United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Chesapeake Bay
Program
Annapolis MD 21401
Research and Development
EPA-600/S3-83-039 July 1983
SEFft Project Summary
Implementation of Innovative
Dredging Techniques in the
Chesapeake Bay Region
Don V. Aurand and Alexandra Mamantov
The environmental effect of dredging
and dredged material disposal is a
controversial issue in the Chesapeake
Bay region. This report reviews eleven
years of dredging records for Federal
projects, six years of dredging records
for private projects, current
management programs, and scientific
literature to define current programs,
and their effectiveness. Potential
technological improvements are
described. A series of recommenda-
tions for improving dredging practices
in the Chesapeake Bay is presented.
Although it appears that current
operations are not producing major
consequences on the ecology of the
Bay, future programs must be
evaluated to ensure the environmental
quality of the Bay. Specific areas for
improvements are: implementation of
study programs to more clearly define
the chemical nature of the sediments;
better long-range planning for disposal
options; comprehensive monitoring
programs to clarify long-term impacts;
incentive payments to encourage
innovative technologies; renewal of
seasonal dredging restrictions by
turbidity standards; Federal ownership
of a small, pneumatic dredge for use in
highly polluted areas; and repeal or
modification of those portions of the
Jones Act affecting importation of
dredging equipment.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis. MD, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report of
the same title (see Project Report order-
ing information at back).
Introduction
Maryland, Virginia, and two Corps of
Engineers' district offices set perform-
ance standards and issue permits for both
new starts and maintenance dredging
projects in Chesapeake Bay. Individually,
and in some cases through joint review
sessions, officials within the appropriate
state and Corps district offices evaluate
private and Federal dredging proposals
for compliance with environmental guide-
lines and procedural requirements es-
tablished by state and Federal legislation.
Federal laws, including the Clean Water
Act, National Environmental Policy Act,
and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act set minimum standards for evaluat-
ing dredging proposals. States can es-
tablish requirements more stringent than
those authorized by Federal statute. Stan-
dards, permit processing procedures, and
project operational requirements
mandated by Maryland and Virginia
differ. The two Corps district offices also
employ different procedures to review
dredging permit applications.
The environmental and economic
effects of both private and public dredging
projects are major issues within the
Chesapeake Bay region. The Bay is an
important commercial fishery and
recreational area. It also contains two
major commercial ports, Baltimore and
Norfolk, which together load approxi-
mately 90 percent of domestic coal ex-
ports, excluding the Great Lakes.
Coal exports in 1980 reached 92
million tons, a 39 percent increase over
1979 shipments. The two Chesapeake
Bay ports were unable to expeditiously
process shipments, and colliers were
-------
forced to drop anchor and wait until
dockage and loading facilities were
available. The coal industry projects that
export demand could rise to 280 million
tons by the year 2000. The industry
maintains, however, that increased coal
shipments cannot be moved through
Baltimore and Norfolk unless channels
and harborage facilities are expanded.
Harbor expansion, maintenance
dredging, and private dredging are
viewed cautiously by Bay fishermen and
environmentalists for several reasons.
Dredging itself results in increased
turbidity, which some view as
detrimental to fisheries. Dredged
sediment disposal is also a major problem,
particularly in the northern portions of
the Bay. Although open water disposal
was practiced in the past, concern over
turbidity and the disposal of sediments
contaminated by toxic pollutants has
resulted in increased use of costly upland
or confined disposal.
This report examines environmental,
economic, and procedural issues related
to dredging in the Chesapeake Bay
region. Dredging methods, effects,
specific program requirements and
permit processing procedures are
reviewed. The volume of dredging activity
(both private and public), types of
equipment used domestically and abroad,
costs, and approaches for streamlining
the permitting process also are examined.
Procedure
Dredging records for the eleven years
from 1970 to 1980 for Federal projects,
and for the six years from 1975 to 1980
for private permits were examined at the
Corps of Engineers' Baltimore and Norfolk
district offices to determine historic
dredging practices (equipment used),
volume of material removed, disposal
method (open water, upland, or confined
disposal), project location, and project
costs. Federal statutory requirements,
state standards, and permitting
procedures were reviewed and
differences in processing techniques
used by the two Corps district offices and
the two states are described.
Domestic and foreign dredging
equipment (importation of foreign
equipment is restricted by the Jones Act)
is examined. Equipment capabilities,
design features, and turbidity factors are
evaluated.
Conclusion
The investigators conclude that the
overall environment of Chesapeake Bay
has not been adversely affected by past
dredging and disposal operations. They
state, however, that concerns over
dredging and disposal of contaminated
sediments are legitimate and deserve
special consideration.
Several options are presented, both
technological and managerial, that the
investigators feel could help minimize
dredging costs -- attributable to
compliance with environmental
standards -- and ease permit processing
procedures without increasing the risk of
environmental degradation.
Other options include: repeal or
modification of the Jones Act to ease
restrictions on importation of equipment
manufactured abroad; use of positioning
equipment and silt curtains to minimize
turbidity; and increased use of pneumatic
dredges on small projects and on projects
involving the removal of contaminated
sediments.
Options for improving management of
dredging programs, including measures
that might streamline the permit review
process, are: use of turbidity performance
standards instead of imposing seasonal
moratoriums on dredging activity;
chemical and bioassay testing of
sediments for toxic contaminants; use of
advanced treatment methods in confined
disposal areas; and revision of effluent
standards for upland disposal areas.
Recommendations
State regulatory agencies should
evaluate several of the above options and
possibly modify their dredging programs.
Specifically, states should attempt to
eliminate uncertainty concerning the
extent of sediment contamination within
their jurisdictions by sampling and then
developing advance plans for dredging
and disposing of contaminated
sediments. Existing policies requiring
confined disposal should be reevaluated
and justified. States should encourage
dredging contractors to use new,
innovative equipment, but incentives
instead of requirements should be the
basis of such encouragement. Also,
seasonal restrictions on dredging should
be repealed and replaced by turbidity
standards.
Two recommendations are advanced
for consideration by Congress and the
Corps of Engineers. Repeal of appropriate
portions of the Jones Act is advocated.
The Corps of Engineers should
investigate the purchase of advanced
pneumatic dredging equipment for use
on the east coast.
-------
Don V. Aurand and Alexandra Mamantov are with Mitre Co., McLean, VA 22102,
Mark Alderson is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Implementation of Innovative Dredging Techniques
in the Chesapeake Bay Region," fOrder No. PB 83-209 684; Cost: $19.00.
subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Chesapeake Bay Program
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2083 West Street, Suite 5G
Annapolis, MD 21401
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |