOCK

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF VESSEL PARTICULARS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Example photographs of moored barges (© Microsoft Bing Maps) .................................. 5

Figure 3.2 Moored Barge Counts from Historical Imagery ................................................................. 6 Figure 3.3 1954 Imagery with Digitized Barge Locations .................................................................. 7

Figure 3.4 2011 Imagery with Digitized Barge Locations .................................................................. 8 Figure 3.5 Dock Locations (based on USACE 2012 and AIS Data from 2008 to 2012) .................. 11 Figure 3.6 Annual Variation in Vessel Trips ..................................................................................... 13

Figure 3.7 Variation in Number of Trips per Day ............................................................................. 13

Figure 3.8 Seasonal Variation of Trips .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 3.9 Variation in Minimum Water Level Over Trip Duration ................................................. 14 Figure 3.10 Example Trip to Bayside Dock ...................................................................................... 16

Figure 3.11 Example Trip to Dorann Dock ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 3.12 Barge Activity Inferred from Tug Movements .............................................................. 19 Figure 3.13 Vessel Dimensions and Propulsion Data ........................................................................ 21

Figure 3.14 Velocity Spikes at the 9th

Street HADCP ....................................................................... 24 Figure 3.15 Correlation of Recorded HADCP Velocity with Vessel Speed and Proximity.............. 24

Figure 3.16 Bathymetry and Bed Change between Ferrara and Dorann Docks ................................ 26 Figure 3.17 Bathymetry at the Dorann Dock Showing Bed Contact in 2011 Survey ....................... 27 Figure 3.18 Tug Movement and HADCP Disturbance ...................................................................... 28

Figure 3.19. Estimated Bed Velocities during Maneuvering for the Four Representative Tugs ....... 30 Figure 3.20. Low Tide and High Tide Water Depths in Areas of the Canal with Tug Activity........ 31 Figure 3.21 Bed Material Mobilized as a Function of Depth and Applied Power (tug Buchanan 1) 32

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Imagery Used in Barge Delineation ..................................................................................... 2 Table 3.1 Typical Barge Dimensions from GIS Analysis ................................................................... 9

Table 3.2 Active Docks Based on AIS Vessel Traffic Data .............................................................. 10 Table 3.3 Summary Statistics for Trips into the Gowanus Canal (Aug-2008 to July-2012) ............. 12 Table 3.4 Trip Summary by Dock Location ...................................................................................... 15

Table 3.5 Summary of Vessel Details................................................................................................ 20 Table 3.6 Typical Tugs and Associated Characteristics by Dock Facility ........................................ 22



LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronym Definition

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

AIS Automatic Information System

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

DoITT New York City Dept. of Information Technology & Telecommunications

GPS Global Positioning System

HADCP Horizontal Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identity

NAVD88 North Atlantic Vertical Datum 88

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PRAP Proposed Remedial Action Plan

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCG United States Coast Guard

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UTC Coordinated Universal Time

USGS Unites States Geological Survey

VHF Very High Frequency Radio


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e P a g e E S . 1 V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a vessel impact study (VIS) completed for National Grid as part

of the Gowanus Canal Surface Water Modeling Study. The VIS is one element of a scope of work

examining surface water flow and transport characteristics in the Canal. This scope includes the

development and utilization of a three-dimensional numerical model to simulate flow and

sediment transport under existing and historic conditions, all of which is needed for the

development of a remedial design that is not only appropriate, but that will be effective in the short

and long term.

Vessel impacts in this context refer to the role of vessel activity in the mobility, transport, and

redistribution of sediment and contaminants within the Gowanus Canal. The VIS is critical because

it assists in building a more complete picture of conditions within the Canal, while at the same time

demonstrating the need for thoughtful consideration of what goes on around the Canal. The VIS

shows that vessel activity can be tracked and quantified based on empirical data, largely from

recorded information on vessel movements in the Canal. The VIS also provides analytical propeller

wash calculations to determine the potential for bed sediment mobilization. This coupled with

three-dimensional numerical modeling (including flow around moored barges and propeller scour

of the Canal bed by vessels underway) from the Sediment Transport Modeling Study, highlights

the extensive work and analysis that is required before a remedy may be chosen.

Although the number of barges operating in the Canal today has decreased significantly over the

post-war period1, they remain a significant factor in both influencing flow and sediment movement

through the Canal. The VIS documented several ways in which vessels and barges impact the

Canal bed, including:

Changes to local flow patterns from the presence of barges in the Canal;

Confirm the findings of the Hydrodynamic Model Study that tugs and barges are a direct

and significant influence on flow velocities (and therefore sediment movement) in the

Canal;

Flow velocities increased by at least 600-800 % as a vessel passes a current meter installed in

the Canal, and

Vessel contact (a/k/a “grounding”) with the Canal bed confirmed by combined analysis of

hydrographic and AIS datasets.

In order for a remedy to continue in place and have positive effect, it must take into account the

impacts identified through this study, incorporate them into the Proposed Remedial Action Plan

(PRAP), and account for them during the remedial design. It is clear that the current vessel traffic

in the Canal not only mobilizes and redistributes sediment and contaminants, but propeller wash

can mobilize sediments as large as cobbles and boulders – materials much larger than those

1 During the first half of the 20

th century, 30 to 40 barges could be found in the Gowanus Canal at any one time. In

recent years, satellite and aerial imagery shows around seven barges at any one time.


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e P a g e E S . 2 V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

observed in the Canal bed. Given this fact, it is reasonable to conclude that bed sediments are

regularly mobilized into the water column by vessel activity.

Vessel traffic in the Canal should be eliminated or restricted sufficiently to negate its impacts, and

this should be given serious consideration in the PRAP and remedial design. This is especially so

where Automatic Information System (AIS) vessel tracking data revealed (1) only five active docks

limited to the southern portion of the Canal between 3rd Street and the Gowanus Expressway,

which support but a single trip per day, lasting no more than approximately one hour in duration;

and (2) tugs make up over 99 percent of recorded vessel trips, and nearly three quarters of these

are concentrated in a short section of the Canal between 9th Street and the Gowanus Expressway.

Over half of all the trips are to the Bayside Fuel Oil Depot.

A properly designed remedy cannot only look at the physical characteristics of the Canal. Any

remedy must also take into account the use of the Canal, volume of activity on the Canal, and

purpose / benefit in the long run. This study demonstrates that vessel activity can be tracked and

quantified. All of these things, including the effects of vessel activity on remedial alternatives, must

be recognized and incorporated into the PRAP and remedial design.


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e P a g e 1 V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of a vessel impact study (VIS) completed for National Grid as part

of the Gowanus Canal Surface Water Modeling Study. The VIS is one element of a scope of work

related to on-going analyses of surface water processes, which includes the development and

operation of a three-dimensional model to simulate flow and sediment transport in the Gowanus

Canal (Baird, 2012).

The VIS informs the project by assisting in building a more complete picture of conditions within

the Canal and its operation, both past and present. The study provides essential information to

support evaluation of potential future remedial activities, and it provides input to determination of

potential third‐party impacts on the mobility, transport, and re-distribution of contaminant and

sediment loads in the Canal. The review of potential third party impacts includes quantification of

vessel traffic and identification of associated impacts due to tug and barge operations, which serve

a number of commercial activities operating from various dock facilities in the Canal.

1.1 Study Objectives

The objectives for the Vessel Impact Study are:

Temporal and spatial assessment of vessel traffic in the Canal (including the frequency,

duration, and location of vessel movements);

Identification of typical vessels (e.g. tugs and barges) and their physical characteristics, such

as vessel dimensions and propulsion details if self-propelled;

Quantification of areas in the Canal with different levels of vessel activity and identification

of the main operating docks;

Identification and documentation of vessel impacts on sediment mobility based on observed

historical data, and

Development of inputs for use in propeller wash calculations for cap design.



2.0 METHODOLOGY

Data collection for the Vessel Impact Study involved acquisition of several spatial datasets and

time-series data tracking vessel activities in the Canal. The datasets and analytical methods are

summarized below.

2.1 GIS Datasets

2.1.1 Barge Locations

The identification of the presence and location of barges in the Canal was based on historic aerial

and satellite imagery obtained from the USGS, the USDA, New York City and the State of New

York. Twelve images were used in the analysis spanning nearly a century from 1924 to 2011 (Table

2.1).

Table 2.1 Imagery Used in Barge Delineation

Date Image Type Source

2011 Digital Ortho-imagery USDA

2010 Google Earth Imagery Google

2009 Digital Ortho-imagery USDA

2006

2005 Digital Satellite Imagery USGS

2002 Digital Air Photo USGS

1994 Digital Ortho-imagery New York State

1985

Digital Air Photo USGS 1966

1954

1951 Air Photo (online viewing) City of New York

1924

The barge count in the Canal was recorded for each image. For images from 1954 to 2009 and 2011,

the rectangular barge extents were also digitized. Barge extents were not recorded for images

where on-line viewing was used (1924, 1951, and 2010). The results of the historical analysis of

moored barges are presented in Section 3.1.

2.1.2 Barge Dimensions

The approximate length and width of each barge were measured by applying a bounding rectangle

to each barge feature. Barge drafts were obtained from the USACE Vessel Characteristics Database



(USACE, 2010) which lists light and loaded drafts for similar sized tank and deck barges which

operate in New York Harbor.

2.1.3 Dock Locations

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ‘Port Facility Shapefile’ and ’Port Facility Spreadsheet’

(USACE, 2012) were used to identify the location of active commercial docks within the Gowanus

Canal. This dataset includes the location, owner, purpose, and commodities handled for three

active docks within the Canal. Results of this analysis were supplemented with vessel activity data

derived from the AIS dataset (see below), which added two more active docks to those in the

USACE database. The results of the dock location analysis are summarized in Section 3.2.

2.2 AIS Data

2.2.1 Background

Automated Identification System (AIS) is an automatic tracking system where vessel details and

GPS locations are broadcast automatically and continuously using VHF radio. The AIS data are

received electronically by other nearby ships and AIS base stations for the purposes of navigation

and collision avoidance.

Under Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 164.46, Vessel Traffic Service New York Navigation

Safety Regulations (USGC, 2010) AIS must be installed on vessels in commercial service, including:

i) Self-propelled vessels over 65 feet long, and

ii) Towing vessels over 26 feet long with more than 600 horsepower.

The AIS data include broadcasts from a variety of tugs, but not from the towed barges because they

are not self-propelled. However, barge activity can be interpreted from tug movements as the

former is dependent on the latter (see Section 3.2.2.1).

2.2.2 AIS Dataset

The AIS dataset provides a continuous, high-resolution time-series of recorded vessel traffic within

the Gowanus Canal over a 4-year period from August 2008 to July 2012. The archive interval is

typically 1 to 3 minutes, but this varies depending on vessel speed and transponder configuration.

Position reports include the following information:

Vessel name and unique identifiers (call sign & Maritime Mobile Service Identity number);

Vessel type;

Date and time, archived in standard Universal Time – Coordinated (UTC);

Vessel location (latitude and longitude), and

Vessel speed and heading.



Additional processing of the raw AIS data was completed using a series of analytical routines to

provide:

Pairing of water levels recorded at the Battery gauge with individual vessel position

records;

Identification of specific vessels operating within the Canal (north of the Gowanus

Expressway/Interstate Highway 278);

Splitting the continuous time-series record by vessel and into individual trips (i.e.

distinct/discrete visits);

Assignment of a unique destination (dock location) to each trip, and

Visualization of trip plots, quality control, and preparation of summary statistics.

Results of the AIS analysis are presented in Section 3.2.



3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Historic Analysis of Moored Barges

An analysis of historic barge locations and estimated barge dimensions is presented below. These

data were subsequently used in hydrodynamic modeling to improve model representation of

existing conditions in the Canal, and to quantify observed barge impacts on localized flow

phenomena at the mooring locations. Examples of barges moored alongside two separate docks

facilities in the Canal are shown in Figure 3.1Error! Reference source not found..

Figure 3.1 Example photographs of moored barges

(© Microsoft Bing Maps)

3.1.1 Barge Locations

Barge counts were derived from 12 satellite and aerial images covering the 88-year period from

1924 to 2011 (



Figure 3.2). The barge totals include both the upper portion of Gowanus Bay (above 19th Street), as

well as the Canal north of the Gowanus Expressway. The counts shown in Figure 3.2 are based on

the number of moored barges present in each historical image. This does not account for the

number of vessels using the Canal, which is addressed by the AIS analysis of vessel traffic (Section

3.2).

More barges were observed in the historical imagery (including 1924 and the early 1950s) than in

more recent images (1985 to 2011). This is consistent with the historic usage of the Canal,

particularly as a busy arm of New York Harbor:

49

3331

12

5

810

4

8 7 6 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60C

ou

nt

Barge Count

*estimated from 1924 imagery in NYCityMap (DoITT)**estimated from 2010 imagery in Google Earth



Figure 3.2 Moored Barge Counts from Historical Imagery

“Industrial use of the Canal peaked in the period circa 1900-1932, when between 50 and 60

operations used the waterway with about 65-75% of these in bulk products. The number of

active waterway sites dropped approximately by 50% by World War II, stabilized at between 15

and 20 until the mid-1960s, and then fell to just five operations by 2000” (Hunter Research Inc.,

2004).

and

“At the apparent peak period of traffic in the 1920s, the number of recorded vessel trips at the

crossings indicates that perhaps 23,000 to 25,000 vessels per year used the waterway” (Hunter

Research Inc., 2004).

Maps showing the 1954 and 2011 barge locations are presented in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4,

respectively. The digitized barge locations from the nine available historic images are contained in

Appendix A.

49

3331

12

5

810

4

8 7 6 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Co

un

t

Barge Count

*estimated from 1924 imagery in NYCityMap (DoITT)**estimated from 2010 imagery in Google Earth



Figure 3.3 1954 Imagery with Digitized Barge Locations



Figure 3.4 2011 Imagery with Digitized Barge Locations


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e P a g e 1 0 V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

3.1.2 Barge Dimensions

Table 3.1 summarizes the results of the barge dimension analysis. These show an increase in the

length, breadth and draft of barges using the Canal from 1954 to the present day. The dimensions

of particular interest to the hydrodynamic model study are the breadth and laden draft, as these

dimensions occupy a considerable portion of the Canal cross-section. The average barge

dimensions for all years (Table 3.1) were used in subsequent analyses, including numerical model

simulations of changes in local flow velocities around the “semi-permanent” barges moored at

various dock facilities within the Canal. This approach was taken in order to conservatively

evaluate the potential for barge impacts. However, the maximum dimensions of the modern barges

will need to be used during Remedial Design in order to minimize the potential damage to the

Canal bed.

Table 3.1 Typical Barge Dimensions from GIS Analysis

Average

(1954)

Average

(2011)

Average

(All years)

Minimum

(All years)

Maximum

(All years)

Length (ft) 101 135 113 72 158

Breadth (ft) 31 40 34 24 48

Draft

(ft)

Laden 8 9 8 3 11

Light 2 2 2 1 7

3.2 Vessel Traffic Analysis

The AIS vessel traffic analysis was completed for the four year period from August 2008 to July

2012 (inclusive). This analysis included identification of active docks, vessel movements and vessel

dimensions. The traffic analysis addresses active shipping in the Canal, and it does not include the

historic counts of moored barges (Section 3.1).

3.2.1 Active Docks

Analysis of the AIS dataset identified five active docks operating within the Canal above the

Gowanus Expressway. Dock details and their locations are summarized in

Table 3.2 and in

Figure 3.5. The dock locations identified through analysis of AIS data are in agreement with

USACE database, but two additional docks were present in the AIS data. These are associated with

two steel recycling operations (Benson Scrap Metal Inc. and Dorann Resources). The AIS data

indicate that vessel activity to and from the Dorann dock commenced in June 2011. The AIS data

show that vessel activity associated with this operation is coincident with recent bed sediment



scour and deposition in the section of the Canal between the Ferrara and Dorann docks (Figure 3.5).

The AIS data also support anecdotal reports that the portion of the Canal north of 3rd Street is

Table 3.2 Active Docks Based on AIS Vessel Traffic Data

Operator Commodity Activity

Greco Brothers

Ready-mix Concrete Co. Aggregate Import

Benson Scrap Metal Inc. a Steel Recycling Export

Bayside Fuel Oil Depot Corp.

(Smith Street terminal wharf) Petroleum Products

Import Ferrara Brothers

Building Materials Corp. Aggregate

Dorann Resources a b Steel Recycling Export

Bayside Fuel Oil Depot Corp.

(Note that this dock is located North of 3rd Street) Petroleum Products Import

a Dock not in USACE Port Facility shape file. b Vessel activity to Dorann dock begins in June 2011.

largely inactive in terms of navigation (only three trips were observed over the four year period

from 2008 to 2012; this included two trips by the USEPA registered vessel “Clean Water”, and one

10 day trip – the longest in the dataset – by the tug “Gabby Miller”).



Figure 3.5 Dock Locations (based on USACE 2012 and AIS Data from 2008 to 2012)

[There is little vessel activity north of 3rd Street & the north Bayside Dock is essentially inactive]



3.2.2 Vessel Movements

Nearly 1800 trips into the Canal were recorded in the AIS dataset over the four year period from

August 2008 to July 2012. This value almost certainly underestimates the total amount of trips as it

does not include smaller vessels which are not required to use the AIS (for example, construction

barges towed with small tugs, small workboats and recreational vessels). Summary statistics from

the trip analysis are presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Summary Statistics for Trips into the Gowanus Canal (Aug-2008 to July-2012)

Median Range

Trips/year 452 376 to 532

Trips/month 36 33 to 49

Trips/day 1 0 to 6

Trip duration 1 hour 5 minutes to 10 days a

Maximum vessel speed (knots) 4 knots 0 to 10 knots

Minimum Water Level (ft NAVD) +1.3 ft -4 ft to +3.4 ft

a 99 percent of trips are shorter than 24 hours in duration.

The AIS data recorded trips into the Gowanus Canal by over fifty different vessels, including 46

different tugs (representing over 99 percent of the trips), as well as 4 emergency response vessels (2

NYPD vessels, 2 FDNY vessels), and 1 vessel registered to the USEPA (vessel name “Clean Water”).

Figure 3.6 shows that the number of trips each year varies from 376 to 532 trips, with a median

value of 452. Figure 3.7 shows that there is approximately one vessel trip into the Canal per day

(although as many as 6 trips in one day were observed on 4 separate occasions). Figure 3.8 shows

that the number of trips is typically greater in winter months than in summer months (i.e. the

number of trips per day in December and January is approximately 36 percent greater than the

average for the whole year). One possible explanation for this difference is that fuel oil deliveries to

the Bayside dock may increase in the winter. Figure 3.9 shows that vessels transits occur not only at

high water as suggested in the Feasibility Study report (HDR, 2011), but at all stages of tide

(including low waters). This finding is especially significant as trips undertaken below high tide

have a greater impact on bed sediment mobilization and they increase the potential for grounding

with the Canal bed.



Figure 3.6 Annual Variation in Vessel Trips

Figure 3.7 Variation in Number of Trips per Day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Tota

l Nu

mb

er

of

Trip

s (-

)

Year (August through July)

Annual Data

Median

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f O

ccu

rre

nce

Trips per Day (count)



Figure 3.8 Seasonal Variation of Trips

Figure 3.9 Variation in Minimum Water Level Over Trip Duration

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Trip

s/M

on

th (

-)

Monthly Data

Median

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-4 to -3 -3 to -2 -2 to -1 -1 to 0 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4

Pe

rce

nta

ge (%

)

Minimum Water Level (ft, NAVD)

Frequency

Cumulative

Me

an Se

a Leve

l High Waters

Low Waters



Table 3.4 summarizes vessel trip statistics by dock location. The results include typical vessels

associated with trips to each dock and the total number of trips to each dock over the four year

period. Additional details on the vessel trips are provided in Appendix B. Most of the vessel

activity is concentrated in the lower and middle reaches of the Canal:

99.8 percent of trips are below 3rd Street (all but 3 out of 1798 trips), and

72 percent are concentrated in the 900 ft section between 9th Street and the Expressway.

While the trips to destinations above 9th Street are fewer than trips to the lower Canal, they may be

more significant for sediment mobilization due to shallower water depths in the middle and upper

Canal (see section 3.3).

Table 3.4 Trip Summary by Dock Location

Dock

Location

Number of Trips

(Estimated)

Fraction of Total

(%)

Typical Vessel

(name/no. trips)

Greco Brothers

Ready-mix Concrete Co.

77 4.3 % “Buchanan 1” (27)

Benson Scrap Metal Inc. 193 10.7 % “Crow” (31)

Bayside Fuel Oil Depot Corp. 1,032 57.4 % “Hubert Bays” (228)

Ferrara Brothers

Building Materials Corp.

424 23.6 % “Buchanan 1” (119)

Dorann Resources a 69 3.8 % “Thornton Bros.” (68)

North of 3rd St. 3 0.2 % “Clean Water” (2)

Total 1,798 100 % - a Vessel activity to Dorann dock begins in June 2011

Example trip plots are presented in Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.11. Additional examples, taken from

all 1798 trips, are included in Appendix C. The trip plots may be interpreted as follows:

The map shows an outline of the Canal boundary in black, with gray circles showing dock

locations (colored polygons delineate the approximate navigation zones for each dock);

The figure header shows vessel name and a unique trip number assigned by Baird;

Each AIS position report is plotted as a solid circle, which is color-shaded by vessel speed

(in knots). The AIS positions are connected with a line to show the movement sequence;

Text annotations in the map pane include trip start and end times, the total trip duration,

number of AIS position reports associated with the trip, and the name of the assigned dock;

The top inset graph plots water level and vessel speed through the trip, and

The lower inset graph shows how far north the vessel has travelled (colored lines are

provided for reference and correspond to the start location of dock polygons).



Figure 3.10 Example Trip to Bayside Dock



Figure 3.11 Example Trip to Dorann Dock



Figure 3.10 shows a trip in February 2011 by the vessel “Hubert Bays” to the Bayside Fuel Oil

Depot. The trip duration was approximately 6½ hours and most of the trip is spent standing by

alongside the dock facility rather than in transit. The start of the trip occurred around high tide (at

a water level of approximately 2 ft above mean sea level). However, the inset graphs show that

vessel departure occurred at low tide (at water levels nearly 3 ft below mean sea level). Water

depths at this dock location are approximately 12-14 ft at low tide (Figure 3.20), and the draft of the

“Hubert Bays” is 7.5 ft (Table 3.6), so the under-keel clearance during the low tide departure was

approximately 5-6 ft.

The low water vessel transit shown in Figure 3.10 highlights a deficiency in the USEPA Feasibility

Study proposed remedial action design and sizing of armor stone (HDR, 2011), in which it was

assumed that barge operations are limited to high tide only. In light of the documented evidence of

low water transits, the design stone size and Canal depth need to be revisited prior to issuance of

the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) and during remedial design.

Figure 3.11 shows a July 2012 trip by the vessel “Thornton Bros.” to the Dorann dock, located south

of the 3rd Street Bridge. The trip lasted 1 hour and 22 minutes. Of particular interest is the

maximum vessel speed of 5-6 knots, when the vessel is transiting the straight Canal section between

the Dorann and Ferrara docks. The Canal is relatively shallow in this section (water depths are

approximately 6-8 ft deep at low tide and 10-12 ft at high tide; Figure 3.20). The “Thornton Bros.”

tug, which draws 9 ft, should only transit at high water in order to maintain a positive clearance

from the bed.

3.2.2.1 Barge Activity Inferred from Tug Movements

Barge activity can be inferred from tug movements by considering arrival and departure speeds,

and by identifying whether the dock is an import or export facility. An example analysis for barge

delivery to the Bayside Fuel Oil Depot is shown in Figure 3.12. The key features of this trip are:

The trip starts south of the Gowanus Expressway, where vessel speeds on arrival are

12 knots. Speeds slow to zero as the vessel moves north and approaches the Bayside dock.

The Bayside dock imports fuel oil and we infer that the tug is towing a laden tank barge (the

slower speeds enable better control of the laden barge during the towing operation);

The vessel spends nearly 4 hours on stand-by at the Bayside dock while the barge is

unloaded;

Following unloading, the light barge is easier to control and the tug is able to accelerate

quickly to a faster departure speeds of 3-4 knots, and

The trip ends as the tug and barge clear the Gowanus Expressway and enter Gowanus Bay.



Figure 3.12 Barge Activity Inferred from Tug Movements

3-4 knots On Departure

1-2 knots on Arrival

Arrives with Laden BargeBarge is UnloadedDeparts with Barge Light



3.2.3 Vessel Dimensions

Using the vessels identified in the AIS archive, tug dimensions and propulsion details were

retrieved from the U.S. Coast Guard’s Port State Information eXchange system (USCG, 2012).

These data were supplemented with various on-line sources including tug operator and

transportation industry websites (such as Dann Ocean Towing and Donjon Marine). Data

collection focused on the four principal details required in the computation of propeller wash

velocities:

Vessel draft;

Number of propellers;

Propeller diameter, and

Installed horsepower.

Vessel summary statistics are presented in Table 3.5. The details of each individual vessel are in

Appendix D. The data show that vessels up to 97 feet in length with a maximum laden draft of 13

feet have transited the Canal between August 2008 and July 2012.

Table 3.5 Summary of Vessel Details

Parameter Minimum Maximum Median Vessels Reporting

Length (feet) 26 97 76 86%

Breadth (feet) 13 30 24 86%

Gross Tonnage (tons) 21 238 103 84%

Loaded Draft (feet) 5 13 10 45%

Number of Propellers (-) 1 2 2 49%

Propeller Diameter (inches) 62 104 86 14%

Horsepower 375 3,200 1,860 71%

Data includes only vessels transiting into the Gowanus Canal north of the Expressway.

The raw data for vessel dimensions and propulsion details are presented in Figure 3.13. Trend lines

were developed by correlating less frequently reported details (horsepower and propeller diameter)

with general dimensions (length and breadth) to assist in estimating the values where the full data

were not available. In other words, vessel length and breadth (which are typically reported) were

used as substitutes for horsepower (and laden draft or propeller diameter) when these details were

not available.



Figure 3.13 Vessel Dimensions and Propulsion Data

y = 0.09x

R² = 0.73

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Pro

pe

lle

r

Dia

me

ter

(ft)

Vessel Length (ft)

y = 0.13x

R² = 0.57

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Load

ed

Dra

ft (

ft)

Vessel Length (ft)

y = 1.08x

R² = 0.75

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Ho

rse

po

we

r

Deck Area (Length·Breadth, ft²)



Vessel draft and propeller diameter showed a linear relationship with the length of the tug,

whereas horsepower showed a stronger correlation to the deck plan area (length multiplied by

breadth). The majority of tugs using the Canal have a twin-propeller design, and only four of the

27 tugs for which propeller details were available had a single screw. Information on whether

propellers were ducted or not was not reported.

Table 3.5 shows that the average laden draft of modern tugs using the Canal is approximately 10 ft,

compared to barges, which have an average laden draft of 8 ft. The laden draft is used (rather than

the light draft) because operational tugs will be laden with supplies such as fuel, ballast water, fresh

water and lubricants. The tugs typically draw a deeper draft than barges and they are therefore

closer to the Canal bed, and the first to impact the bed at low water levels (see Section 3.3.2).

The dimensions and propulsion details of typical tugs calling at the active docks are shown in Table

3.6. These details are used in subsequent analyses; in particular the propeller wash calculations and

sediment transport modeling.

Table 3.6 Typical Tugs and Associated Characteristics by Dock Facility

Dock Greco Bros./Ferrara Bros. Benson Bayside Dorann

Typical Tug Buchanan 1 Crow Hubert Bays Thornton Bros.

Length (ft) 89.4 83 56 83.7

Breadth (ft) 28.1 25.1 21 25

Gross Tonnage (ton) 191 - 79 151

Loaded Draft (ft) 12 11 7.5 9

Number of Propellers (-) 2 1 2 1

Horsepower 2,200 1,800 1,000 1,600

3.3 Vessel Impacts

The AIS data were used to connect vessel activity to the occurrence of events that affect the

mobility, transport and redistribution of sediment in the Canal. Typically, these impacts include:

Impacts due to increased flow velocities, including:

o Changes in local flow velocities due to blockage effects and return flow circulation;

o Propeller wash;

o Wave/wake effects (likely of secondary importance considering vessel speeds), and

Impacts due to direct physical contact with the bed (vessel grounding).

These impacts will affect the mobility and transport of sediment and contaminants in the Canal.

Examples of several of these impacts are presented below.



3.3.1 Evidence of Vessel Impacts on Observed Flow Velocities

The AIS data were used to confirm earlier findings that tug and barge movements directly

influence observed flow velocities in the Canal (Baird, 2012). The flow velocities associated with

vessel activity are significantly larger than tidally-driven flow velocities in the Canal. A Horizontal

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (HADCP) was deployed in the Canal in August 2011. The

HADCP is a horizontal-looking current meter, which was mounted to the bulkhead near the 9th

Street Bridge, to record flow velocities across the width of the Canal.

Figure 3.14 shows five conspicuous velocity “spikes” in the HADCP data (peak velocities greater

than 0.6 ft/s, plotted as closed circles in Figure 3.14). This figure shows the raw velocity time-series

along the Canal centerline at mid-depth for the period from August 21, 2011 to August 25, 2011.

The red line shows the smoothed velocity data, which represents ‘natural’ background flow

velocities from tidal forcing (these velocities do not exceed 0.4 ft/s over the measurement period).

Five short-duration velocity spikes (due to vessel activity) are highlighted with red circles

numbered 1 through 5. The timing of these spikes was compared to vessel movements recorded by

the AIS. In all but one case the velocity spikes coincided with a vessel in close proximity to the

HADCP. The second spike in the HADCP data was not associated with an AIS-equipped vessel,

but it could be due to a vessel or vessel and barge not equipped with AIS passing the HADCP.

Figure 3.15 is a detailed plot of the fourth velocity spike, observed at 19:39h UTC on August 23,

2011. Figure 3.15 shows that a peak velocity of nearly 0.6 ft/s coincides with the departure of a

vessel after its closest approach to the HADCP. The HADCP recorded velocity is plotted as a

magenta colored line. The proximity of the tug “Ruby M” (derived from AIS position records) to

the HADCP is plotted as filled circles, color-shaded by vessel speed. The figure shows low HADCP

recorded flow velocities when the “Ruby M” was in close proximity to the HADCP (alongside the

Bayside dock). A peak in HADCP measured velocities coincides with the tug’s departure (in which

the vessel accelerates passed the HADCP, increasing its separation from the instrument). The

vessels typically pass at some distance away from the HADCP, such that recorded velocities must

be significantly less than the maximum velocities generated at the propeller (i.e. velocities are a

maximum at the propeller and decay with increasing distance from the propeller jet to the point

where they are recorded by the HADCP beams).



Figure 3.14 Velocity Spikes at the 9th Street HADCP

Figure 3.15 Correlation of Recorded HADCP Velocity with Vessel Speed and Proximity

(For the peak labeled number 4 in Figure 3.14)



3.3.2 Vessel Impacts with the Bed of the Canal

Vessel contact with the bed is suggested by at least two different datasets collected in 2011:

The multi-beam hydrographic survey (Ocean Surveys Inc., 2011), and

Velocity measurements from the bottom-mounted HADCP deployed near 5th Street in

August-September 2011.

Renderings of the multibeam surveys collected by OSI between the Ferrara and Dorann docks are

shown in Figure 3.16. The top pane shows Canal bed conditions as of December 2010, while the

bottom pane the bed nearly a year later in October 2011. The bed in the 2010 survey appears to be

largely undisturbed and relatively smooth, whereas a series of long gouges and ridges in the center

of the Canal are clearly visible in the 2011 data. The right panes of the figure show AIS data for the

same time periods, in which a significant increase in vessel traffic to the Dorann dock coincides

with the appearance of scour marks on the Canal bed.

Bed conditions at the Dorann dock are shown in Figure 3.17, in which there is a barge imprint

visible in the survey data. This coincides with vessel activity to the Dorann dock (the AIS data

indicate that vessel activity to the Dorann dock started in June 2011, six months after the 2010

survey and 4 months before the 2011 survey). The U.S. Coast Pilot (NOAA, 2013) typically

recommends a minimum under-keel clearance of 2 ft, and includes a recommended standard that

“always afloat” applies to the berths and other areas abutting the channels of New York Harbor

(NOAA, 2013). Barge activities at the Dorann dock violate the NOAA recommended standard.

A second example of vessel contact with the bed relates to the deployment of a bottom-mounted

HADCP in August 2011. Although the instrument was deployed near the north end of 2nd Avenue,

the instrument was recovered nearly 700 ft west at 5th Street near the Ferrara Bros. dock facility

(Figure 3.18). The HADCP logged the time of disturbance as 21:35 h UTC on August 24th, 2012 as a

sudden change in depth over the pressure sensor. Review of the AIS data confirmed vessel activity

near the Dorann dock at this same time (vessel positions marked 21:30 and 21:40 correspond well

with the HADCP deployment location and its’ likely dragging towards the Ferrara Bros. dock

facility). Water depths between the Ferrara Bros. and Dorann docks are approximately 10-12 ft at

high water. Considering that the draft of the “Thornton Bros.” tug is 9 ft, and that the height of the

HADCP would be at least 1 ft above the bed, the data confirms that there was very little clearance,

if any, over the instrument.



Figure 3.16 Bathymetry and Bed Change between Ferrara and Dorann Docks



Figure 3.17 Bathymetry at the Dorann Dock Showing Bed Contact in 2011 Survey



Figure 3.18 Tug Movement and HADCP Disturbance



3.3.3 Propeller Wash Impacts

Propeller scour is the erosion of bed sediments caused by the water jet from a ship’s propellers.

The water jet is often referred to as propeller wash. Propeller scour influences sediment transport

as the jet mobilizes bed sediments, which may then be transported by tidal, Flushing Tunnel, or

direct discharge currents to areas beyond their location of origin. Propeller wash is expected

throughout the Canal wherever tug activities occur. The potential for scour due to propeller wash

has been investigated by considering the characteristics of typical tugs in the Canal, and by using

the analytical methods of Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), EAU (1996) and PIANC (1997).

Table 3.6 (page 22) summarizes the physical characteristics of the tugs used in this analysis. These

include the Buchanan I, Crow, Hubert Bays, and Thornton Bros. Each tug has a different draft,

horsepower and propeller diameter, all of which influence the near-bed flow velocities, resulting in

different estimates of scour potential for each tug. The water depth around the tug influences the

propeller proximity to the bed, which is a critical variable in this analysis. Figure 3.19 illustrates

how the estimated near-bed velocities vary by water depth. Each pane in the figures represents the

results for a single tug. The Crow and Thornton Bros. tugs were assessed using two methods. The

other tugs are twin-screw, for which only the EAU method is applicable. Each figure shows that

the near bed velocities increase if the tug is in shallower water and its propellers are closer to the

bed.

The analysis completed for these four representative tugs all show the possibility for bed velocities

to exceed 10 ft/s. The assumptions made during this analysis include:

100% thrust is applied; this is consistent with best practice as during a tight maneuvering or

collision-avoidance it is expected that the tug captain may choose to apply full thrust;

The bottom of the propeller was assumed to be at approximately the elevation of the base of

the keel, with the propeller oriented to jet water in the horizontal direction;

The presence of barges that may be towed immediately behind the tug can re-direct the

propeller wash in the downward direction towards the bed. This effect was not included

and the analysis may underestimate velocities as a result;

The vessels have rudders mounted aft of the propellers. Based on information available in

the literature and operator websites, this assumption is consistent with most tug designs;

When propeller diameters were not known, the relationships discussed in Section 3.2.3 were

used to estimate this parameter.

The estimated bed velocities are dependent upon proximity of the propeller to the bed, and thus

they are dependent upon water depth. Figure 3.20 shows the water depths at high and low tide

levels in the active regions of the Canal for comparison with depth ranges presented in Figure 3.19.



Figure 3.19. Estimated Bed Velocities during Maneuvering for the Four Representative Tugs

A comparison of Figure 3.19 and Figure 3.20 illustrates the influence that tug operations at lower

tide levels have on the potential for propeller wash impacts with the bed of the Canal. The

threshold for incipient motion for a 10 inch rounded stone is approximately 11.5 ft/s (based on

Isbash, 1936). Material smaller than 10 inches in diameter is likely to move when subjected to

propeller wash in excess of 11.5 ft/s.



Figure 3.20. Low Tide and High Tide Water Depths in Areas of the Canal with Tug Activity



Figure 3.21 presents a schematic of the propeller wash calculation result for the Buchanan 1 tug.

Results were computed over a range of water depths and applied power (the amount of “thrust”

exerted by the tug) to show how these influence the size of mobilized bed material. The figure is

color-coded by the size of the material that may be mobilized by the tug. For example, moderate

power applied in deep water may mobilize cobbles, whereas slightly higher power applied in

shallow water mobilizes boulders.

Bed materials in the Canal range from fines (silts and clays) to sands, and gravel (HDR, 2011). Since

maneuvering tugs can mobilize much larger material (cobbles and boulders), any bed material

present in the Gowanus Canal may be mobilized when subjected to the estimated propeller wash

velocities during a maneuvering event. Moreover, armor material the size of boulders would be

required to protect against wash-induced damage at lower tide levels. This analysis also indicates

that propeller wash is likely to suspend bed sediments in most cases of tug activity in the Canal.

Figure 3.21 Bed Material Mobilized as a Function of Depth and Applied Power (tug Buchanan 1)



3.4 Comparison of Results with USEPA Report

A comparison of the present analysis with that provided in the USEPA Feasibility Study Report

(HDR, 2011), suggests that:

The two approaches are generally consistent with one another; both employ empirical

methods to estimate bed velocities based on Blaauw and Van de Kaa (1978);

There are insufficient details in the USEPA report to reproduce their estimated bed shear

stresses caused by propeller wash. The direction of flow impingement and the highly

turbulent nature of the jet means that bed shear stress estimates from conventional theory

are likely to be inaccurate and should only be used for relative comparison with other flows;

Cap material to resist propeller wash should be sized using bed velocities derived from

empirical methods or physical modeling;

The USEPA FS Report assumed tugs only operate during high tide. Evidence from recent

tug AIS data suggests otherwise (see Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10);

The USEPA report did not include the effect of rudders (this shortcoming was

acknowledged by the USEPA, who suggested that there was a lack of literature on this

topic). However, several peer-reviewed publications do include the effect of rudders on a

propeller jet, such as EAU (1996), Hamill et al. (2001), and Hamill et al. (2004). The result is

that the values in the USEPA FS Report are likely an underestimate of the bed velocities

when a tug is maneuvering, and

The USEPA method assumed single-screw propeller wash theory. There are multiple peer

reviewed publications that include the effect of multiple propellers/jets, including the EAU

(1996) formulations used in the analysis presented in this report.



4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Vessel Impact Study has quantified historic barge activity and vessel traffic in the Gowanus

Canal. The number of barges in the Canal was greater in the early and mid-1900s, when 30 to 40

barges could be present in the Canal at any one time. In recent years, an average of seven barges

was observed in the satellite and aerial imagery of the Canal.

A detailed vessel traffic analysis using AIS vessel tracking data identified five active docks located

in the Canal between 3rd Street and the Gowanus Expressway. The present-day operations include

tug and barge activities for two steel recyclers, two aggregate importers, and one fuel oil importer.

On average, there is 1 trip per day and the typical trip is approximately 1 hour in duration. Tugs

make up over 99 percent of the vessel trips and nearly three quarters of these trips are concentrated

in a short section of the Canal between 9th Street and the Gowanus Expressway. Over half of all the

trips are to the Bayside Fuel Oil Depot located next to Smith Street. Seasonality of vessel activity is

such that the number of trips into the Canal is slightly greater in December and January which

could be explained by increased fuel deliveries in the winter months. Vessels transits occur not

only at high water as suggested in the Feasibility Study (HDR, 2011), but at all stages of tide

(including low waters).

This study identified several types of vessel impacts on sediment mobility in the Canal, resulting

from increased flow velocities associated with tug activity, propeller wash and direct vessel contact

with the bed. These vessel impacts can have a significant effect on the mobility, transport and

redistribution of bed sediments and contaminants within the Canal.

The influence of tugs and barges on flow and sediment transport in the Canal is significantly

underestimated in the USEPA FS Report (HDR, 2011). In order for a remedy to continue in place

and have positive effect, it must take into account the impacts identified through this study,

incorporate them into the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP), and account for them during the

remedial design. It is clear that the current vessel traffic in the Canal can not only mobilize and

redistribute sediment and contaminants, but propeller wash can mobilize sediments as large as

cobbles and boulders -- materials much larger than those observed in the Canal bed. Given this

fact, it is reasonable to conclude that bed sediments are regularly mobilized into the water column

by vessel activity.

Vessel traffic in the Canal should be eliminated or restricted sufficiently to negate its impacts, and

this should be given serious consideration in the PRAP and remedy design. Indeed, this study

demonstrates that vessel activity can be tracked and quantified. A properly designed remedy

cannot only look at the physical characteristics of the Canal, but must also consider the use of the

Canal, volume of activity on the Canal, and purpose / benefit in the long run. All of these things

must be included in the PRAP and remedy design.



In the event that for some reason the prudent strategy of addressing vessel traffic is not pursued,

there must be flexibility within the PRAP and ultimate remedy to be able to evaluate any proposed

cap and armor layer. For example, it may very well be that armor material the size of large

boulders may be necessary to prevent vessel-induced damage to any cap during low tides.



5.0 REFERENCES

Baird (2012). Gowanus Canal – Hydrodynamic Modeling Phase 1 Report. Report prepared for National

Grid, October 2012.

Blaauw, H.B. and Van de Kaa, E.J. (1978). Erosion of Bottom and Sloping Banks Caused by the Screwrace

of Maneuvering Ships. Publication 202, Delft, the Netherlands.

EAU (1996). Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures, Harbours and Waterways - 7th

Edition. Committee for Waterfront Structures of the Society for Harbour Engineering and

the German Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.

Hamill G.A., McGarvey J. A., Hughes D.A.B. (2001). The Effect of Rudder Angle on the Scouring Action

Produced by the Propeller Wash of a Manoeuvring Ship. Journal of the Permanent International

Association of Navigation Congresses. January 2001, No.106, pp 49-62.

Hamill G.A., McGarvey J. A., Hughes D.A.B. (2004). Determination of the Efflux Velocity from a Ship’s

Propeller. Journal of Maritime Engineering. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

London. Volume 157, Issue MA2, pp 83-91.

HDR (2011). Gowanus Canal Feasibility Study. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. December 2011.

Hunter Research Inc. (2004). National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Evaluation for Cultural

Resources Assessment for the Gowanus Canal, Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York in

Connection with the Proposed Ecosystem Restoration Study. Report prepared for the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers by Hunter Research Inc., Raber Associates, and Northern Ecological

Associates Inc. December 2004.

Isbash, S. (1936). Construction of dams by depositing rock in running water. Communication No. 3,

Second Congress on Large Dams. Washington, DC. pp.123-136.

NOAA (2013). Unites States Coast Pilot - 2, Atlantic Coast – Cape Cod, MA to Sandy Hook, NJ. Chapter

11, New York Harbour and Approaches. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration. 42nd Edition.

PIANC (1997). Guidelines for the Design of Armoured Slopes Under Open Piled Quay Walls. Report of

Working Group No. 22 of the Permanent Technical Committee 11. Supplement to bulletin

number 96.



USACE (2012). Port Facility Shapefile. Unites States Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data

Center. Retrieved on September 21, 2012 from www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//db/gisviewer.

USACE (2010). Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States, Calendar Year 2010 –

Volume 3, Vessel Characteristics. Retrieved on September 21, 2012 from

www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/veslchar/pdf/wtlusvl3_10.pdf. Updated through October 2011.

USCG (2010). Vessel Traffic Service New York – User’s Manual. Department of Homeland Security

United States Coast Guard. Revised July, 2010.

USCG (2012). Port State Information eXchange. Marine Information and Law Enforcement System.

Retrieved from http://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/. Last updated November 5, 2012.

http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/db/gisviewer

http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/veslchar/pdf/wtlusvl3_10.pdf

http://cgmix.uscg.mil/PSIX/


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e A p p e n d i x A V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

APPENDIX A

DIGITIZED BARGE LOCATIONS




















G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e A p p e n d i x B V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

APPENDIX B

TRIP ANALYSIS SUMMARY


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e A p p e n d i x B V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

Table B.1 Trip Summary – by Vessel Name and by Dock Location (sorted by total trips) Vessel Name Greco Benson Bayside Ferrara Dorann 3rd St. N. Total Trips (%)

HUBERT BAYS 1 228 229 12.7%

HERBERT P BRAKE 10 23 156 1 190 10.6%

BUCHANAN 1 27 2 2 119 150 8.3%

BUCHANAN 10 7 2 2 103 114 6.3%

CROW 31 69 100 5.6%

PAUL ANDREW 1 17 76 94 5.2%

BRIAN NICHOLAS 19 68 87 4.8%

CHEYENNE 2 22 59 83 4.6%

THORNTON BROS. 6 3 68 77 4.3%

MARYH 67 67 3.7%

MEAGAN ANN 2 21 42 65 3.6%

SARAH ANN 14 48 62 3.4%

BUCHANAN12 12 2 46 60 3.3%

THOMAS D.WITTE 5 50 55 3.1%

ODIN 52 2 54 3.0%

AEGEAN SEA 1 30 31 1.7%

MISTER T 5 26 31 1.7%

THOMAS J. BROWN 1 1 3 22 27 1.5%

RUBY M 13 3 4 20 1.1%

QUENAMES 19 19 1.1%

FOX BOYS 4 10 5 19 1.1%

CAITLIN ANN 1 18 19 1.1%

PEGASUS 17 17 0.9%

BUCHANAN15 6 2 6 14 0.8%

ROBERT 4 5 6 2 13 0.7%

JOHN P. BROWN 1 1 9 11 0.6%

RAE 1 3 7 11 0.6%

SPECIALIST 3 6 9 0.5%

SUSAN MILLER 2 6 8 0.4%

CARIBBEAN SEA 8 8 0.4%

SHAWN MILLER 1 5 6 0.3%

SEA WOLF 5 5 0.3%

SHANNON DANN 2 2 4 0.2%

HOUMA 4 4 0.2%

CAPT ZEKE 4 4 0.2%

STEPHANIE DANN 2 1 3 0.2%

TAURUS 3 3 0.2%

VERA K 3 3 0.2%

SOLOMON SEA 3 3 0.2%

DOROTHY J 3 3 0.2%

CLEAN WATER 2 2 0.1%

GLEN COVE 2 2 0.1%

FDNY M3 1 1 2 0.1%

CAPTAIN DANN 1 1 2 0.1%

FBKANE 2 2 0.1%

HELEN-PARKER 1 1 0.1%

CASPIAN SEA 1 1 0.1%

GABBY L MILLER 1 1 0.1%

GAGE PAUL THORNTON 1 1 0.1%

NYPD 33 1 1 0.1%

NYPD 314 1 1 0.1%

TOTAL BY DOCK (-) 77 193 1,032 424 69 3 1,798

TOTAL BY DOCK (%) 4% 11% 57% 24% 4% 0%


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e A p p e n d i x C V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLE TRIP PLOTS FOR EACH ACTIVE DOCK



Figure C.1 Trip to Greco Dock



Figure C.2 Trip to Benson Dock



Figure C.3 Trip to Bayside Dock



Figure C.4 Trip to Ferrara Dock



Figure C.5 Trip to Dorann Dock



Figure C.6 Trip North of 3rd Street


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e A p p e n d i x D V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF VESSEL PARTICULARS


G o w a n u s C a n a l S u p e r f u n d S i t e A p p e n d i x D V e s s e l I m p a c t s S t u d y R e p o r t 1 1 8 4 4 . 1 0 1

Table D.1 Vessel Particulars (in alphabetical order)

Vessel Name Length

(ft)

Breadth

(ft)

Gross

Tonnage

(ton)

Laden

Draft

(ft)

No. of

Propellers

(-)

Propeller

Diameter

(inches)

Horsepower

AEGEAN SEA 75.5 24 146 2 2000

BRIAN NICHOLAS 71.8 22.6 104 9 2 1700

BUCHANAN 1 89.4 28.1 191 12 2 2200

BUCHANAN 10 78.8 24 146 10 2 1700

BUCHANAN12 86.5 30 238 9.5 2 3000

BUCHANAN15 75.9 27 99

CAITLIN ANN 78.9 24 148 2 2400

CAPT ZEKE 64 24 88

CAPTAIN DANN 96.5 27.5 191 13 2 104 2250

CARIBBEAN SEA 78.9 24 148 2 2400

CASPIAN SEA 64.7 24 96 2 2000

CHEYENNE 84.5 25 146 2 1800

CLEAN WATER

CROW 83 25.1 11 1 1800

DOROTHY J 65.1 23.7 72 9.5 2000

FBKANE

FDNY M3

FOX BOYS 47.5 17 43

GABBY L MILLER 25.9 13.7 21 5 660

GAGE PAUL THORNTON 68.9 20 93 7.5 1 1000

GLEN COVE 94 25.1 149

HELEN-PARKER 39 15 23 800

HERBERT P BRAKE 60 12.7 52 8 2 375

HOUMA 87.5 29 196 1950

HUBERT BAYS 56 21 79 7.5 2 1000

JOHN P. BROWN 78 26 142 10 2 2600

MARYH 64.7 22 93

MEAGAN ANN 73.5 27.2 148 11.5 2 88 2250

MISTER T 81.7 24 145 9 2 2200

NYPD 314

NYPD 33

ODIN 72 27.5 98 10 2 72 1860

PAUL ANDREW 63.6 23 99 9.5 2 62 1200

PEGASUS

QUENAMES 73.5 26 85 10 2 3000

RAE 46 15.1 32

ROBERT 4 55.7 22 103 7.5 2 1400

RUBY M 95 28.3 197

SARAH ANN 78 26 142 2 2700

SEA WOLF 61.2 24 99 1400

SHANNON DANN 85.1 30 149 2 90 2400

SHAWN MILLER 48.8 19.1 68 7.7 600

SOLOMON SEA 89.4 28.1 191 3200

SPECIALIST 84 26 131

STEPHANIE DANN 85.7 28 99 2 86 3200

SUSAN MILLER 68.4 23.9 80 9.3 1200

TAURUS 78.5 25 98 11.7 1860

THOMAS D.WITTE 85 28 137 2 76 1500

THOMAS J. BROWN 60.6 18.8 61 9 1 1090

THORNTON BROS. 83.7 25 151 9 1 1600

VERA K

Documents

VESSEL IMPACT STUDY REPORT FOR THE GOWANUS CANAL SITE · 2020-07-05 · GOWANUS CANAL Vessel Impacts Study Report 14 December 2012 11844.101 . w w w . b a i r d . c o m N a v i g