*>
€*^
        I IMI /•. 1-iEI Ml II
        Dredged Material Management
             Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                           Based on a Workshop Sponsored by the
                              National Dredging Team

                   January 23-25,2001  * Jacksonville, Florida

-------
On the cover

Background: Jetty Island, Washington. Island, marsh, and seagrass habitat were created using dredged material
from maintenance dredging projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Top: Mobile Bay, Alabama. Pelicans on Galliard Disposal Island. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Middle: Port of Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bottom: Mobile Bay, Alabama. Dredge Chicago working in Mobile Ship Channel. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                                      .
                                               §z
                            United States Environmental Protection Agency

                                             July 2003

                                        EPA 842-B-04-002

-------
Dredged Material Management


   Action Agenda for the Next Decade
              July 2003
          Based on a Workshop Sponsored by the


           National Dredging Team





             January 23—25,2001



             Jacksonville, Florida
                        6

                        i
                        #

-------

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Contents


           Preface	iii

           Foreword	  iv

           Executive Summary	   v

       1.0  Introduction	   1

       2.0  National Dredging Policy	   2

       3.0  National Dredging Team	   3

       4.0  Progress to Date	   4

       5.0  Issues and Actions for the Next Decade	   8

           5.1  Beneficial Use of Dredged Material	   9

           5.2  Sediment Management	10

           5.3  Emerging Issues	11

           5.4  Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams	13

       6.0  Conclusion	16

     Appendix A: Workshop Proceedings	A-l

     Appendix B: Summary of Environmental Windows Session
                 National Dredging Team Conference	  B-l

     Appendix C: Workshop Agenda	C-l

     Appendix D: Workshop Participants	D-l

     Appendix E: National Dredging Team Charter	  E-l

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Preface

      The dredging of several hundred million cubic yards of sediment each year
      is critical for maintaining the nation's navigation system for commercial
 shipping and national defense. Appropriate re-use and disposal of this dredged
 material is critical for protecting the nation's coastal and ocean resources. While
 a great deal of progress has been made in the 10 years since the Secretary of
 Transportation convened an interagency workgroup to evaluate the dredg-
 ing project review process in the United States, many challenges remain. This
 is especially true in the areas of sediment management and beneficial use of
 dredged material.

 Regional sediment management, particularly in the context of watershed
 management and planning, needs to be strengthened and accelerated. The
 importance of active and dedicated Regional Dredging Teams (RDTs) and local
 planning/project groups (LPGs) to address dredging and sediment management
 issues cannot be overemphasized. The National Dredging Team is committed
 to supporting RDTs and LPGs in their efforts to engage all stakeholders in the
 open and early coordination necessary to create dredged material management
 plans that address local sediment management and watershed management
 issues.

 The National Dredging Team is also committed to finding ways to increase the
 beneficial use of dredged material, such as for habitat creation, habitat restora-
 tion, and beach nourishment. Dredged material is a resource, and it is our hope
 that the National Dredging Team, working with all its partners, can assist in
 increasing the amount of dredged material used beneficially.

 We are very excited about the goals and direction of the National Dredging
 Team, and welcome the opportunity to work with all of our stakeholders
 to ensure that dredging in the United States is efficient,  timely, and
 environmentally sustainable.
 G. Tracy Mehan III                       Honorable George S. Dunlop
 Assistant Administrator                    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
 Office of Water                          (Civil Works)
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency        U-S- Department of the Army
 Co-Chair, NDT Steering Committee         Co-Chair, NDT Steering Committee
                                                                                              III

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    Foreword

                          The National Dredging Team (NDT) sponsored a workshop in Jacksonville,
                          Florida, in January 2001 to discuss and develop an action agenda with
                    specific recommendations to address issues currently facing dredging and sedi-
                    ment managers. The workshop focused on beneficial use of dredged material,
                    sediment management, emerging issues, and strengthening Regional Dredging
                    Teams (RDTs). We thought that the timing was right for the workshop to
                    attract a large attendance, and we were right. With nearly 250 registered par-
                    ticipants and two full days of presentations, breakout groups, and discussion, the
                    workshop was very much a success and we are very pleased with the outcome.

                    The level of partnership, sense of purpose, and camaraderie of workshop partici-
                    pants left us impressed with actions that are needed to improve dredged material
                    management. It is encouraging to know that actions taken to date and planned
                    by the NDT and RDTs are important and appreciated. For that we thank all
                    of the participants. We would also like to  thank all of the panelists and facilita-
                    tors, as well as all of the people who gave their time and thought to the breakout
                    groups. Finally we would like to thank the EPA and Corps of Engineers staff
                    who assisted with the many logistical details that are necessary to hold a work-
                    shop of this size.

                    The recommendations proposed during this workshop are daunting, but not
                    overwhelming, and they have provided us with an excellent foundation to
                    develop this Action Agenda. We will work diligently with all of the members
                    of the NDT and their respective agencies, the RDTs, local planning and project
                    groups, and other stakeholders to ensure complete and timely implementation of
                    this Action Agenda.
                      (yUi,  I/
                            
-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Dredged Material Management:
 Action Agenda for the Next Decade

 Executive Summary

       On January 23 and 24, 2001, the National Dredging Team (NDT) spon-
       sored a workshop in Jacksonville, Florida, to develop a national action
 agenda with specific recommendations on issues facing dredging and sediment
 management over the coming decade (Table ES-1). The workshop was orga-
 nized around the following themes: beneficial use of dredged material; sediment
 management; emerging issues; and strengthening Regional Dredging Teams.
 Actions proposed at the workshop were consolidated by the members of the
 NDT into general and specific recommendations for each subject area.

 These  recommendations for dredged material management succeed those in
 the December 1994 Interagency Report to the Secretary of Transportation: The
 Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement (Report).
 The 1994 Report provided 18 major recommendations in four action areas:
 strengthening mechanisms for dredging and dredged material management
 planning; enhancing coordination and communication in the dredging project
 review process; addressing scientific uncertainties about dredged material; and
 funding dredging projects consistently and efficiently. While major progress has
 been made in carrying out the original 18 recommendations, many challenges
 remain.

 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material. Much of the several hundred million cubic
 meters of sediment dredged each year from United States ports, harbors, and
 waterways could be used in a beneficial manner, such as for habitat restoration
 and creation, beach nourishment, and industrial and commercial development.
 Yet most of this dredged material is instead disposed in open water, confined
 disposal facilities, and upland disposal facilities. A number of steps will need to
 be taken so that dredged material is used beneficially to the greatest extent pos-
 sible. Beneficial use must become a priority at all levels of management, fund-
 ing must be increased for beneficial use projects and research, planning must be
 proactive, and there must be a recognition that dredged material is a valuable
 resource. Specific recommendations in this Action Agenda include guidance
 on beneficial use projects, and the role of the Federal Standard in beneficial use
 projects, improving the Corps/EPA beneficial use website, and identifying fac-
 tors that would be needed to develop a system to track the volume of dredged
 material used beneficially.

 Sediment Management. Sediment erosion, transport, and deposition are
 estimated to cause damages of approximately $16 billion annually in North
 America. The U.S. spends about $800 million annually on dredging sediment
 from locations where too much has deposited. Yet in other locations, a short-
 age of sediment causes coastal erosion, streambank erosion, and wetlands loss.

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    Many water resource projects are designed to remedy local sediment problems,
                    and sometimes create even larger problems some distance away. To avoid this,
                    sediment management must be done in the context of watershed management,
                    and watershed management plans must incorporate private and Federal dredging.
                    Planning and communication must be early and open so that sources of sediment
                    can be addressed, the broadest range of beneficial use and disposal alternatives
                    can be considered, and adequate funding can be secured. Specific recommen-
                    dations in this Action Agenda include encouraging formation of new Local
                    Planning/Project Groups (LPGs) to develop Dredged Material Management
                    Plans, identifying key elements of sediment management, and sponsoring a
                    national workshop on sediment management with LPGs.

                    Emerging Issues. During the workshop, participants identified several issues that
                    have emerged over the last decade that must be considered during the dredging
                    decision process. These issues include Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consulta-
                    tions, environmental window considerations, the potential application of Total
                    Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) designations to dredging projects, and con-
                    sistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
                    Today's planning strategies must be flexible enough to consider such emerging
                    issues, especially in order to maintain a dredging project review process that
                    is timely, efficient, and predictable. Specific recommendations in this Action
                    Agenda include an evaluation of State Coastal Zone Management Plan require-
                    ments, clarification of Essential Fish Habitat requirements, an evaluation of the
                    potential implications TMDLs may have for navigational dredging, and develop-
                    ment of a clearing house for information on dredging issues.

                    Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams. Nine Regional Dredging Teams
                    (RDTs) have been established with the intent to improve dredged material
                    management by fostering communication and planning, providing a forum for
                    conflict resolution, and increasing public education and community involve-
                    ment. A number of RDTs have been very successful, but others have not. The
                    NDT should use its expertise and connections, along with the experiences of
                    established RDTs, to encourage the establishment of new RDTs and to foster
                    their success. The roles and responsibilities of each RDT, and the link between
                    the RDT and LPGs, should be clearly established and communicated so that
                    the efforts of the RDTs complement those of the LPGs and other stakehold-
                    ers. Specific recommendations in this Action Agenda include development of
                    charters and outreach plans for each RDT, facilitation of LPG development, and
                    annual meetings for all RDTs with the NDT.

                    The Federal agencies that comprise the NDT are committed to implementing
                    each of the recommendations in this  Action Agenda, along with our partners
                    on the RDTs and the LPGs, and to sponsoring additional national and regional
                    workshops and meetings to assess progress. One lesson we have all learned is
                    that early and substantial involvement of a broad range of stakeholders is the key
                    to successful dredged material planning and management.
VI

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Table ES-1. Summary Listing of Recommendations
Rec
No.
Recommendation
Lead Agency
Page
No.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Develop a national guidance document that presents a framework for identifying,
planning, and financing beneficial use projects, and provides a summary of
beneficial use authorities and processes (including cost sharing) in plain English.
Develop a national guidance document that explains the role of the Federal Standard
in implementing beneficial uses of dredged material from Corps of Engineers' new
and maintenance navigation projects.
Encourage and endorse implementation of Section 215 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (Pub. Law 106-541) which directs the Secretary of the
Army to establish a program to allow the direct marketing of dredged material to
public agencies and private entities.
Develop and distribute a description of the Corps's streamlined process for
continuing authorities related to dredging, navigation, and environmental
restoration.
Identify sources of technical information and guidance on beneficial uses,
identify data gaps, and charge appropriate agencies to fill these gaps and share the
information.
Encourage research and development on beneficial uses of dredged material,
including habitat creation and restoration, and make available information on
beneficial use demonstration projects.
Identify specific potential local beneficial use projects and potential sponsors for
near-term and future dredging activities.
Improve and advertise the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material web site
(www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/budm/budm.html) and other information sources, such
as the Great Lakes Dredging Team beneficial use web site (http://www.glc.org/
dredging/), that encourage the use of dredged material as a resource and highlight
technological improvements and/or innovations in beneficial uses.
Identify factors that would be needed to develop a system to track the volume of
dredged material used beneficially, with the goals of establishing such a system and
increasing the percentage of dredged material used beneficially each year.
EPA,
Corps
NOT
NOT,
Corps
Corps
NOT,
RDTs
NOT
Local
Planning/
Project Groups
(LPGs)
EPA,
Corps
EPA,
Corps
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sediment Management
10
11
Identify existing and ongoing Local Planning/Project Groups (LPGs) and identify
completed Dredged Material Management Plans (DMMPs); encourage the
formation of new LPGs to develop DMMPs that address sediment management
in the context of overall watershed management, as well as project-level sediment
management techniques. A key element of this recommendation will be to provide a
mechanism for the transfer of information, processes, and technologies.
Identify the key elements of sediment management and incorporate them into the
LPG guidance as appropriate.
NOT,
RDTs,
LPGs
NOT
11
11
                                                                                                       VII

-------
                                                         Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Rec
No.
12
Recommendation
Sponsor a national workshop on sediment management with LPGs to share
successes and lessons learned.
Lead Agency
NDT,
RDTs,
LPGs
Page
No.
11
Emerging Issues
13
14
15
16
17
18
Analyze and evaluate State Coastal Zone Management Plan requirements with
the objective of increasing timely, predictable, effective, and environmentally
sound dredging. Encourage States to clearly identify enforceable policies that
would pertain to the management and beneficial use of dredged material. Develop
guidance about what is required for a dredging project to be consistent with the
enforceable State policies under the CZMA.
Clarify how Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) requirements relate to dredging and
dredged material management.
Continue to evaluate the impact of environmental windows on dredging and
dredged material management, and how establishment of environmental windows
should be changed to ensure that they are meeting their objectives. Review NAS
Environmental Windows report and identify appropriate action for NDT.
Increase coordination and communication between the EPA Clean Water Act Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and the navigational dredging programs
to facilitate an understanding of the applicability of each program and the possible
implications they may have on each other. If appropriate, develop a factsheet
explaining the TMDL program and requirements, and how these requirements
may relate to navigational dredging and dredged material management.
Continue developing additional, updated guidance for interpreting the results of
dredged material testing to quantify risks to humans and to aquatic resources of
material proposed for either inland or ocean disposal.
Develop and make available information on dredging issues (i.e., clearinghouse
for information, training courses, outreach, symposia, research on emerging
technologies) and compile and provide model(s) of successes and lessons learned.
NOAAs NOS,
RDTs
NOAAs
NMFS
NDT,
NOAA,
FWS
EPA
EPA,
Corps
NDT,
RDTs
12
12
12
12
12
12
Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams
19
20
21
22
Ensure that each RDT has a charter regarding its scope, roles, responsibilities, and
accountability that is made available to all stakeholders. The scale of each "regional"
dredging team (i.e., project-specific, harbor, watershed, State, and/or multi-State)
should be specified. Ensure that each RDT has appropriate representatives from
the Corps and EPA, other Federal agencies, and State agencies.
RDTs (and the NDT) should involve stakeholders in their activities and actions.
An outreach plan regarding involvement of stakeholders should be prepared,
implemented, and updated annually. Part of the outreach plan should address the
convening of forums/meetings for public education and community involvement.
RDTs should actively work to facilitate the establishment of LPGs to develop
dredged material management plans for local waterways/harbors/estuaries/
watersheds and to assess and resolve local dredged material management issues.
RDTs should establish direct lines of communication with LPGs to facilitate issue
resolution at the appropriate level.
Hold an annual meeting for all RDTs with the NDT to focus on strengthening the
RDTs to meet regional needs. RDTs should report on progress, planned activities,
and issues, and share information (e.g., successes, failures, and lessons learned).
RDTs
RDTs,
NDT
RDTs
NDT,
RDTs
13
13
13
13
VIM

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 1.0  Introduction

       On January 23 and 24, 2001, a workshop entitled "Dredged Material
       Management: Issues and Needed Actions for the Next Decade" was
 sponsored by the National Dredging Team in Jacksonville, Florida. The intent
 of the workshop was to share information about scientific and programmatic
 dredging issues, build partnerships to effectively execute dredged material man-
 agement activities, and develop a national action agenda for management of
 dredged material. Nearly 250 participants representing government, industry,
 environmental interests, contractors,  academia, and the general public attended
 this workshop, which was organized around the following four themes:
    • Beneficial Use of Dredged Material;
    • Sediment Management;
    • Emerging Issues; and
    • Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams.

 Actions proposed at this workshop were consolidated by the members of the
 National Dredging Team into general and specific recommendations for each
 subject area and are presented below  as the Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 (Action Agenda).

 The recommendations for dredged material management in this Action Agenda
 succeed those in the December 1994 Interagency Report to the Secretary of
 Transportation, The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for
 Improvement (Report). At the time of the 1994 Report, numerous dredging proj-
 ects were at a near standstill in the United States due to myriad problems. The
 1994 Report provided 18 major recommendations in four action areas: strength-
 ening mechanisms for dredging and dredged material management planning;
 enhancing coordination and communication in the dredging project review
 process; addressing scientific uncertainties about dredged material; and funding
 dredging projects consistently and efficiently.

 Although major progress has been made in carrying out the 18 recommenda-
 tions, as noted in the body of this report, many challenges remain. Charged with
 implementation of the Report's recommendations as well as implementation
 of the National Dredging Policy, the National Dredging Team sponsored the
 January 2001 workshop to provide an opportunity for a "midcourse" correction
 and to conduct a fresh assessment of dredged material management issues and
 needed actions for the first decade of the new millennium.

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
The National Dredging Policy: Findings and Principles
The findings are:
  • A network of ports and harbors is essential to the United States' economy, affecting its
    competitiveness in world trade and national security. Port facilities serve as a key link in the
    intermodal transportation chain and can realize their full potential as magnets for shipping and
    commerce only if dredging occurs in a timely and cost-effective manner.

  • The nation's coastal, ocean, and freshwater resources are critical assets which must be protected,
    conserved, and restored. These resources are equally important to the United States by providing
    numerous economic and environmental benefits.

  • Consistent and integrated application of existing environmental statutes can protect the environment
    and can allow for sustainable economic growth.

  • Close coordination and planning at all governmental levels, and with all aspects of the private sector,
    are essential to developing and maintaining the nation's ports and harbors in a manner that will
    increase economic growth  and protect, conserve,  and restore coastal resources.

  • Planning for the development and maintenance of the nation's ports and harbors should occur
    in the context of broad transportation and environmental planning efforts such as the National
    Transportation System and the ecosystem/watershed management approach.

The principles are:
  • The regulatory process must be timely, efficient, and predictable, to the maximum extent practicable.

  • Advanced dredged material management planning must be conducted on a port or regional scale by a
    partnership that includes the Federal government, the port authorities, state and local governments,
    natural resource agencies, public interest groups, the maritime industry, and private citizens. To
    be effective, this planning must be done prior to individual Federal or non-Federal dredging  project
    proponents seeking individual project approval.

  • Dredged material managers must become more involved in watershed planning to emphasize the
    importance of point and nonpoint source  pollution controls to reduce harbor sediment contamination.

  • Dredged material is a resource, and environmentally sound beneficial use of dredged material for such
    projects as wetland creation, beach nourishment, and development projects must be encouraged.
                   2.0 National Dredging Policy

                         The Secretary of Transportation convened an Interagency Working Group
                         on the Dredging Process in October 1993 to investigate and recommend
                   actions to improve the dredging project review process. In December 1994 the
                   Interagency Group delivered its report, The Dredging Process in the United States:
                   An Action Plan for Improvement (the Report), to the Secretary of Transportation.
                   The Report contained 18 recommendations and a proposed National Dredging
                   Policy (see box above). On June 22, 1995, the President endorsed the National
                   Dredging Policy and directed the Federal agencies to implement the Report's 18
                   recommendations.

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
   Recommendation 9:  Establish a National Dredging Issues Team and Regional
                           Dredging Issues Teams
   The Corps and EPA will establish or use existing teams to promote national and regional consistency on
   dredging issues and provide a forum for conflict resolution and information exchange early in the process.
   The teams will provide a mechanism for timely resolution of conflicts by involving all agencies and maxi-
   mizing interagency coordination. The National and Regional Dredging Issues Teams will not supersede
   the authority of any of the agencies involved in the dredging project review process. Rather the teams are
   intended to provide a forum for conflict resolution by mutual agreement. These teams will consist of appro-
   priate agency decision makers and technical experts.

   The National Dredging Issues Team will be chaired by EPA and the Corps and will include representatives
   from the DOC, the DOI, and the DOT. The national team will have two roles: (1) to review policies and proce-
   dures associated with the dredging process, including implementation of this action plan, and to develop
   guidance for interaction with the Regional Dredging Issues Teams; and (2) to oversee the resolution of
   issues elevated from the Regional Dredging Team level.

   The Regional  Dredging Issues Teams will include  representatives from the appropriate governmental agen-
   cies. The teams will resolve local-level  issues that arise during the permitting process, dredged material
   disposal management and planning, and new navigation project planning. The regional teams will review
   overall regional dredging issues and specific projects as necessary to improve coordination and resolve
   controversies; ensure that necessary local agreements are completed and implemented; serve as a forum
   for information exchange among and provide guidance to local/regional dredged material planning groups
   (identified in Section 5.1) on the development of  long-term dredged material management plans; and refer
   interagency policy, technical, and institutional issues to the national team  for resolution, on a timely basis.
   Issues and conflicts associated with specific projects that cannot be resolved by the regional teams also
   may be elevated to the national team.
 3.0 National Dredging Team

    In response to a recommendation in the Report, the National Dredging Team
    (NDT) was established in July 1995 to serve as a forum for implementation of
 the National Dredging Policy and the 18 recommendations in the Report. The
 NDT is an interagency group originally composed of the following agencies:
    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Co-Chair;
    • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Co-Chair;
    • Maritime Administration;
    • NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service;
    • NOAA's National Ocean Service;
    • Fish and Wildlife Service; and
    • U.S. Coast Guard.

 The U.S. Coast Guard became a member of the NDT in 2003. Other agencies
 participating in the NDT include the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Geological Survey.

-------
                          Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
As stated in recommendation 9 of the Report, the NDT promotes national and
regional consistency on dredging issues and provides a mechanism for conflict
resolution and information exchange among Federal, State, and local agencies
and stakeholders.

Regional Dredging Teams (RDTs) have been established in most geographic
areas in the United States, including the Great Lakes, Northeast, Southeast,
Gulf of Mexico, Southern California, Northern California, Pacific Northwest,
Alaska, and Hawaii. Progress and successes are excellent for a number of the
RDTs, but in others the results are  mixed; opportunities and challenges remain
for all of the RDTs.


4.0 Progress to Date

        When the Interagency Working Group on  the Dredging Process convened
        in the early 1990s to investigate and recommend methods to improve
the dredging review process, the group had two major objectives in mind:
   •  Promote greater certainty and predictability in the dredging project review
      process and dredged material management; and
   •  Facilitate effective long-term management strategies for addressing dredg-
      ing and  disposal needs at both the national and local levels.

The 1994 Report identified the following issues that at times have led to signifi-
cant inefficiencies in dredged material management processes:
   •  Lack of a unifying national dredging policy to serve as a focus for
      individual agency programs;
   •  Unresolved interagency conflicts can result in significant delays in the
      dredging process;
   •  Inadequate planning by Federal, State, and local entities,  especially
      regarding dredged material management, can result in conflicts among
      stakeholders and long project delays;
   •  Insufficient information exchange and coordination among all involved
      stakeholders can result in poor dredged material management planning,
      incomplete and/or technically inadequate permit applications, stakeholder
      dissension, and project delays;
   •  Unclear expectations of the relevant Federal, State, and local agencies can
      result in the need to generate additional information late in the process,
      and project delays;
   •  Uncertainties regarding the scientific ability to evaluate risks to the
      environment associated with  contamination and the disposal alternatives
      (e.g., open ocean disposal, confined disposal facilities, and beneficial use)
      can cloud disposal decisions;

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
    •  Inconsistent funding policies regarding open water, upland, and confined
       disposal, as well as beneficial use of dredged material, can skew disposal
       decisions and result in inefficient use of Federal and non-Federal funds;
       and
    •  Insufficient financial and staff resources at many Federal, State, and local
       resource agencies  constrain the ability of the agencies to conduct adequate
       advanced dredged material management planning, dredging project
       reviews, and disposal site management.

 These issues were categorized into the following four action areas under which
 the recommendations were grouped: strengthening mechanisms for dredging and
 dredged material management planning; enhancing coordination and communi-
 cation in the dredging project review process; addressing scientific uncertainties
 about dredged material;  and funding dredging projects consistently and efficiently.
 Once the NDT was established, efforts for addressing the Report's recommen-
 dations were initiated immediately. Most of the 18 recommendations have been
 addressed and implementation action is ongoing.  The progress to date, presented in
 Table 1, has been categorized according to the four respective action areas.
Table 1.1994 National Dredging Team Recommendations
  Rec
  No.
Recommendation
(Lead Agency)
Progress to Date
  Strengthening Planning Mechanisms for Dredging and Dredged Material Management
         Create and/or augment regional/local
         dredged material planning groups to
         aid in the development of regional
         dredged material management plans
         (Corps).
                                   Ongoing.
         Identify the characteristics of successful
         Federal/State/local partnerships for
         use in developing dredged material
         management planning efforts (Corps,
         EPA, NOAA, MARAD).
                                   Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material Management
                                   Plans—Guidance by the National Dredging Team. June 1998.
                                   www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt
         Develop public outreach and education
         programs to facilitate stakeholder
         involvement (All Agencies).
                                    During the Coastal Zone Conferences held in 1997, 1999, and 2001,
                                    the NDT sponsored special sessions on dredged material management
                                    planning and beneficial use of dredged material.

                                    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Website: This joint Corps/EPA
                                    site provides an introduction to beneficial use applications of dredged
                                    material, dredging links and literature references, and details of
                                    completed beneficial use projects throughout the United States.
                                    www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/budm/budm.html

                                    Dredged Material Management and State Coastal Management
                                    Programs: Lessons from a Workshop in New Orleans, Louisiana. January
                                    1999. Proceedings prepared by the National Academy of Public
                                    Administration.
                                    www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/napareport

-------
                                                      Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Rec    Recommendation
No.    (Lead Agency)
Progress to Date
       Provide guidance to relevant Agency
       field offices, State and local agencies,
       and the general public on opportunities
       for beneficial use of dredged material
       (Corps, EPA).
  Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Website: This joint Corps/EPA
  site provides an introduction to beneficial use applications of dredged
  material, dredging links and literature references, and details of
  completed beneficial use projects throughout the United States.
  www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/budm/budm.html

  National Coastal Program Dredging Policies: An Analysis of State,
  Territory, and Commonwealth Policies Related to Dredging and
  Dredged Material Management. This document, prepared by NOAA,
  provides  a State-by-State summary of Federally approved coastal
  management program enforceable and non-enforceable policies related
  to dredging and dredged material management, allowing for a better
  understanding of individual State review processes. April 2000.
  www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/resource.html
       Update guidance on disposal site
       monitoring requirements and
       procedures (EPA, Corps).
Guidance Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites. February 1996.
www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/siteplan.html
6      Ensure that dredged material
       management planners work with
       pollution control agencies to identify
       point and nonpoint sources of sediment
       and sediment pollution and to
       implement watershed planning (EPA,
       Corps).
  Ongoing.

  Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material Management
  Plans—Guidance by the National Dredging Team. June 1998.
  www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt
       Review the Federal Economic
       and Environmental Principles and
       Guidelines for Water and Related Land
       Resource Implementation Studies
       (P8cG) to determine whether changes
       are needed to better integrate the
       economic and environmental objectives
       of National Economic Development
       (NED) and Environmental Quality
       (EOJ (Corps).
Corps planning guidance has incorporated national environmental
restoration as a co-equal objective with national economic development
(Planning Guidance, US Army Corps of Engineers, ER 1105-2-100,
22 April 2000.
www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-regs/erll05-2-100/toc.htm)
8      Revise the Intermodal Surface
       Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
       (ISTEA) to ensure that the planning
       process outlined in the legislation
       provides  for linkages with plans which
       address dredging issues (MARAD).
  The NDT is an integral part of the overall Marine Transportation System
  Initiative, which submitted a Report to Congress on the MTS, entitled
  An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, in June 2000.
  www.dot.gov/mts

  The MTS is addressing dredging issues in future legislation.

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
  Rec
  No.
Recommendation
(Lead Agency)
Progress to Date
  Enhancing Coordination and Communication in the Dredging Project Approval Process
          Establish a National Dredging Issues
          Team and Regional Dredging Issues
          Teams (Corps, EPA).
                                      • Charter of the National Dredging Team. July 9, 2003 (Appendix E).
                                        www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/charter.html
                                      • Memorandum on Creation of Regional Interagency Dredging Teams.
                                        Department of Army. August 1995.
                                      • Memorandum on Creation of Regional Interagency Dredging Teams. U.S.
                                        EPA, Office of Water. September 1995.
                                      • Eleven Regional Dredging Teams have been established since the
                                        release of the EPA and Corps Memoranda on the Creation of Regional
                                        Interagency Dredging Teams in 1995.
                                      • National meeting for the National Dredging Team with Regional
                                        Dredging Teams. Annapolis, Maryland. June 1997.
                                      • Procedures to Elevate Issues from Regional Dredging Teams and Local
                                        Planning Groups to the National Dredging Team — Guidance by the
                                        National Dredging Team. February 1999.
                                        www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt
                                      • Initiated review of revised NDT Action Plan, National Dredging Team
                                        Draft Action Plan. February 2000.
                                        www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/actionplan.html
                                      • Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade -
                                        A Workshop Sponsored by the National Dredging Team. Jacksonville,
                                        Florida. January 2001.
  10
Schedule pre-application meetings
among the Corps, the applicant, the
EPA, other interested Federal agencies
and relevant State agencies for dredging
projects that are potentially contro-
versial or that may involve significant
environmental issues (Corps).
Current practice.
  11
Develop and distribute a permit
application checklist which identifies
the information required from the
applicant (Corps).
Current practice at the District level.
  12
Develop or revise the procedures for
coordinating interagency review at
the regional level to define the process
by which various Federal parties
coordinate on dredging projects (Corps,
EPA, FWS, NOAA).
The Corps and EPA conduct a dredged material coordinators meeting
every two years to clarify agency roles and review/establish coordination
mechanisms between the two agencies.
  13
Establish a national MOA to clarify
roles and coordination mechanisms
between the EPA and the Corps (EPA,
Corps).
Ongoing.

-------
                                            Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Rec
No.
Recommendation
(Lead Agency)
Progress to Date
Addressing Scientific Uncertainties About Dredged Material
14
15
16
Clarify and improve the guidance
used to evaluate bioaccumulation of
contaminants from dredged materials
(EPA, Corps).
Identify the practical barriers to
managing contaminated sediments and
ways to overcome the barriers (Corps,
EPA).
Identify means to reduce the volume
of material which must be dredged
(Corps, EPA).
The Corps and EPA are developing joint national guidance on
interpreting the bioaccumulation potential of dredged material.
• The Corps and EPA sponsored a National Academy of Sciences study:
Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways — Cleanup Strategies and
Technologies (\WT).
' EPA funded a National Academy of Sciences study on contaminated
sediments: A Risk-Management Strategy for PCE -Contaminated
Sediments (2QQV).
' EPA is investigating innovative remedial techniques for contaminated
sediment. Region II and the Great Lakes National Program Office
are leading the efforts in decontamination technologies that, in
conjunction with beneficial use of dredged material, can provide a
variety of high-value, marketable end-products.
• Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping. Dredging
Operations and Environmental Research Program. Technical Report
DOER-1. June 1998.
• The Corps funded a National Academy of Sciences study on
environmental windows for dredging: A Process for Setting, Managing,
and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects (2001).
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.
Funding Dredging Projects Consistently and Efficiently
17
18
Revise WRDA to establish consistent
Federal-local sponsor cost sharing,
across all dredged material disposal
methods (Corps).
Study the feasibility of a fee for open-
water disposal for non-Federal dredging
projects (EPA).
WRDA was revised to establish consistent Federal-local sponsor cost
sharing across all dredged material disposal methods (WRDA 1996
provides authority to reduce the inconsistency between the funding for
open water disposal and upland disposal).
Ongoing.
                   5.0 Issues and Actions for the Next Decade

                         At the January 2001 workshop, progress on the 1994 Report's recommenda-
                         tions was assessed (summarized in Table 1), and actions were identified
                   that could address issues impacting dredging and dredged material manage-
                   ment for the foreseeable future. The workshop included panel presentations and
                   breakout group discussions, the outcome of which was a series of actions recom-
                   mended for inclusion in a national action agenda (see Appendix A for a sum-
                   mary of the workshop proceedings). After the workshop concluded, the proposed
8

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 actions were consolidated by the members of the NDT into general and specific
 recommendations for each of the primary subject areas, and they are presented
 below as the Action Agenda for the Next Decade. These actions are summarized
 in Table 2 at the end of this section.

 The NDT, RDTs, Local Planning/Project Groups, and all stakeholders should
 work together at the appropriate level to ensure that progress is made in the
 implementation of these  recommendations. Periodic national and regional work-
 shops and meetings will be conducted to assess progress.

 5.1 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
 Problem Statement. Much of the several hundred million cubic meters of sedi-
 ment dredged each year from U.S. ports, harbors, and waterways could be used
 in a beneficial manner, such as for habitat restoration and creation, beach nour-
 ishment, aquaculture, forestry, agriculture, mine reclamation, and industrial and
 commercial development. Yet most of this dredged material is instead disposed
 of in open water,  confined disposal facilities, and upland disposal facilities.
 The most commonly cited hurdles to using dredged material beneficially are
 increased costs, the need for earlier planning and more widespread coordination,
 lack of complementary Federal and State regulatory frameworks for evaluating
 dredged material as a resource, and a widespread misperception that dredged
 material is a waste instead of a resource.

 Recommendations. A number of steps will need to be taken so that dredged
 material is used beneficially to the greatest extent possible.  First, beneficial use
 of dredged material must become a national, regional, and  local priority, with
 full support from all levels of government. Second, funding from all sources
 must be increased for beneficial use projects as well as for research and develop-
 ment projects. Third, planning at the local level must be proactive in identifying
 potential beneficial uses and sponsors for near- and far-term dredging projects,
 and in planning for the availability of suitable beneficial uses for particular proj-
 ects. Finally, all stakeholders and the general public must recognize that dredged
 material is a valuable resource that can be used in environmentally beneficial
 ways. The recommended actions listed below are intended  to enhance and facili-
 tate efforts to increase the beneficial use of dredged material.

 Recommended Action 1: Develop a national guidance document that presents
 a framework for identifying, planning, and financing beneficial use projects, and
 provides a summary of beneficial use authorities and processes (including cost
 sharing) in plain English (EPA and Corps).

 Recommended Action 2: Develop a national guidance document that explains
 the role of the Federal Standard in implementing beneficial uses of dredged mate-
 rial from Corps of Engineers' new and maintenance navigation projects (NDT).

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    Recommended Action 3: Encourage and endorse implementation of Section
                    215 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Pub. Law 106-541)
                    which directs the Secretary of the Army to establish a program to allow the
                    direct marketing of dredged material to public agencies and private entities
                    (NDT and Corps).

                    Recommended Action 4: Develop and distribute a description of the Corps's
                    streamlined process for continuing authorities related to dredging, navigation,
                    and environmental restoration (Corps).

                    Recommended Action 5: Identify sources of technical information and guid-
                    ance on beneficial uses, identify data gaps, and charge appropriate agencies to fill
                    these gaps and share the information (NDT, RDTs).

                    Recommended Action 6: Encourage research and development on beneficial
                    uses  of dredged material, including habitat creation and restoration, and make
                    available information on beneficial use demonstration projects  (NDT).

                    Recommended Action 7: Identify specific potential local beneficial use proj-
                    ects and potential sponsors for near-term and future dredging activities (Local
                    Planning/Project Groups  (LPGs)).

                    Recommended Action 8: Improve and advertise the Beneficial Uses of Dredged
                    Material web site (www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/budm/budm.html)  and other
                    information sources, such as the Great Lakes Dredging Team beneficial use web
                    site (http://www.glc.org/dredging/), that encourage the use of dredged material
                    as a resource and highlight technological improvements and/or innovations in
                    beneficial uses (EPA and Corps).

                    Recommended Action 9: Identify factors that would be needed to develop a
                    system to track the volume of dredged material used beneficially, with the goals
                    of establishing such a system and increasing the percentage of dredged material
                    used beneficially each year (Corps and EPA).

                    5.2 Sediment Management
                    Problem Statement. Excessive sediment erosion, transport, and deposition are
                    estimated to cause damages of approximately $16 billion annually in North
                    America. The United States spends about  $800 million annually on dredging
                    sediment from locations where too much has deposited. Sediment overloading
                    from land and stream erosion causes significant environmental and economic
                    challenges—excessive sediment in rivers, reservoirs, and estuaries  may contrib-
                    ute to high turbidity, loss of flood-carrying capacity, and sediment deposition in
                    navigable waterways. Yet in other locations, a shortage of sediment causes coastal
                    erosion, streambank erosion,  and wetland loss. Many water resource projects are
                    designed to remedy local sediment problems, and sometimes create even larger
                    problems some distance away. Sediment management planning is often done
10

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 outside the context of watershed management plans. These current-day practices
 often adversely affect navigation, flood and storm damage reduction efforts, and
 environmental quality in water resource projects.

 Recommendations. The Corps, EPA, NOAA, USGS, RDTs, and Local
 Planning/Project Groups need to ensure that sediment management is done in
 the context of watershed management, and that watershed management plans
 incorporate both private and Federal dredging. Effective dredged material plan-
 ning and sediment management require open and early communication among
 Federal and State dredged material regulators, watershed planners, and other
 interested parties so that: (1) sources of sediment (and sources of contamina-
 tion carried by the sediment) can be addressed; (2) the broadest range of ben-
 eficial use and disposal alternatives for dredged material can be evaluated; and
 (3) adequate funding for dredged material use or disposal can be secured. Local
 Planning/Project Groups can be an excellent vehicle to facilitate this communi-
 cation and to foster the development of effective dredged material management
 plans.

 Recommended Action 10: Identify existing and ongoing Local Planning/
 Project Groups (LPGs) and identify completed Dredged Material Management
 Plans (DMMPs); encourage the formation of new LPGs to develop DMMPs
 that address sediment management in the context of overall watershed manage-
 ment, as well as project-level sediment management techniques. A key element of
 this recommendation will be to provide a mechanism for the  transfer of informa-
 tion, processes, and technologies (NDT, RDTs, LPGs).

 Recommended Action 11: Identify the key elements of sediment management
 and incorporate them into the LPG guidance as appropriate (NDT).

 Recommended Action 12: Sponsor a national workshop on sediment manage-
 ment with LPGs to share successes and lessons learned (NDT, RDTs, and LPGs).

 5.3 Emerging Issues
 Problem Statement. During the workshop, participants identified several  issues
 that have emerged over the last decade that must be considered during the
 dredging decision process. These issues include Essential Fish Habitat  (EFH)
 consultations, environmental window considerations, the potential application of
 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) designations to dredging projects, and
 consistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
 Today's planning strategies must be flexible enough to consider such emerging
 issues, especially in order to maintain a dredging project review process  that is
 timely, efficient, and predictable to the maximum extent practicable. An under-
 standing of how these factors fit into the context of dredging and dredged mate-
 rial management decision making is needed.
                                                                                           11

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    Recommendations. To improve the effectiveness of the dredging project review
                    process, more information is needed on EFH consultations, TMDL require-
                    ments and approaches, environmental windows, and how a dredging project can
                    be consistent with the enforceable policies of State Coastal Zone Management
                    Plans. Incorporating these emerging issues into an integrated planning approach
                    would promote greater certainty and predictability in dredging project review
                    and dredged material management by providing readily available information
                    for interested stakeholders. Because project development and review is a multi-
                    disciplinary and multi-agency process involving a wide range of often competing
                    interests, issues, and stakeholders, open communication and early coordination
                    on these emerging issues are essential.

                    Recommended Action 13: Analyze and evaluate State Coastal Zone
                    Management Plan requirements with the objective of increasing timely, pre-
                    dictable, effective, and environmentally sound dredging. Encourage States to
                    clearly identify enforceable policies that would pertain to the management and
                    beneficial use of dredged material. Develop guidance about what is required for
                    a dredging project to be consistent with the enforceable State policies under the
                    CZMA (NOAA's NOS, RDTs).

                    Recommended Action 14: Clarify how Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) require-
                    ments relate to dredging and  dredged material management (NOAA's NMFS).

                    Recommended Action 15: Continue to evaluate the impact of environmental
                    windows on dredging and dredged material management, and how establish-
                    ment of environmental windows should be changed to ensure that they are meet-
                    ing their objectives. Review NAS  Environmental Windows report and identify
                    appropriate action for NDT (NDT, NOAA, FWS).

                    Recommended Action 16: Increase coordination and communication between
                    the EPA Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and
                    the navigational dredging programs to facilitate an understanding of the appli-
                    cability of each program and  the possible implications they may have on each
                    other. If appropriate, develop  a factsheet explaining  the TMDL program and
                    requirements, and how these  requirements may relate to navigational dredging
                    and dredged material management (EPA).

                    Recommended Action 17: Continue developing additional, updated guid-
                    ance for interpreting the results of dredged material testing to quantify risks to
                    humans and to aquatic resources of material proposed for either inland or ocean
                    disposal (Corps and EPA).

                    Recommended Action 18: Develop and make available information on dredg-
                    ing issues (i.e., clearinghouse  for information, training courses, outreach, sym-
                    posia, research on emerging technologies) and compile and provide model(s) of
                    successes and lessons learned  (NDT and RDTs).
12

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 5.4 Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams
 Problem Statement. Eleven Regional Dredging Teams (RDTs) have been estab-
 lished with the intent to improve dredged material management by fostering
 communication and planning, providing a forum for conflict resolution, and
 increasing public education and community involvement. A number of RDTs
 have been very successful, but others have not. One of the organizational diffi-
 culties experienced by some RDTs is the broad geographic (i.e., multi-State) area
 they cover. Although the RDTs are useful for addressing regional issues, much
 of the controversy regarding dredged material management is at the local or proj-
 ect level.

 Recommendations. The NDT should use its expertise and connections, along
 with the experiences of established RDTs, to encourage the establishment of new
 RDTs and to foster their success. In addition, the NDT should continue to com-
 municate and work with established RDTs. The roles and responsibilities of each
 RDT, as well as the link between the RDT and Local Planning/Project Groups
 (LPGs), should be clearly established and communicated so that the efforts  of
 the RDT complement those of the Local Planning/Project Groups and other
 stakeholders.

 Recommended Action 19: Ensure that each RDT has a charter regarding
 its scope, roles, responsibilities, and accountability that is made available to all
 stakeholders. The scale of each "regional" dredging team (i.e., project-specific,
 harbor, watershed, State, and/or multi-State) should be specified. Ensure that
 each RDT has appropriate  representatives from the Corps and EPA, other
 Federal agencies, and State  agencies  (RDTs).

 Recommended Action 20: RDTs (and the NDT) should involve stakeholders
 in their activities and actions. An outreach plan regarding involvement of stake-
 holders should be prepared, implemented, and updated annually. Part of the out-
 reach plan should address the convening of for urns/meetings for public education
 and community involvement (RDTs, NDT).

 Recommended Action 21: RDTs should actively work to facilitate the estab-
 lishment of LPGs to  develop dredged material management plans for local
 waterways/harbors/estuaries/watersheds and to assess and resolve local dredged
 material management issues. RDTs should establish direct lines of communica-
 tion with LPGs to facilitate issue resolution at the appropriate level (RDTs).

 Recommended Action 22: Hold an annual meeting for all RDTs with the
 NDT to focus on strengthening the RDTs to meet regional needs. RDTs should
 report on progress, planned activities, and issues, and share information (e.g.,
 successes, failures,  and lessons learned) (NDT and RDTs).
                                                                                            13

-------
                                                  Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Table 2. Summary Listing of Recommendations
Rec
No.
Recommendation
Lead Agency
Page
No.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Develop a national guidance document that presents a framework for identifying,
planning, and financing beneficial use projects, and provides a summary of
beneficial use authorities and processes (including cost sharing) in plain English.
Develop a national guidance document that explains the role of the Federal Standard
in implementing beneficial uses of dredged material from Corps of Engineers' new
and maintenance navigation projects.
Encourage and endorse implementation of Section 215 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (Pub. Law 106-541) which directs the Secretary of the
Army to establish a program to allow the direct marketing of dredged material to
public agencies and private entities.
Develop and distribute a description of the Corps's streamlined process for
continuing authorities related to dredging, navigation, and environmental
restoration.
Identify sources of technical information and guidance on beneficial uses,
identify data gaps, and charge appropriate agencies to fill these gaps and share the
information.
Encourage research and development on beneficial uses of dredged material,
including habitat creation and restoration, and make available information on
beneficial use demonstration projects.
Identify specific potential local beneficial use projects and potential sponsors for
near-term and future dredging activities.
Improve and advertise the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material web site
(www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/budm/budm.html) and other information sources, such
as the Great Lakes Dredging Team beneficial use web site (http://www.glc.org/
dredging/), that encourage the use of dredged material as a resource and highlight
technological improvements and/or innovations in beneficial uses.
Identify factors that would be needed to develop a system to track the volume of
dredged material used beneficially, with the goals of establishing such a system and
increasing the percentage of dredged material used beneficially each year.
EPA,
Corps
NOT
NOT,
Corps
Corps
NOT,
RDTs
NOT
Local
Planning/
Project Groups
(LPGs)
EPA,
Corps
EPA,
Corps
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sediment Management
10
11
Identify existing and ongoing Local Planning/Project Groups (LPGs) and identify
completed Dredged Material Management Plans (DMMPs); encourage the
formation of new LPGs to develop DMMPs that address sediment management
in the context of overall watershed management, as well as project-level sediment
management techniques. A key element of this recommendation will be to provide a
mechanism for the transfer of information, processes, and technologies.
Identify the key elements of sediment management and incorporate them into the
LPG guidance as appropriate.
NOT,
RDTs,
LPGs
NOT
11
11
14

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Rec
No.
12
Recommendation
Sponsor a national workshop on sediment management with LPGs to share
successes and lessons learned.
Lead Agency
NDT,
RDTs,
LPGs
Page
No.
11
Emerging Issues
13
14
15
16
17
18
Analyze and evaluate State Coastal Zone Management Plan requirements with
the objective of increasing timely, predictable, effective, and environmentally
sound dredging. Encourage States to clearly identify enforceable policies that
would pertain to the management and beneficial use of dredged material. Develop
guidance about what is required for a dredging project to be consistent with the
enforceable State policies under the CZMA.
Clarify how Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) requirements relate to dredging and
dredged material management.
Continue to evaluate the impact of environmental windows on dredging and
dredged material management, and how establishment of environmental windows
should be changed to ensure that they are meeting their objectives. Review NAS
Environmental Windows report and identify appropriate action for NDT.
Increase coordination and communication between the EPA Clean Water Act Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and the navigational dredging programs
to facilitate an understanding of the applicability of each program and the possible
implications they may have on each other. If appropriate, develop a factsheet
explaining the TMDL program and requirements, and how these requirements
may relate to navigational dredging and dredged material management.
Continue developing additional, updated guidance for interpreting the results of
dredged material testing to quantify risks to humans and to aquatic resources of
material proposed for either inland or ocean disposal.
Develop and make available information on dredging issues (i.e., clearinghouse
for information, training courses, outreach, symposia, research on emerging
technologies) and compile and provide model(s) of successes and lessons learned.
NOAAs NOS,
RDTs
NOAAs
NMFS
NDT,
NOAA,
FWS
EPA
EPA,
Corps
NDT,
RDTs
12
12
12
12
12
12
Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams
19
20
21
22
Ensure that each RDT has a charter regarding its scope, roles, responsibilities, and
accountability that is made available to all stakeholders. The scale of each "regional"
dredging team (i.e., project-specific, harbor, watershed, State, and/or multi-State)
should be specified. Ensure that each RDT has appropriate representatives from
the Corps and EPA, other Federal agencies, and State agencies.
RDTs (and the NDT) should involve stakeholders in their activities and actions.
An outreach plan regarding involvement of stakeholders should be prepared,
implemented, and updated annually. Part of the outreach plan should address the
convening of forums/meetings for public education and community involvement.
RDTs should actively work to facilitate the establishment of LPGs to develop
dredged material management plans for local waterways/harbors/estuaries/
watersheds and to assess and resolve local dredged material management issues.
RDTs should establish direct lines of communication with LPGs to facilitate issue
resolution at the appropriate level.
Hold an annual meeting for all RDTs with the NDT to focus on strengthening the
RDTs to meet regional needs. RDTs should report on progress, planned activities,
and issues, and share information (e.g., successes, failures, and lessons learned).
RDTs
RDTs,
NDT
RDTs
NDT,
RDTs
13
13
13
13
                                                                                                                  15

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    6.0 Conclusion

                          The January 2001 workshop provided the National Dredging Team with
                          an opportunity to revisit the 1994 Report recommendations, to evaluate
                    what "midcourse" corrections are warranted, and to conduct a fresh assessment of
                    dredged material management issues and needs for the next decade.

                    The specific recommendations presented in this Action Agenda will help
                    address the issues that impact beneficial use of dredged material, sediment
                    management, emerging dredging issues, and strengthening Regional Dredging
                    Teams. Developing and implementing this Action Agenda will help in main-
                    taining a dredging project review process that is timely, efficient, and predictable
                    to the maximum extent practicable.

                    The NDT does not seek to change the basic legislative framework that applies
                    to dredging in the United States, nor does the NDT seek to realign agency mis-
                    sions or resources. Accordingly, this Action Agenda focuses on measures that the
                    responsible agencies can take to improve implementation of existing regulations
                    and agency framework.

                    The Federal agencies that compose the NDT are committed to (1) implementing
                    each of the recommendations in this Action Agenda, along with our partners on
                    the RDTs and the Local Planning/Project Groups, and (2) sponsoring additional
                    national and regional workshops and meetings to assess progress. One lesson
                    we all have learned is that early and substantial involvement of a  broad range of
                    stakeholders is the key to successful dredged material planning and management.
16

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade


Appendix A: Workshop Proceedings

Opening Remarks

Mr. Rick Ferrin, Port Director, Port of Jacksonville, welcomed workshop par-
ticipants to Jacksonville. He invited attendees to enjoy the city and have a suc-
cessful, productive workshop.

Mr. Craig Vogt, Deputy Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, U.S.
EPA, and NDT Co-Chair, began his presentation with a welcome to partici-
pants. He stated that the NDT was formed in 1995 in response to the December
1994 Interagency Report to the Secretary of Transportation: The Dredging Process
in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement. Mr. Vogt stated that prior
to 1994, numerous dredging projects were at a near standstill in the United
States due to myriad problems. The 1994 report provided 18 major recommenda-
tions in four action areas: strengthening mechanisms for dredging and dredged
material management planning; enhancing coordination and communication
in the dredging project review process; addressing scientific uncertainties about
dredged material; and funding dredging projects consistently and efficiently.

In addition to implementation of the Report's recommendations, the NDT is
charged with implementation of the National Dredging Policy. Mr. Vogt out-
lined in detail the National Dredging Policy, which recognizes the role of the
network of ports and harbors in the U.S. economy, while acknowledging the
nation's coastal, ocean, and fresh water resources as critical assets that need to be
protected, conserved, and restored. A key statement in the Policy is that the reg-
ulatory process must be timely, efficient, and predictable, to the maximum extent
practicable. Mr. Vogt also stated that the Policy states that dredged material
managers should be more involved in watershed planning and prevention of the
discharge of contaminants upstream from point and nonpoint sources. In addi-
tion, the Policy recognizes that dredged material is a resource and that beneficial
use of dredged material is encouraged. Mr. Vogt emphasized that the Policy
clearly states that consistent and integrated applications of existing environmen-
tal statutes can protect the environment and can allow for sustainable economic
growth. Finally, Mr. Vogt recognized that dredging and management of dredged
material are an integral part of the Marine Transportation  System.

Mr. Vogt stated that major progress has been made since the NDT was formed
but that many serious  challenges remain. As examples of progress to date, Mr.
Vogt described several guidance documents that have been prepared by the
NDT: guidance on establishment of RDTs, guidance on LPGs, and guidance
on elevation of issues from RDTs to the NDT. In addition, Mr. Vogt noted that
several meetings were particularly successful, including a meeting of the NDT
with the RDTs in Annapolis, Maryland, and a workshop in New Orleans on
dredged material management and State coastal management programs.
                                                                                          A-l

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    Mr. Vogt concluded by stating that the objectives of this workshop were to provide
                    an opportunity for a "midcourse" correction and to conduct a "fresh" assessment
                    of dredged material management issues and needed actions for the next decade.

                    Mr. Barry Holliday, Chief of the Dredging & Navigation Branch, U.S. Army
                    Corps of Engineers, and NDT Co-Chair, discussed the workshop's objectives.
                    He acknowledged the work of the NDT, the RDTs, and many others, but he
                    believes there are still unmet expectations. Opportunities have been missed and
                    other issues, such as coordination and clarification of policies and law, have not
                    been addressed. Mr. Holliday suggested that the workshop could give partici-
                    pants an opportunity to develop partnerships, identify issues and solutions, and
                    to listen and talk to a full spectrum of stakeholders.

                    Mr. Holliday stated that the main objectives of the workshop are:
                        1. Assist in the development of a national action agenda for dredged material;
                        2. Communicate and build partnerships for improved effectiveness;
                        3. Exchange information about scientific and programmatic dredging issues;
                          and
                        4. Strengthen regional dredging teams to ensure that they can be proactive
                          leaders in response to the Marine Transportation System of the future.

                    He urged workshop participants to listen, challenge, participate, "step out of your
                    box,"  seek the "third alternative," and enjoy the workshop.

                    Keynote Addresses

                    Mr. Frank Hamons, Manager, Harbor Development, Port of Baltimore,
                    described projects at the Port of Baltimore as being mostly maintenance work,
                    with few new projects to plan and implement. For him, everything is changing,
                    with new problems to be fixed. Mr. Hamons believes that a problem should be
                    fixed locally and applied nationally.

                    Mr. Hamons suggested that most think of beneficial use in terms of creating or
                    restoring habitat, but that is only one solution.  There are times when the envi-
                    ronmental  benefits have to be weighed against the drawbacks. If someone does
                    not want to create or restore habitats, then new ideas and solutions have  to be
                    found. Should the material be used to fill land or make bricks? There is  also the
                    issue of using contaminated sediments and looking for potential products. He
                    thinks that it may take a significant amount of financial investment to find solu-
                    tions for reuse. Sometimes, Mr. Hamons said,  beneficial use may not make all
                    the people  happy all the time.

                    Mr. Hamons believes that the four most important emerging issues are:
                        1. Risk assessment/risk management;
                        2. TMDLs (total maximum daily loads);
A-2

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade


    3. Essential fish habitat; and
    4. Improving the regulatory process.

 For risk management, he believes we have to get past the fears to determine
 whether the risks are real or not—this should be a critical part of the process.
 When considering essential fish habitat, he thinks a balance must be sought.
 With any activity, Mr. Hamons stated, there is some effect.

 Mr. James T.B. Tripp, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund, said
 there are many factors to consider when looking at ports and estuaries in the
 New York area. With the growth in world trade, there is growth in wealth. Ports
 will want to expand; however, many are located in close proximity, or actually
 in, wetlands and estuaries where the environment has, in many instances, been
 destroyed and waters contaminated. He suggested that when considering port
 expansion, there should be  environmental goals, such as protecting seagrass and
 wetlands, restoring degraded wetlands, and improving water and sediment quality.

 Mr. Tripp would ask the question, does this project help or hurt the environ-
 ment? He indicated that disposal can harm the environment and dredging can
 harm wetlands. In many cases, mitigation is hard in the traditional sense. He
 suggested that there should be multiple goals and that we should study those
 projects that will move us along to fulfill those goals.

 Mr. Tripp said the following questions must be asked: Is dredging necessary?
 Should we accommodate port expansion? Would a private group pay to have
 the channel dredged for a larger ship? Should tax money be used? What are the
 environmental implications of dredging the channel? According to Mr. Tripp,
 habitat  restoration and protection must be in place if dredging is to occur.

 Mr. Tripp also raised questions pertaining to contaminated dredged mate-
 rial—what to do with it and how it will be disposed of. To Mr. Tripp, contami-
 nated sediments are the most problematic. He asked, what kind of standards
 should apply? What impact will the contaminated sediments have on landfills
 or brownfields?  How do we keep contaminates out of water, estuaries, and wet-
 lands? Why should ports pay for historical pollution? Maybe Federal and  State
 agencies should  share the cost of decontamination, monitoring, and habitat res-
 toration. He offered no solutions, but provided thought-provoking questions for
 participants to consider.

 Mr. TonyMacDonald, Executive Director, Coastal States Organization. Mr.
 MacDonald believes that regional dredging teams need to be strengthened—to
 him, that's where the action is. Transportation and clean water can work together
 but, according to Mr. MacDonald, there must be a balance between the two in a
 real world context. There are Congressional policies to restore habitat, but there
 are also more dredging projects to deepen harbors. There are many policies and
 actions  coming,  but we have to look forward on how to manage dredging.
                                                                                            A-3

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    The general view from the States is that the Federal dredging policy is restricted
                    by a lack of vision and a lack of flexibility. The States take a broader view. There
                    is also a lack of innovation for projects; however, there are exceptions to the rule.
                    Mr. MacDonald stressed getting the projects to the State level. He asked, "What
                    is the local plan?" He wants to build up from the locally preferred plan for
                    dredged material management. In this way, Mr. MacDonald believes, you would
                    get local buy-in to the issues.

                    Projects are diverse, with projects for both large ports and small marinas. Mr.
                    MacDonald would challenge these projects to be thought of as environmen-
                    tal and economic projects for States. They are also community projects, if the
                    impact of truck traffic on the local community is considered, for those communi-
                    ties living near the ports.

                    Mr. MacDonald also stressed the importance of good science. With the prob-
                    lems of coastal erosion and sea level rising, he believes there should be better
                    monitoring. Monitoring should be attached as an element of a project. In most
                    cases, baseline information does not exist. Mr. MacDonald believes there are
                    many good examples of this concept. Many States will put up the money if infor-
                    mation is provided to them. Mr. MacDonald suggested looking to the States for
                    reasonable  support of projects.

                    Question to All Keynote Speakers: "If we are to develop a National Action
                    Agenda, what are the actions you would suggest?"

                        • Mr.JimTripp: Deliver a message  to the Corps to keep contaminates out
                          of wetlands.
                        • Mr. Tony MacDonald: Identify a framework and resources to support
                          local communities.
                        • Mr. Frank Hamons: Get a consistent reaction to policy and laws for each
                          project; a coalition is most important.

                    Panel One—Beneficial Use of  Dredged Material

                    Moderator: Mr. Tom Chase, Director of Environmental Affairs, American
                    Association of Port Authorities.

                    Mr. Rick Gimello,  Executive Director, New Jersey Department of Transport-
                    ation, described how his office deals with the beneficial use of dredged material.
                    Historically, ocean disposal was used 98 percent of the time, with upland dis-
                    posal only used 1 percent. However, ocean dumping is not an option anymore.
                    The ocean can no longer be used; they have to find new markets and options for
                    beneficial use. In searching for new options, Mr. Gimello said they include the
                    stakeholders in the decision-making process.

                    Mr. Gimello suggested that new markets could include construction, restoration,
                    and/or transportation. New products could be developed, such as lightweight
A-4

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 aggregate, manufactured soils, or cover/remediation material. Another idea is to
 support the concept of a sustainable port when considering deepening projects
 and port maintenance. One concept that has been applied to hazardous materi-
 als—those that are used as recycled waste—could be applied to dredged material.
 Beneficial uses could be low or high tech. His suggestion is to use the 20th cen-
 tury process of the Corps for the 21st century concept. The Corps is stuck with
 an old process. He said, "We need to engage them at the policy level to change."
 Also, the "lowest cost, environmentally acceptable" process must change, but it
 will have to be changed at the  legislative level.

 Federal agencies cannot do it all—they need venture capital. Mr. Gimello said
 that venture capital is hard to attract because they cannot see a return on invest-
 ment. At this point in time, venture capitalists cannot be promised that they
 will be provided with a steady  source of material. Until they can, the Federal
 agencies will have to do it all. There are also problems with equipment. If ocean
 placement is no longer a viable option and dredged material is  to be disposed of
 upland, what equipment changes are needed to get it there? Who pays?

 Mr. Gimello stated that beneficial use is not a casual discussion, but we must
 work toward a new plan. To  him, port development money and environmental
 restoration money are married  in New Jersey. If port money goes, then environ-
 mental restoration money goes.

 Mr. John Carey, Manager, Technical Services, Alabama State Port Authority
 (ASPA), presented several examples of the reuse of dredged material at the Port
 of Mobile, the terminus of a watershed area that includes 18 river systems that
 drain two-thirds of the State of Alabama, and parts of Georgia, Tennessee, and
 Mississippi.

 In Mobile, the ASPA serves as the cost sharing sponsor for the Corps's Federal
 Harbor Project. Dredged material from this project has been used by the City of
 Mobile to cap a City-owned landfill. The ASPA manages a caustic disposal area
 that formerly belonged to ALCOA. Material dredged in maintaining ASPA
 docks is used to cap the area. Tests on some of the caustic material have indicated
 that the caustic material could  be made into lightweight aggregate. Material
 from the Theodore Ship  Channel upland disposal site has been used for public
 shoreline restoration and has been sold for foundation material.

 Materials from the construction of the Theodore Ship Channel were used to create
 a disposal island in the 1970s. The island has become a thriving home to a vari-
 ety of birds, including the brown pelican. Mr. Carey said the Port Authority,  the
 Corps, and the Alabama Department of Fish and Wildlife manage the site. They
 operate a six-month bird window. The site is open for dredged material disposal
 September through April and closed the rest of the year. Mr. Carey said they are
 in the process of restoring the island because of damage from Hurricane Georges.
 The restoration project will cost $1,000,000. His question is "Who pays?"
                                                                                            A-5

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     Mr.JohnTorgan, Narragansett Baykeeper, Save the Bay, Rhode Island, spoke
                     about the role of non-government environmental organizations in the develop-
                     ment of dredging policies and regulation. In his remarks, he stated that while
                     environmental groups are often seen as anti-dredging, his group supports envi-
                     ronmentally sound dredging, particularly beneficial use of dredged sediments.
                     Disputes over dredging typically flare up over proposals to dump contaminated
                     sediments in public waters, and as long as nearshore  dumping is considered the
                     "least cost practicable alternative" for disposal, beneficial use practices and tech-
                     nologies will never be developed to their full potential.

                     Mr. Torgan described a process his group is initiating in Rhode Island that
                     involves a coalition of nontraditional allies, including the regulators, indus-
                     tries, and environmental groups, working to develop new laws and regulations
                     to remove the legal, economic, and regulatory barriers to the beneficial use of
                     dredged materials. Over  the course of the year, Rhode Island hopes to develop
                     one of the nation's most progressive beneficial use programs.

                     Mr. Jim Reese,  Navigation Coordinator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                     Northwestern Division, Portland, Oregon, described the Columbia River
                     deepening project that was started in 1994. Although they were not a regional
                     dredging  team, the group they formed acted like one. They held over 50 pub-
                     lic participation meetings on beneficial use, ocean disposal sites, and  upland
                     disposal siting and environmental round tables. Included were public meetings
                     with 17 environmental roundtables. There were also resource agency  meetings,
                     3 salinity workshops, 12  wildlife mitigation workshops, and 10 ocean dredged
                     material working group meetings.

                     Mr. Reese said that sediment samples were taken for the Columbia River and the
                     Williamette River. Some of the Williamette River samples exceeded the screen-
                     ing levels  and although it was originally a component of the project, Mr. Reese
                     said, it  has been removed, and because of additional  sampling outside the chan-
                     nel the lower river is now a Superfund site. In the new plan, associated with but
                     separate from the deepening, everyone has been included. They will be asked the
                     question,  "How do you want the Columbia River to  look 50 years from now?"
                     For the current deepening plan, disposal siting environmental criteria were estab-
                     lished and applied to the extent practicable. The proposed project would have
                     only 3 beach nourishment sites and would also have  29 upland sites including 4
                     new upland sites, 2 ocean sites, and a flowlane site. An environmental restora-
                     tion component was added to the project in 1996. It  proposed to restore/improve
                     1,550 acres of habitat. Mr. Reese stated that there was a great deal of discussion
                     on the trade-offs between nearshore and deepwater disposal sites.

                     Mr. Reese said they have gone through several changes and reorganizations for the
                     proposed project. They received a final EIS, a biological assessment, in April 2000.
                     Because of new information, Mr. Reese said, project concurrence has been with-
                     drawn by  some State and Federal agencies, and they are currently on hold negoti-
A-6

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 ating solutions to the nonconcurrences. They now see how a Regional Dredging
 Team could have assisted in this process and will develop Regional Dredging
 Teams. They have proposed a structure for a tiered Regional Dredging Team.

 Panel Two—Sediment Management

 Moderator: Mr. Bill McAnally, Waterways Experiment Station.

 Mr. Barry Holliday, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, began by describing the
 advances in technology and the economic pressures that are leading to bigger
 ships and more inland traffic. Channels are being maintained, using environ-
 mental windows, but as traffic moves inland, lock improvements and mainte-
 nance are needed to handle future traffic growth. He stated that the navigation
 mission is "to provide safe, reliable, efficient, and environmentally sustainable
 waterborne transportation systems (channels, harbors, and waterways) for move-
 ment of commerce, national security needs, and recreation."

 He believes the Corps is being responsive to these changes in technology and is
 currently researching ways to improve deep draft channel design, and develop-
 ing new models and tools for shoaling prediction and channel management. Mr.
 Holliday said the Corps has also participated in the development of interagency
 regional dredging teams to identify and resolve environmental issues concerning
 dredging operations.

 Mr. Thomas Wakeman, General Manager, Waterways Development, Port
 Commerce Department, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, discussed
 the concept of a basin-wide approach to dredged material management in the
 New York/New Jersey Harbor. The New York/New Jersey Harbor is located in a
 complex aquatic network created by three New York islands and the New Jersey
 shore; it includes numerous channels and several interconnected waterways. The
 Harbor covers an area of about 2,850 sq. km. with over 1,240 km of waterfront.

 The Port of New York and New Jersey has been a working harbor for over 300
 years. Although modern tankers and container vessels require navigation chan-
 nels with depths of 12.5 to 15 meters, New York Harbor is naturally shallow,
 with an average depth of 6 meters. Some of the sediment entering the system is
 removed naturally, but most must be dredged. In the past, Mr. Wakeman said,
 dredged material was disposed of in a designated ocean site. However, in 1992,
 new testing procedures were implemented and much of the harbor's dredged
 material was determined to be unsuitable for ocean placement. In 1997 the
 ocean disposal site was closed, and a new site was designated, the Historic Area
 Remediation Site or HARS. He said,  even with the Clean Water Act and other
 environmental measures, there is still a large reservoir of contaminated sediments
 in the harbor and the riverine flows that annually discharge new contaminated
 sediments. Fish remain too contaminated to eat regularly, and the problem of
 disposing of contaminated dredged sediments from navigation channels has
 threatened to close the harbor.
                                                                                          A-7

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     In recent years, Mr. Wakeman said, the Corps has been assessing several poten-
                     tial options for handling dredged sediments. The list has included the creation of
                     contaminant islands, subaqueous pits, land disposal, and so forth. Most of these
                     traditional disposal options have not been successfully implemented, primarily
                     because of public opposition. Some new beneficial use sites have also been devel-
                     oped for dredged material that are not suitable for HARS placement, including
                     capping of landfill sites and brownfield remediation projects. However, he said,
                     using these sites is significantly more expensive than disposal at the former ocean
                     site. The average cost to dispose of a cubic meter of dredged material has risen
                     from $4 in 1992 to over $40 in 2000.

                     Mr. Wakeman said that port managers and other maritime stakeholders are
                     not the only victims of sediment contamination. The harbor area supports an
                     enormous wealth offish and shellfish ecosystems. Unfortunately, New York and
                     New Jersey have had to issue health advisories restricting consumption of many
                     fish and shellfish caught in the estuary. He said the  economic losses attributable
                     to the closure of this fishery are enormous. Striped bass, bluefish, and blue claw
                     crabs are contaminated and  cannot be consumed.

                     The Corps, in its dredging plan, has suggested that a 5 percent per year reduction
                     of contaminant levels would  cut the amount of contaminated material in dredged
                     channels by about 40 percent over the next 25 years. The harbor community favor-
                     ably received the Corps's proposal for a contaminant reduction strategy.  One sys-
                     tematic approach to dealing with the issue of contaminant reduction is to formulate
                     a comprehensive basin-wide strategy for managing contaminants and sediments
                     within the Hudson-Raritan watershed and the Port. The strategy should promote
                     a basin-wide  trackdown and clean-up program to curtail sediment and fisher-
                     ies contamination. An important theme under this management strategy, Mr.
                     Wakeman said, is to view sediment as a potentially useful resource. Much work has
                     already been  done to identify beneficial uses for dredged material, but more work
                     is needed to identify options, particularly for contaminated dredged materials. He
                     said clean sediments are potentially useful for a variety of beneficial applications.

                     Mr. Wakeman believes the basin-wide assessment should be tightly coupled with
                     existing regulatory and management programs in the two States in order to tar-
                     get and implement contaminant reduction activities  as quickly as possible. In  the
                     long term, he believes, pollution prevention activities are the only way to con-
                     tinue reducing contaminants in the harbor and to allow its biological resources to
                     recover and flourish.

                     Ms. RoxaneDow, Environmental Specialist, Office of Beaches and Coastal
                     Systems, State of Florida, discussed regional sediment management projects in
                     Florida. She  explained that the following are reasons for regional sediment man-
                     agement:
                        •  Sand is a finite and valuable resource and therefore it needs cost-effective
                           management;
A-8

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
    • The increase of the Corps operation and maintenance backlog;
    • A need to integrate shore protection/navigation; and
    • The President's FY 2001 budget contains only four new General
      Investigation studies and the State of Florida cannot afford any new stud-
      ies on its own until the construction backlog is addressed.

Ms. Dow said that they started their regional program in northeast Florida
because it has numerous significant harbors, including Fernandina Harbor and
Jacksonville Harbor, both home to Navy projects. There are also shore protec-
tion, environmental restoration, and State park projects in the vicinity. In work-
ing on a regional sediment management approach, her office sponsored a series
of public workshops, inviting the community and the stakeholders to attend and
make their concerns known.

Over the last 20 years Fernandina Harbor has  been dredged 19 times. Approxi-
mately 26.4 mcy were dredged costing a total of $94 million, which is about $4.5
million per year. There are many issues and activities for the harbor, including
shore protection for Nassau County beaches, concerns for turtles in the harbor,
and harbor-induced mitigation. The demonstration project for the harbor tried
to address these issues by using bypass sand from the Cumberland Island south-
ern spit for the Nassau County beaches. They  are also considering a future sand
bypass source from the impounded sediment north of North Jetty.

Jacksonville Harbor also experienced years of consecutive dredging. Over a 17-year
period Jacksonville Harbor was dredged 13 times. It cost $57.5 million to dredge
18.3 mcy of materials. Plans for the harbor included deepening the harbor from
38 to 40 feet in WRDA 99, which would mean dredging 22 miles of channels,
with over 8 mcy of material to  be removed, with limited upland disposal capac-
ity. Additionally, there were concerns over bank erosion. For this harbor there are
several potential demonstration projects,  ones that could demonstrate innovative
technologies. These could be projects for St. Mary's entrance, St. John's River, and
St. Augustine Inlet, and a stabilization project  on the south end of Amelia Island.

Ms. Dow stressed  the ideas of spending time and money on the community.
Public outreach could include using interactive websites as a way to share infor-
mation. Ms. Dow  urged participants to keep it simple and allow for creativity
and innovation when trying to solve problems.

Day One - Luncheon Speaker

Mr. Robert Wayland, III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, U.S. EPA, welcomed participants to the workshop. He stated that
he was encouraged by the number and diversity of the participants and chal-
lenged the audience to ensure that the outcome of the workshop was productive
and reflected their best personal efforts.
                                                                                           A-9

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     Mr. Wayland spoke broadly about aquatic coastal resources, environments in
                     which most ports operate. The nation's ocean and coastal habitats support some
                     of the most valuable and diverse biological resources on the planet. This is espe-
                     cially apparent in estuaries, where fresh and salt water mix. However, because
                     so many people are drawn to, or dependent upon, coastal and marine waters,
                     the waters are under considerable  environmental stress. The National Estuary
                     Program (NEP) identified a number of key problems that all 28 NEPs have in
                     common: loss of habitat, nutrient  pollution, toxic chemicals, pathogens, invasive
                     species, marine debris, fishery degradation, and altered freshwater flow.

                     Considering the stresses that our  aquatic coastal resources are under and the ser-
                     vices they provide, Mr. Wayland emphasized the critical needs to protect, con-
                     serve, and restore our coastal resources. He also stated that dredging is a critical
                     need and we all must work together to be sure that necessary dredging is accom-
                     plished in a timely and predictable manner.

                     Dredging is vital to social and economic development. The Corps is responsible
                     for maintaining 25,000 miles of Federal navigation channels. These waterways
                     serve approximately 400 ports in 130 of the nation's largest cities. Mr. Wayland
                     stated his belief that as users and stewards of these waterways together we can
                     implement sustainable practices that protect, enhance, and further the resto-
                     ration of marine resources while meeting the nation's transportation needs.
                     Environmental protection can and must be consistently incorporated into all
                     aspects of dredging activities and  decision-making processes. Significant prog-
                     ress has been made, but we need to continue to focus our energies as, unfortu-
                     nately, we all continue to struggle with too many demands, not enough resources,
                     and never enough time.

                     Mr. Wayland stated that EPA encourages dredged material management plan-
                     ning on a watershed basis. Through comprehensive planning involving the full
                     range of stakeholders, he said, the dredging needs of a region can be addressed,
                     including control of sources  of contaminants and sediments in the upper reaches
                     of the watershed. A variety of dredged material disposal alternatives should be
                     considered in development of long-term dredged material management plans.
                     Project planners should view dredged material as a resource and initiate actions,
                     including looking for local sponsors, such that the amount of dredged material
                     used beneficially in the United States  rises dramatically during this decade.

                     In addition to his Office's coastal mission, Mr. Wayland noted that his Office is
                     responsible for the national implementation of the TMDL Program, one of the
                     emerging issues scheduled to be addressed during the workshop. The objective
                     of the TMDL program is to work toward healthy watersheds by assisting States,
                     Territories, and Tribes to meet their water quality standards. He believes that we
                     all need to work together to ensure that TMDLs help clean up our  sediments,
                     and reduce the influx of even clean sediments, as much as possible.  Mr. Wayland
                     emphasized that linking dredged  material management to ongoing  watershed
A-10

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 management and TMDL development can help to maximize the benefits of
 dredged material management.

 Mr. Wayland stated that he believes that we are on the dawn of widespread
 use of a cooperative approach to watershed protection and restoration. This
 approach, combined with the Marine Transportation System Initiative that
 involves  Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, the private sector, and the
 general public working together, will help move us rapidly into major progress
 during this first decade of the new millennium. Mr. Wayland closed his remarks
 with a challenge to the workshop participants to make this happen.

 Plenary Session

 Moderator: Mr. Michael C. Carter, Director, Office of Environmental
 Activities, US Maritime  Administration

 Mr. John Pauling, Program Manager, Ports & Waterways, Roy F. Weston Inc.,
 presented several beneficial use case studies to illustrate the point that the reuse
 of dredged material is economical and will gain public and private support.

 Mr. Pauling stated that millions of cubic yards of sediment are dredged annually
 from Corps navigational channels, industrial docks, and access channels. Much
 of this sediment contains low levels of pollutants. Traditional disposal options
 (ocean/bay disposal, containment islands, etc.) are becoming more difficult and
 costly to implement. Currently, various options are being pursued for beneficial
 use/recycling of sediment, and Mr. Pauling believes that regions across the coun-
 try have  unique beneficial use opportunities and implementation challenges.

 In order to implement beneficial use projects, Mr.  Pauling thinks that the spe-
 cific nature of the contaminants and the sediment matrix need to be understood.
 The problem should be evaluated and a solution should be found based on a
 systems approach. The full array of solutions should be considered, includ-
 ing technical, financial, and political solutions, and short- and long-term goals
 should be set. Beneficial  uses of dredged materials include construction, envi-
 ronmental, and trophic materials. Trophic uses include manufactured topsoil.
 Construction materials could include aggregate, cement, tiles, and structural fill.
 Environmental uses could include wetland restoration, landfill cover, brownfield
 stabilization, and mine reclamation.

 Mr. Pauling presented several case studies to illustrate the range of projects,
 issues, and potential solutions. For example, the New York/New Jersey harbor was
 faced with problems of where to place contaminated sediments. The Corps, New
 York District, EPA Region 2, and the New York/New Jersey Port Authority are
 looking at several alternatives. The program objectives are to effectively decon-
 taminate contaminated dredged material at high volumes; demonstrate cost-
 effectiveness; and produce practical beneficial reuse products.
                                                                                           A-ll

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    According to Mr. Pauling, the Maryland Port Administration project objective
                    was to:
                        • Recycle up to 500,000 cubic yards of contaminated and non-contaminated
                          dredged material per year;
                        • Provide for renewable sediment storage capacity at the Cox Creek Dredged
                          Material Containment Facility (DMCF); and
                        • Effectively recycle/decontaminate sediments to meet beneficial use prod-
                          uct standards.

                    The Delaware River Port Authority case study was a project sponsored by the
                    Delaware River Port Authority, Corps Philadelphia District, and oil refineries.
                    The objectives of this program were to develop short- and long-term (sustain-
                    able) beneficial use/disposal options for the 45-foot channel-deepening project
                    and to develop short- and long-term (sustainable) dredged material disposal/
                    beneficial use options for industry along the Delaware River.

                    Two other examples Mr. Pauling mentioned were in Puget Sound/
                    Commencement Bay and the Port of Houston. The Puget Sound/
                    Commencement Bay project has numerous sponsors and is in the process of eval-
                    uating technologies for a long-term, multi-use disposal program (MUDS). The
                    Port of Houston and its numerous sponsors have a 45-foot channel-deepening
                    project that will utilize dredged material from the project to  create 4,000+  acres
                    of tidal wetlands. Mr. Pauling said there are challenges for the beneficial use of
                    dredged material. There must be a proven economical technology for treatment
                    and beneficial use, and there must be a supply of dredged material and a market
                    for the beneficial use product. Partnerships between public and private entities
                    are required—good communication and risk/rewards sharing; there should be
                    strong private sector teams for management, technical, and financial assistance;
                    and finally, the project must have the support and acceptance of the public  and
                    political sectors.

                    Mr. Deerin Babb-Brott, Dredging Coordinator, Massachusetts Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management, presented a description and the  lessons learned for
                    the Boston Harbor Dredging project. The project called for dredging the harbor
                    and disposing of contaminated sediment. After comparing the costs to dispose of
                    the materials upland versus the cost to dispose of the material in aquatic contain-
                    ment cells, it was decided to use containment cells.

                    Mr. Babb-Brott said the next question was whether to cap the cells or leave them
                    uncapped. There were strong arguments for both. The justifications for not cap-
                    ping were numerous. It is believed that there is a 2-4 cm per  year net sedimen-
                    tation rate for an uncapped cell. At the suggested Confined Aquatic Disposal
                    (CAD) site, there were dynamic bottom conditions and the disposal material
                    would be of a similar physical and chemical character, with generally degraded
                    benthic conditions. It was believed there was no need to cap the cells. Also, the
A-12

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
finished elevation of the material in the cell would be below the ambient harbor
bottom and it would create a sediment trap. In addition, the Corps's capping
manual, CWA 404, and economics all suggested that capping made no sense.

Justification arguments to cap the cell were just as strong. There has been mas-
sive public investment in cleaning the harbor and improving water quality.
There is also an active  commercial lobster fishery in the harbor. Clean Water
Act Section 404 states  "maintain and restore" waterways. In addition, there was
strong public perception that the harbor was recovering and a valuable resource.

Mr. Babb-Brott stated  that the decision was as follows: Faced with no strong
project precedents to review, pressure to get the project completed, and vocal
concern from interested parties in a position to challenge the agency's action, the
State approved the approach to cap the cell. The State imposed conservative per-
formance standards and rigorous monitoring requirements.

Mr. Babb-Brott said that the lesson learned with this project is that it worked.
He said that the range  of subjective and objective values affected the decision.
The public may not accept the rationales for not capping and as a result, he said,
capping might  have to  be accepted by proponents as a cost of getting the job
done. However, if the next BHNIP project needs a CAD disposal, CZM will
consider a no-cap.

The process for this project was long, with many partners and participants. One
valuable part of the project was the independent observer (IO). An IO was hired
by the Technical Advisory Committee to review and observe all aspects of the
project from an environmental viewpoint. The IO evaluated the technical data
with a focus on compliance with the water quality certificate and  communicated
with the Technical Advisory Committee via e-mail, reports, and meetings. The
Committee felt that the structure worked to the benefit of the project and the
technical feedback loop worked well. The process was well managed and the
burden of the regulatory process was minimized.

Mr. Babb-Brott had a few suggestions when looking to the future. He said that
capping would be a project-specific decision. He thought the Technical Advisory
Committee and the IO worked brilliantly, but required a great deal of effort. He
also suggested incorporating the technical investigations into the project budget
in the future.

Mr. Kelly Burch, Chief- Office of the Great Lakes, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection, and Co-Chair of the Great Lakes Regional
Dredging Team, described the challenges involved in finding solutions to shoreline
erosion that included the beneficial use of dredged materials, while at the same
time being responsive to a diverse public and being environmentally responsible.

Presque Isle State Park is a 3,200-acre migrating sand spit that juts 7 miles into
Lake Erie. It is a major recreational landmark that hosts approximately 4 mil-
                                                                                           A-13

-------
                                               Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     lion visitors each year. The park, a National Natural Designated Landmark,
                     is particularly environmentally sensitive with its constantly evolving shoreline
                     and the presence of numerous plants recognized as being of exceptional value.
                     Additionally, the Audubon Society rates Presque Isle as one of the top birding
                     areas in the northeast.

                     Mr. Burch stated that protection of the spit has been ongoing since 1828. A
                     series of conventional erosion control techniques such as groins, bulkheads, sea-
                     walls, and beach nourishment has been used with varying success. Fine-grained
                     sand accumulation of the back-bay area has been a continual problem. As a
                     result, he said, the park struggles with the problem of dredging these areas and
                     finding a suitable disposal option for the dredged material. In 1993 a Resource
                     Management Plan was developed in order to protect the park's ecosystem. The
                     Plan designated much of Presque Isle as either a low-density or natural area.
                     These areas are defined as places that exhibit significant natural processes and
                     are resources where very little or no  development of recreational facilities or
                     infrastructure should occur.

                     Mr. Burch said that as a result of the erosion problems along the bay and the
                     development of a sand bar within the back-bay area of the park, the decision
                     was made to seek funding to find an innovative solution to these problems. The
                     Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of State Parks
                     - Presque Isle State Park, in conjunction with the Presque Isle Partnership,
                     secured funding via a matching grant from the Great Lakes Commission. The
                     project included coordination and input from major stakeholders, including State
                     and Federal government units, as well as private, nonprofit volunteer organiza-
                     tions, to design, implement, and provide construction services for the project.

                     The project concept called for providing the park with the infrastructure pro-
                     tection needed, as well as creating a shoreline that resembled natural shorelines
                     along environmentally sensitive areas of the park. Additionally, the project pro-
                     vided a beneficial use of dredged material from the back-bay sand bar.  To realize
                     the goals of the project, the decision was made that rather than solely utilizing
                     conventional riprap, the project would incorporate a combination of riprap as
                     well as indigenous vegetation, bioengineering, dredged material, and innovative
                     landscape architecture to retard shoreline erosion along a heavily used, multipur-
                     pose trail.

                     Previously, conventional erosion protection techniques at Presque Isle State Park
                     have been both costly and inappropriate for natural area management.  Mr. Burch
                     said that this economical project, with a total cost of $33,000, provided a natural
                     and aesthetic alternative to conventional shoreline erosion protection, provided
                     for the beneficial use of dredged material, and provided an area for turtle migra-
                     tion and egg hatching.  While remaining within standard bureaucratic  financial
                     constraints, the project offers a valuable example to other parks and recreational
                     facilities along the Great Lakes faced with the  challenge of minimizing erosion
A-14

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
while maintaining a natural appearance, and finding a beneficial use for dredged
material.

Mr. Eric Stern, Regional Contaminated Sediment Program Manager, EPA
Region 2, presented an informative array of possibilities for using decontami-
nated sediments for both environmental restoration and economic development.
He believes that sediment decontamination fits into the matrix of dredged
material/contaminated sediment management and environmental restoration sce-
narios. Combine these with the economic drivers for revitalization/development
for using beneficial use products derived from dredged materials for ports and
waterways.

Mr. Stern believes decontamination has a role in aquatic restoration outside of
navigable channels. Restored environments will become additional economic
drivers for the revitalization of urban watershed communities and ports within
impacted regional corridors. Comparing disposal costs of the beneficial use
material, he stressed that the cost has to get down to the proposed Federal
benchmark of ± $29 per cubic yard.

Beneficial uses of dredged material products are numerous. They can be used
for construction purposes such as fill, aggregate, and cement; trophic purposes
including manufactured topsoil and potting soil; roof granules and architectural
tiles; and environmental purposes including wetland restoration, landfill cover,
and brownfields redevelopment. From an economic point of view, there is the
potential for a constant stream of feed material.

With decontamination integration, Mr. Stern believes that brownfield closure
sites can become business development sites. The sites can be reused by perform-
ing solidification and/or stabilization processes. Sediments could be integrated
into the site by using a thermochemical process to provide manufactured-grade
cement, or they could be  integrated using a sediment/soil washing process to
manufacture topsoil. There are  also  links to be made between sediment decon-
tamination and port development. For example, the Passaic River Corridor
Restoration and Revitalization project in Newark, New Jersey, is using decon-
tamination with beneficial use.

With riverine-canal restoration, Mr. Stern said, there are several techniques
being used depending on the level of contamination. For moderately contami-
nated sites, such as mudflats, nonthermal technologies are used. Companies such
as BioGenesis/R.F. Weston, Inc., NUI Environmental,  Inc., and BEM Systems
are employing technologies to create products  such as topsoil and fill for brown-
fields, and projects for landscaping, habitat restoration, and port development.

Mr. Stern stated that thermal technologies are being used on most sediments
contaminated with TCDD, PCBs, PAHs, Hg, Cr, Pb, etc., by companies like
Endesco, JCI/Upcycle, and Westinghouse/GPS in order to develop products
                                                                                          A-15

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     such as cement, lightweight aggregate, and glass. These products could be used
                     in geotechnical materials, pedestrian malls, bicycle paths, and roadways.

                     There are numerous barriers to technology implementation, including the long-
                     term forecasting for dredging and the funds to dredge. Public funding is needed
                     for centralized dredged sediment storage and management facilities. Other waste
                     streams should be used to ensure a continuous stream to feed the process. Mr.
                     Stern suggested that partnering between facilities would increase the volume of
                     recycled dredged material that could be marketed. He believes that this would
                     reduce the impact of market variability. Mr. Stern added that the use of recycled
                     dredged material products should be mandated in public works projects and
                     education should be provided to illustrate the benefits of using recycled dredged
                     material products.

                     Mr. Andrew Voros, Executive Director, NY/NJ Clean Ocean & Shore Trust,
                     described a geological restoration project that used dredged materials in the
                     restoration of abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania. He began by outlining
                     the problems in Pennsylvania. Scars of anthracite mining, a major industry in
                     Pennsylvania, cover the landscape of the State. There are 9,000 abandoned mines
                     in Pennsylvania, 5,600 of which have been designated as human health hazards.
                     Along with the physical scars of collapsing mines, such as the 800 annual reports
                     of subsidence and one-quarter of a million acres of impacted mine lands, there are
                     3,000 miles of contaminated streams and rivers that are too acidic to support fish.

                     One project  that is using dredged material beneficially is the Bark Camp proj-
                     ect, a coal mine site in central Pennsylvania, where coal seams were outcropped
                     through the top of a hillside. Where there once was a gentle hillside, there now
                     stands a 120-foot cliff. The project is using dredged sediments from the Hudson
                     and Delaware watersheds, mixed with coal fly ash, to form a soil-cement. This
                     manufactured fill is being placed  in lifts to restore the original contour of the area
                     before it was mined. The hardened fill is then covered with artificial soils and
                     planted. Six  monitoring wells have been dug around the site. Tests have shown
                     that all the water collected, both  from the wells and running off the material,
                     passes drinking water standards.  The final phase of this restoration will involve
                     day-lighting the stream and returning the area to its pre-mining condition.

                     Mr. Voros described several other examples. The first was a single abandoned
                     mine feature in the anthracite region as a twin crop-fall. This is an area where
                     twin seams are parallel and the crop is stripped out from below and eventually
                     collapses. The dimension of this particular crop-fall was 100 feet wide by 400
                     feet deep by 32 miles long, and the cropfall is estimated to have a fill require-
                     ment of one  billion cubic yards. The second example was the Jeddo Mine
                     Tunnels.  These are three individual mines, several miles apart, that eventually
                     connect with another five-mile-long tunnel. Gravity drains the water that col-
                     lects in the tunnels. This mine tunnel system continues to pollute the waters it
                     drains into today. Mr. Voros said it has an estimated fill capacity of one billion
                     cubic yards.
A-16

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Even where such tunnels were not purposely excavated, underground mines
 connect across vast areas, allowing acidic waters to affect watersheds miles
 away. In some places, entire streams drain into mine pools, leaving their courses
 dry. Another problem is acid mine drainage (AMD), which can dissolve huge
 amounts of iron, turning streambeds bright orange for miles, or leave white slicks
 of aluminum, sterilizing waterways. AMD is the number one cause of water pol-
 lution in every single Appalachian coal mining State.

 Mr. Voros hopes that it will be possible to test the method used for the Bark
 Camp project for deep mine reclamation as well. There are many potential sites
 for the reuse of dredged material in Pennsylvania that could help solve State
 problems as well as problems in New York/New Jersey.

 Panel 3— Emerging Issues
Moderator :Mx. Jim McGrath, Port of Oakland

Dr. Todd Bridges, Research Biologist, Waterways Experiment Station, dis-
cussed "Decision-Making Using Risk Assessment/Risk Management for Results
of Bioaccumulation Testing." Dr. Bridges outlined the statutory and regulatory
sections of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and
the Clean Water Act that affect marine life and materials that are dumped into
waterways.

Management decisions for dredged material testing are based on sediment chem-
istry, sediment toxicity, and bioaccumulation. Four tiers are considered: Tier I uses
existing data; Tier II uses physical/chemical data, screening tests, and predictive
models; Tier III uses toxicity tests and bioaccumulation tests; and Tier IV uses
chronic sublethal tests, steady-state bioaccumulation tests, and risk assessment.

Dr. Bridges said current guidance for interpreting bioaccumulation data includes
comparing the data to FDA action levels (nine listed in ITM). If no FDA levels
are exceeded, dredged material- and reference sediment-exposed animals are
statistically compared. This statistical comparison is interpreted by considering
a number of factors, including the number of bioaccumulated contaminants, the
magnitude of bioaccumulation, the toxicological importance of the  contami-
nants, the propensity for the contaminants to biomagnify, and a comparison to
background concentrations.

Research effort is currently being focused on the spatial and temporal scales of
predicting far-field impacts. It should be noted that contaminant concentration
varies over space and time at disposal sites and animals spend variable amounts
of time in, or around, disposal sites. To evaluate the site, Dr. Bridges said, expo-
sure estimates must include consideration of the spatial and temporal elements of
exposure.
                                                                                           A-17

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     Dr. Bridges said that in assessing human and ecological risks, managers must
                     assess the potential for "significant undesirable effects." This requires specific
                     information about the likelihood of exposure and the toxicology of the contami-
                     nants. Efficient and effective decision making also requires the use of a frame-
                     work for making use of the information. The commonly applied risk paradigm
                     provides the basic elements of such a framework and includes problem formula-
                     tion, analysis (which includes characterization of exposure and the characteriza-
                     tion of ecological effects), and risk characterization.

                     Dr. Bridges provided two brief examples to illustrate the need for  more compre-
                     hensive analysis of risks in the dredging program. The first example quantified
                     the degree to which human health risks were overestimated by using conservative
                     default assumptions and the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) approach,
                     compared to using probabilistic input parameters. Always defaulting to the use
                     of conservative point estimates creates programmatic "burdens." The second
                     example demonstrated the importance of spatial issues in exposure assessment.
                     Disposal sites are relatively small (3.75 km2); fish mobility varies among spe-
                     cies; and many recreational and commercial species range over large areas. Dr.
                     Bridges said their research has shown that risks can be substantially overesti-
                     mated if fish behavior and movement patterns are not considered when charac-
                     terizing exposure to disposal site sediments.

                     When residue-effects data are used to assess ecological effects, stronger infer-
                     ences, based on the concept of dose-response, can be developed on the potential
                     for ecological impacts. The residue-effects approach is more quantitative and
                     reduces uncertainty. It also provides useful data for managing sediment by offer-
                     ing the potential for identifying likely causative agents.

                     Selecting the best management alternatives, which differ significantly in terms of
                     relevant exposure pathways and receptors of concern, will be assisted by develop-
                     ing approaches for comparing risks using equivalent terms.

                     Dr. Bridges said there are programmatic benefits  of risk-based decision-making.
                     Uncertainties are acknowledged and "reasonable assurance" is quantified. There
                     is a reduced reliance on unrealistic assumptions, and the ability to do compara-
                     tive assessments and apply "what if" scenarios offers considerable benefit. He said
                     risk-based decision making also offers the potential for balancing cost against
                     incremental reductions in risk. Site-specific risk assessments are reusable and
                     cost-effective.

                     To conclude, Dr. Bridges stated that evaluating the likelihood for  adverse effects
                     resulting from contaminant bioaccumulation involves complex questions. These
                     complexities must be explicitly addressed in a quantitative  manner to improve the
                     current process. The Corps is  developing more comprehensive assessment tools
                     to evaluate risks posed by contaminant bioaccumulation.
A-18

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Mr. Brian Ross, Dredging and Sediment Management Team, U.S. EPA Region
9, gave an overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program and
its potential effects on dredging programs/projects, and made recommendations
for needed national guidance.

He first defined a TMDL as the amount of pollutant that a waterbody can
receive and still meet water quality standards. States have reported that over 40
percent of assessed waterbodies are still too polluted for fishing or swimming
even after 28 years of water pollution control efforts.

The Clean Water Act, § 303 (d) requires States to identify waters not meeting
State water quality standards, producing a § 303 (d) list; set priorities for TMDL
development; and  develop a TMDL for each listed water. EPA can approve or
disapprove State submissions, and if disapproved, can act in lieu of the State.

Mr. Ross said that States have identified about 21,000 polluted water segments,
lakes, and estuaries, with over 300,000 river and shore miles and 5 million lake
acres. Translating  this information means 218 million Americans live within
10 miles of an impaired waterbody. The leading reasons for poor water quality
include excess sediments, nutrients, and harmful microorganisms. By category,
sources of impairment from the 1998 § 303 (d) list include 47 percent combina-
tion of point and nonpoint sources, 43 percent nonpoint sources only; and  10
percent point sources only.

Regulations were first issued for TMDLs in 1985 and provisions included non-
point source and load allocations. The regulations were revised in 1992 and
called for State lists every two years. Most recently, in 1999, revisions were made
to the TMDL regulations and NPDES regulations were proposed, and the
final rule was issued in July 2000. However, a congressional rider on military
construction/supplemental appropriations prohibits EPA from implementing
this rule. As  a result, the TMDL program continues under the 1992 regulations
and agreements reached through litigation. Under the 1992 regulations, States
must develop lists  of impaired water bodies; submit the list under a 2-year cycle;
and describe  the methodology used for compiling the list. The regulations also
outline the components of a TMDL and the priorities and schedule for TMDL
development. The regulations allow for public review and outline actions EPA
could take regarding the list and TMDLs.

Interpretative guidance was issued in 1997 for the 1992 regulations. The guid-
ance sought to establish a nationally consistent approach for  developing and
implementing TMDLs. The guidance suggested that States should develop
schedules for establishing TMDLs expeditiously, generally within  8-13 years  of
being listed. Also, States should describe plans for implementing load allocations
for nonpoint sources. According to Mr. Ross, EPA's objectives for the 2000 Rule
are to establish an effective and flexible framework to move the country toward
the goal of clean water for all Americans, and to establish a process for making
                                                                                           A-19

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     decisions in a common sense, cost-effective way on how best to restore polluted
                     waterbodies.

                     Mr. Ross stated that currently, the TMDL 2000 Final Rule cannot be imple-
                     mented and the 1992 regulations and interpretive guidance govern the program.
                     In many instances, consent decrees and/or settlement agreements will guide
                     TMDL development.

                     Mr. Ross then went on to raise a variety of issues and concerns about potential
                     effects of the TMDL Program as it is currently evolving on dredging projects
                     and the dredging program overall. The following points were made regard-
                     ing the application of TMDLs to dredging. First, to be permittable, all § 404
                     discharges must comply with applicable WQS. However, are contaminants in
                     dredged material a "new" source within a waterbody? Always? When they are,
                     should wasteload allocations apply (as for point sources), versus BMPs, etc. (as
                     for nonpoint sources)? Should mixing/dilution (built into current sediment test-
                     ing protocols) remain allowable? Under what circumstances? Second, how should
                     we regulate dredging and disposal in the approximately 10 years until specific
                     TMDLs are published? Third, some challenges to dredging projects have
                     already occurred, at least partially related to TMDL issues.

                     Mr. Ross then discussed San Francisco and Chesapeake Bay issues. In
                     Chesapeake Bay, there are nutrient concerns (dredging and disposal); offsets are
                     proposed as mitigation. In San Francisco, water quality in return flow from ben-
                     eficial use sites and CDFs has been  challenged. Dispersive disposal sites are an
                     additional concern. In both cases, in-place "TMDL-like" regional management
                     plans were seen as part of the solution. But what about areas of the country with-
                     out comprehensive dredged material management plans in place?

                     National guidance is needed. The NDT is an appropriate forum to develop a
                     recommended national approach. Stakeholder involvement in the process is criti-
                     cal. Discussions should specifically include experts from the dredging and water
                     quality programs in EPA, and from the dredging and regulatory programs in the
                     Corps.

                     Mr. Tom Bigford, Chief, Habitat Protection Division, NOAA Fisheries, Office
                     of Habitat Conservation, discussed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
                     and Management Act, and the issues of essential fish habitat. According to
                     the Act, the term "essential fish habitat" (EFH) means "those waters and sub-
                     strate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity."
                     The Act established eight regional fishery management councils composed of
                     State fisheries agency officials, representatives of the commercial and recre-
                     ational fishing industries, environmental groups, and others who have a stake
                     in fishery management. The Councils are to develop fishery management plans
                     and amendments to the plans and submit them to NMFS for approval by the
A-20

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Secretary of Commerce. NMFS's duties include implementing and enforcing the
 measures developed by the Councils.

 Currently, Mr. Bigford said, there are approximately 40 fishery management
 plans in place, with about 700 managed species included in the plans. The EFH
 sections will enhance efforts to protect essential habitats of those species. NMFS
 and the Councils must minimize fishing impacts, and Federal action agencies
 (through NMFS) must provide greater  consideration of non-fishing impacts.
 This includes internal NOAA actions such as restoration and other programs.

 Mr. Bigford stated that with EFH consultations, Federal agencies must consult
 with NMFS regarding any action that may adversely affect EFH. NMFS must
 provide conservation recommendations  to Federal or State agencies on actions
 that would adversely affect EFH, and Federal agencies must respond in writing to
 NMFS's recommendations. He said that almost all EFH consultations are inte-
 grated into other environmental review processes such as the Clean Water Act,
 the Endangered Species Act, and/or the National Environmental Policy Act.

 For any action that may require a consultation, Federal agencies must prepare a
 written EFH Assessment that includes:
    • A description of the proposed action;
    • An analysis of the effects of the action on EFH and associated species;
    • The Federal agency's views regarding the effects of the action on EFH;
      and
    • A discussion of proposed mitigation, if applicable.

 The level of detail for the EFH assessment should be commensurate with the
 potential threat to the EFH. Mr. Bigford said that if the project is minor, then
 the assessment could be a simple paragraph. If the project has a substantial
 impact, he said, then a more detailed assessment will be necessary.

 Mr. Bigford provided an example of how an EFH consultation for an individual
 Corps permit might occur. First, for most projects, an EFH assessment may be
 included as  a brief statement in the Corps's Public Notice, but projects that may
 cause substantial adverse effects may require a more detailed EFH assessment.
 Second, NMFS would provide recommendations during the Public Notice
 comment period established by the Corps. Finally, the Corps would provide
 NMFS with a written response to the EFH Conservation Recommendations
 within 30 days.

 How might EFH consultations affect port development and operations? Mr.
 Bigford offered and answered four commonly asked questions:
    1. When is consultation required?
      Answer: The Federal agency must consult if dredging or disposal "may
      adversely affect" EFH.
                                                                                          A-21

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                        2. What concerns might NMFS raise ?
                          Answer: In most cases NMFS's EFH concerns will be the same issues
                          that are raised under other laws, such as impacts to submerged aquatic
                          vegetation and disposal of contaminated material.
                        3. How does this relate to other environmental reviews?
                          Answer: In most cases, EFH consultation would be combined with the
                          Corps's permitting or approval process.
                        4. How is this different from NMFS's role in the past?
                          Answer: EFH emphasizes Federally managed species, and the action
                          agency must respond to NMFS in writing regarding EFH.

                    Ms. Jackie Savitz, Executive Director, Coast Alliance, outlined her ideas for
                    opportunities for improvement within the regulatory process. While acknowl-
                    edging the navigational need for dredging, Ms. Savitz has some concerns that
                    she believes should be addressed. While moving into the 21st century, the
                    marine transportation community has some significant challenges to overcome.
                    Ms. Savitz said there are a few issues worth noting. Some are emerging issues
                    and others, she said, have been around for a while but need to be examined. By
                    anticipating the changing landscape for dredging, she suggested that the marine
                    transportation community can plan a strategy to avoid running into brick walls,
                    and instead invest more energy in fewer projects with bigger payoffs and in ones
                    that have a better chance of succeeding.

                    Ms. Savitz said dredging issues could be discussed in the context of a chair's four
                    legs: regional planning, pollution prevention and minimization of sediments,
                    decontamination, and beneficial use. Without all four,  she said, it is difficult to
                    be supportive of beneficial reuse. Ms. Savitz pointed out that we need to know
                    that measures are being taken to reduce the overall amount of sediments in need
                    of disposal and the overall contamination issues in order to plan ahead for navi-
                    gation dredging.

                    Decision-makers are realizing that transportation issues, including  marine trans-
                    portation, need to be considered in a big picture way. That is good, Ms. Savitz
                    said, but the  marine transportation community does not seem to have developed
                    a 21st century strategy for making the best of this trend. The costs versus the
                    benefits need to be real. There is new scrutiny being paid to  cost/benefit studies.
                    She said citizens are challenging the studies and the way they are done by the
                    Corps.

                    Wildlife windows are another issue, said Ms. Savitz. For most aquatic species,
                    populations depend on survival rates that are naturally very low. Impacting the
                    few animals that do survive can take a toll on a population. By determining
                    a window, dredging is allowed to move forward even when it takes  place, for
                    example, in essential fish habitat. Dredging does impact fish communities, but
                    proper timing helps move the project forward.
A-22

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Ms. Savitz feels that it is inappropriate to talk about dredging without some dis-
cussion of pollution prevention. The marine transportation community quickly
got onto the pollution prevention bandwagon, blaming upstream land uses for the
siltation of channels. She believes ports should be working in a positive way with
upstream businesses to promote pollution prevention. Pollution prevention invest-
ments upstream could be a benefit where, for example, a TMDL was involved. If
nutrients are controlled upstream, there will be less in the channels, which would
minimize the challenges associated with dredged material management.

When it comes to dredging, her advice is to minimize it, but where it has to hap-
pen, beneficial reuse could be promoted widely. Her first question was "What
is beneficial?" Ms.  Savitz does not believe it has been well defined. The envi-
ronmental community would likely support beneficial reuse when the material
is clean, meaning it does not contain more than trace amounts of chemicals as
defined in the MPRSA, and when a cumulative environmental impact statement
(EIS) shows that the project does not impact the environment and provides a
demonstrable benefit that is not achievable without dredged material.

When considering wetlands, Ms. Savitz had two concerns: sediments must be
nontoxic, and creating a wetland out of dredged material is not the same as pro-
tecting a natural wetland. It should absolutely not be considered mitigation for
the destruction of a natural wetland. Beneficial use projects should not be done
as a basis for, or in exchange for, land development or wetland filling projects.

Finally, cleanup or environmental dredging is an emerging issue. The short-term
risks  of cleanup dredging are always the first order of business for responsible
parties, but the long-term benefits must also be considered. These include envi-
ronmental improvements such as habitat restoration and improvements in public
health.  Similarly, the long-term impacts of leaving toxic sediments in place must
be considered as well.

Panel 4—Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams (RDTs)

Moderator: Mr. Kelly Burch, Administrative Officer, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection

Mr. Craig Vogt, Deputy Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division,
U.S. EPA, and NDT Co-Chair, summarized progress in establishing Regional
Dredging Teams and challenged the participants to create additional RDTs and
local planning/project groups to address the regional and local dredging issues.

To date, nine RDTs have been established, but Mr. Vogt pointed out that chal-
lenges remain for a number of the RDTs to meet their potential. The NDT
provided guidance in 1996 offering suggestions on the organization of RDTs,
membership, and operating principles. Mr. Vogt emphasized that there is no
single structure or model RDT that works everywhere, but RDTs should be cre-
ated to appropriately address the regional and local issues.
                                                                                         A-23

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    A key component of successful dredged material management is not only
                    addressing the regional issues but also setting up mechanisms to resolve local
                    project issues as well. Comprehensive dredged material management planning
                    is a critical component in resolution of local issues and can serve as an early
                    warning system that issues are on the horizon. Establishment of local planning/
                    project groups (LPGs) to develop dredged material management plans and to
                    address the local project issues has proven to effectively assist in timely resolution
                    of the issues in order to get the dredging accomplished while meeting environ-
                    mental goals. Representatives of all stakeholders, including Federal,  State, and
                    local government, port authorities, environmental interest groups, consultants,
                    and academia, should be members of the LPGs. The NDT issued guidance on
                    LPGs in 1998.

                    Mr. Vogt stated that mechanisms should be established for communication
                    between the RDT and the LPGs, such that the RDT can assist in resolution
                    of any issues that cannot be solved at the local level. Similarly, the NDT issued
                    guidance in 1999 on elevation of issues to the NDT from RDTs.

                    In his final comments, Mr. Vogt emphasized the need for RDTs to take a more
                    active role to ensure that proposed dredged material projects are appropriately
                    designed and planned such that dredging and environmental issues are addressed
                    up front and integral to the overall project plan. Inclusion of representatives from
                    all interested stakeholders is very important as well as project planning on a
                    watershed basis.

                    Mr. Steve Thorp, Program Manager, Great Lakes Commission (GLC), dis-
                    cussed his organization and the Great Lakes Dredging Team. The Great Lakes
                    Commission is an interstate agency founded in 1955 and based in  Ann Arbor,
                    Michigan. Its focus is on the water resources of the Great Lakes basin and every-
                    thing connected to them, from shipping, to erosion, to aquatic nuisance species.
                    There are eight member States, and the Provinces of Quebec and  Ontario have
                    recently joined as associate members.

                    Mr. Thorp said the Great Lakes Dredging Team was created in 1996. He said
                    that this Federal/State partnership grew out of a recommendation from the
                    Federal interagency working group that was looking at dredging issues nation-
                    ally and at the ways to solve problems with the process. The Great Lakes team
                    adopted a charter that defines its structure and procedures. Its structure may be
                    slightly different from that of other regional dredging teams. The Great Lakes
                    Dredging Team State role is enhanced and substantial. The GLC had a dredging
                    task force for many years and when the time came to join with the  Great Lakes
                    Dredging Team, Mr. Thorp said, the group wanted to preserve that part of its
                    character. He said there are two members from each State.  Usually, members
                    have an environmental and/or maritime interest. There is also a legislative com-
                    mittee that advocates legislative and regulatory matters in Washington, DC. The
                    Dredging Team has co-chairs, one State person and one Federal agency person.
A-24

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Mr. Thorp outlined the four main objectives of the Great Lakes Dredging
Team:
    • To ensure timely and cost-effective dredging of harbors and channels,
      while meeting environmental goals.
    • To facilitate the resolution of dredging issues common to the Great Lakes
      region.
    • To promote implementation of recommendations of interagency reports on
      the dredging process.
    • To facilitate stakeholder communication.

The Team meets twice a year, sometimes in conjunction with the Great Lakes
Commission. Mr. Thorp said its current priority is the beneficial use of dredged
material and exploring how to expand its use in the Great Lakes. With the
cost of finding acceptable disposal sites for dredged material increasing, benefi-
cial uses such as beach nourishment, soil conditioners, mine reclamation, road
construction, and even structures to protect against wave action have become
better solutions. Last year, the GLC received EPA funding to develop recom-
mendations for advancing beneficial uses. A task force was established, and the
Dredging Team has been directly involved with some overlapping membership.
This spring the task force will publish recommendations along with a brochure
on beneficial use.

Mr. Thorp said an emerging issue for the Dredging Team is environmental win-
dows. There was a proposal at the Team's last meeting to discuss an approach that
could help resolve the problems of window constraints. Most of their 100-plus
Federal dredging projects have window constraints. There are windows in the
summer when most work is done, but there are also windows during the winter,
when dredging work is not feasible. According to Mr. Thorp, the new regional
approach will look at existing windows and evaluate whether modifications to
those windows, or even the dredging process, could reduce some of the dredging
logistical concerns. Another priority is recreational harbor  dredging. The record
low water levels in recent years have  hurt many small craft harbors, those both
publicly and privately maintained. At a workshop to be held in Cleveland on July
16, 2001, the GLC and the Dredging Team will discuss this issue.

The Dredging Team also has a very developed public awareness program. Mr.
Thorp said the goal of the program  is to raise public awareness. There are three
elements to  their program: a network of local advocates, a regional advocate, and
effective public outreach tools. Local advocates, he said, could be port directors,
marina associations, or other groups interested in dredging. The regional advo-
cate is needed to identify, encourage, and support local advocates. The Dredging
Team serves as the regional advocate. Mr. Thorp said the outreach process began
with a Public Outreach Plan. Currently, he said, they have a list of 90 local
advocates and the number continues to grow. They also have a website to help
                                                                                           A-25

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     broaden their reach. Other activities to increase awareness include publishing
                     Dredging and the Great Lakes and producing fact sheets.

                     Mr. Doug Hotchkiss, Senior Environmental Program Manager, Port of Seattle,
                     presented the Puget Sound perspective on regional dredging teams and port
                     participation. The Port's participation with regional dredging teams began in
                     1984 when they began working with Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Authority
                     (PSDDA). There was a signed agreement for the Management of Dredged
                     Material Issues.

                     Mr. Hotchkiss said they really all started working together as the result of a
                     crisis situation, when a local permitting agency was concerned about open water
                     disposal for a project. Mr. Hotchkiss believes the reason why the process was
                     successful was that they had a strong start, with two EISs being funded. But
                     he also feels that it was successful because the process was open. There were
                     lots of work groups with  all the user groups invited to participate, including the
                     ports and environmental groups. Another reason why the process was successful,
                     he believes, is that they dealt with the issues in small, "bite-sized" pieces. They
                     looked at the problems and dealt first with those issues that could be solved. They
                     also made decisions, as much as possible, based on the best science available.

                     Mr. Hotchkiss said the effort continues today, with monitoring to provide con-
                     tinuing information and a track record. There are monthly meetings that include
                     the agencies involved and the public to discuss projects and issues. He said they
                     also hold annual meetings that are open to all. The process is not locked in
                     stone, but changes as needs and issues change. They also provide the opportunity
                     for lots of feedback loops. Originally, they were just looking at ocean disposal,
                     but now they look at bigger, broader issues, as well as future challenges.

                     Mr. Hotchkiss believes that the old formulas for looking at bioaccumulation and
                     chronic testing, and endpoints will still work when looking at what is afford-
                     able and predictable, but the scope should be broader with new issues and treat-
                     ment possibilities.  With  the issues of disposal of unsuitable dredged material, he
                     believes, the scope has to be broader and expand from  the regional subgroup, for
                     example, such as Puget Sound, to the larger  area of the Northwest.

                     According to Mr. Hotchkiss, the Endangered Species  Act (ESA) has created a
                     whole new set of players  and a new paradigm. Here, too, he thinks maybe RDTs,
                     with all the groups of the Northwest, need to address this issue. Mr. Hotchkiss
                     believes the challenge of the ESA is that it is now "becoming woven through
                     everything we do,  as the rivers,  streams and  shorelines are woven through our
                     Puget Sound community."

                     Lessons and thoughts for all to understand, according  to Mr. Hotchkiss, are to
                     be flexible at the subregion level for specific  issues, consistently work together
                     to build trust, and start strong and keep the process open. Ports should continue
                     to do regular business in the interim. He said that most ports are driven by day-
A-26

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
to-day economic changes and they need to be responsive to that but, with global
pressures on navigation and transportation, Mr. Hotchkiss believes, the ports
must be able to change, or the economics will change as trade moves elsewhere.

Mr. Fred Stine, Citizen Action Coordinator, Delaware Riverkeeper Network,
discussed his organization's perspective on dredging. Mr. Stine began his pre-
sentation by describing the Delaware Deepening Project and the lack of pub-
lic participation and input in the project's early stages. This project will cost
approximately $311 million to deepen 108 miles of the channel to 45 feet. The
Delaware Riverkeeper Network is leading the opposition to the project along
with 12 local, regional, State, and national environmental organizations. There
are environmental and economic aspects to challenging the project. Eventually
they gained Congressional support for the Government Accounting Office to
review the project so that there might be unbiased and informed decisions on the
merits of this project.

Actively soliciting input and participation from local and regional environmental
organizations should be a mandatory step in deepening and port expansion proj-
ects. Maintenance dredging is necessary and port expansion may be warranted.
Mr. Stine stated, however, city groups and grassroots organizations could play a
critical  role in the early decision-making process. Mr. Stine strongly believes that
they provide a different and valuable perspective. They provide more information
from the citizens who are going to be impacted both ecologically and economi-
cally. They have an insight and information that could be beneficial to the project.
By involving the local community, Mr. Stine believes, a locally preferred plan
could be developed that would get public buy-in. Citizens have already shown
that they are interested and capable of participating in technical issues at this
level, Mr. Stine said "Involve them!" They are making sacrifices and putting in
the extra hours for the project. They are involved because it is important to them.

Mr. Stine asked, "What is in it for them?" People working at the grassroots level
will have their voices heard; it can come as a partner in the early stages or as
opposition at the "11th hour." He also thinks a local planning team would help. If
citizens had better information, they might not oppose the project.

Mr. Stine concluded his presentation by stating that citizen groups will commit
time and energy to a project. They can either be the opposition or help to create a
better project. He suggested channeling their energy to help design better projects.

Day Two - Luncheon Speaker

Mr. Jerry Schubel, President, New England Aquarium, presented his vision,
"A New Kind of Aquarium for the New Millennium." Some 30 years after it
opened, Mr. Schubel said, the New England Aquarium is designing a new kind
of aquarium, one tuned to the needs and opportunities of the 21st century. It
has been suggested that this century will be the century of water, much the way
the last century was the century of oil. Increasing pressures on aquatic resources
                                                                                           A-27

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     could lead to irreversible losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Mr.
                     Schubel believes that aquariums and zoos need to bring the public down from
                     the balcony and put them back into nature, so they can discover that we are part
                     of nature and so that they can understand, at a deep personal level, what we are
                     doing to the planet and to the other living creatures with which we share it.

                     The New England Aquarium's new facility is being designed to exploit the best
                     of live animal exhibits and technology to create a powerful platform for learn-
                     ing through exploration and discovery. A new wing, Mr. Schubel said, will more
                     than double the size of the existing facility and will focus on the Gulf of Maine.
                     Regional habitats, ecosystems, and issues will be put into larger contexts in both
                     space and time.

                     Mr. Schubel said that live animal exhibits would be embedded in an active infor-
                     mational  space to provide a powerful metaphor for nature on planet Earth—an
                     Earth that is being increasingly fragmented and isolated by a rapidly evolving
                     global community and economy. The New England Aquarium has embarked
                     upon the  creation of a waterfront campus that will include the expanded
                     aquarium, an interactive digital theater, a 3-D IMAX theater, and an expanded
                     Exploration Center. Mr. Schubel believes that, collectively, these constitute the
                     world's first Public Aquatic Academy.
A-28

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Appendix B

Summary of Environmental Windows Session
National Dredging Team Conference
Jacksonville, Florida  •  January 23, 2001

Session: An Overview of the NRC Project and a Brief Primer on
          "Environmental Windows."
         Jerry Schubel and Denise Reed

Jerry Schubel, the President of the New England Aquarium and the Chair of
the National Research Council's Environmental Windows Steering Committee,
opened the session by outlining for the audience the specific charge to the
Environmental Windows Steering Committee. The Committee will conduct an
analysis of environmental dredging windows as a management tool, focusing on
(1) their effectiveness in protecting natural resources; (2) the processes by which
they are developed, applied, and managed; and (3) the other management and
technological tools available that could be  used in conjunction with, or instead of,
environmental windows. The Committee  will also produce a set of recommenda-
tions to improve the processes by which environmental windows are developed
and will seek to improve the efficacy of environmental dredging windows as one
of a number of tools available to protect natural resources.

Denise Reed commenced her talk by defining the term "Environmental
Windows" for the audience. Specifically, "Environmental Windows result from
temporary constraints placed upon the  conduct of dredging or dredged material
disposal operations in order to protect biological resources or their habitats from
potentially detrimental effects." In other words, the periods of time that are free
from constraints or seasonal restrictions are technically classified as the environ-
mental windows. For each dredging project, the goal is to achieve cost-effective
dredging while maintaining and protecting biological resources. On one side of
the coin, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) must be cognizant of project
timelines, the availability of equipment, and the safety risks posed by dredging
in potentially inclement  weather.1 On the other side of the coin, resource biolo-
gists must consider the life histories of  multiple species (particularly endangered
species) that migrate through dredging areas along with critical habitat con-
cerns. Frequently biologists and regulatory agencies are hampered in their mis-
sions to protect critical resources by a lack of definitive scientific information. In
these cases, the agencies that are charged with protecting public trust resources
feel obligated to adopt a conservative/risk adverse approach. In addition, the
resource agencies and the ACOE are bound by a multitude of laws designed to
protect biological resources, e.g., NEPA, CWA, MPRSA, FWCA, MMPA,
ESA, MSFCMA. Lastly, both the ACOE and the resource agencies must
 frequently environmental windows occur in the winter months, when the biological activity is at a minimum
 but the potential risk to human safety is at a maximum.
                                                                                          B-l

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                     contend with regional variations in hydrography, environment, and economic
                     development/dredging needs, along with variations in interagency coordination
                     and relationship structures.

                     The task of the Environmental Windows Steering Committee is twofold: (1) to
                     ensure that the process utilized for setting windows is based on science; and (2) to
                     develop a template for the process that ensures consistency across the United States.

                     Session: A Panel Discussion on the Process of Setting, Administering, and
                              Monitoring Dredging Windows.
                              Susan-Marie Stedman, NOAA - Moderator; Doug Clarke, ACOE; Ron
                              Sechler, NMFS; Matt Eagleton, NMFS; George Wisker, CT DEP

                     The purpose of this session was to provide an overview from the various agency
                     perspectives on the administrative process currently used to set windows. Doug
                     Clarke from the ACOE started the discussion by offering the following remarks.
                     He noted that the concept  of environmental windows is not a new phenomenon;
                     rather, the first environmental windows were established approximately 30 years
                     ago. What is new is the fact that over 30 years a cumulative effect has occurred
                     resulting in very narrow windows in certain parts of the country, thereby causing
                     serious implementation problems for the ACOE. In explaining the process uti-
                     lized by the ACOE in establishing windows, Doug presented a slide illustrating
                     the various statutes governing biological resources. In other words, the prevailing
                     statute dictates the process. The details for administering the process vary from
                     district to district. Some districts have established a formal communication pro-
                     cess, e.g., regional dredging teams, whereas other districts simply communicate
                     with resource agencies on an as-needed basis. Besides the cumulative effect of
                     windows, Doug also noted that the technical justification provided by resource
                     agencies for recommending windows varies from the generic and subjective to
                     the specific and objective. Examples of a generic technical justification include
                     "to protect fish and shellfish." Potential solutions offered by Doug were the fol-
                     lowing. He recommended a renewed effort to integrate biological data and infor-
                     mation with dredging technology data and to thoroughly identify existing data
                     gaps and to prioritize these data needs on a regional level. He also advocated a
                     regional approach to setting windows, establishing regional study teams, and
                     widely disseminating results.

                     The resource agency personnel offered the following comments. Most agreed
                     that in an ideal world specific data would be provided on the resources and the
                     sensitivity of the resources  to the dredging impacts and, moreover, the data
                     would be specifically correlated to the proposed dredging technology. However,
                     the reality oftentimes consists of the recommendation of a window based upon
                     broad criteria such as stipulating a "season of high biological activity." All
                     resource agency panelists agreed that research is needed in order to provide better
                     project-specific data for resources at  risk, for obtaining information on landscape
                     level/proximity issues, and for predicting the sensitivity of certain organisms
B-2

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
to dredging impacts. The process could also be improved by generally increas-
ing the frequency of communication between the ACOE and resource agency
personnel. Specifically, panelists recommended that ACOE staff involve the
resource agency staff prior to the identification of a particular action along with
identifying a single contact person who should provide information on the scop-
ing of the project and on the expected roles and responsibilities for the resource
agency personnel. Lastly, in relation to ACOE and resource agency communica-
tion and coordination, panelists recommended that the ACOE develop a primer
outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the various dredging techniques.

Resource agency staff also acknowledged that communication and the overall
coordination between Federal and State resource agency staff could be improved.
Specifically, Federal and State resource agency staff should work to eliminate
conflicting seasonal restrictions when they occur.

Two themes that emerged from a brief question-and-answer session were the fol-
lowing. First, many members of the audience recommended and encouraged the
use of programmatic consultations. Second, many audience members highlighted
the fact that while early involvement by the resource agencies is crucial, it is fre-
quently impractical. The lack of adequate resources and staffing at the National
Marine Fisheries  Service often serves as a barrier to fully integrating Federal
resource agency personnel into the process.

Concurrent Sessions: Case Studies of Dredging Projects Involving
                     Environmental Windows in the Southeast, Northeast,
                     and Pacific Northwest Regions of the U.S.

Summary of the Southeast Case Studies
The session began with presentations of the results of surveys conducted through-
out the Corps's Mobile District. The following case studies were discussed.

Project 1:
Dredging at Mobile Harbor and Disposal on Gaillard Island Disposal Area

Project Description: Hydraulic pipeline; created diked island; completed in
June 1990; still used as a disposal facility for  maintenance dredged materials
(over 1 million cubic yards/year), total project volume is over 50 million cubic
yards.

Resources at Risk: An endangered species, the brown pelican (Pelecanus occiden-
talis), is nesting on the shores of Gaillard Island, the intended disposal site. The
pelicans reportedly arrived on created mudflats to nest before completion of the
project, and continue to use it.

Rationale for Windows: USFWS and Alabama DNR were concerned that
noise and physical disturbance of nesting habitat would negatively impact the
                                                                                            B-3

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    birds during nesting. These concerns were based on published literature, expert
                    information, agency recommendations, and actual observations of the pelicans.

                    Action: A cooperative inter-agency management plan was designed to minimize
                    or eliminate the impacts of dredging activities on the pelicans. The plan calls for
                    consultation among agencies before initiating any projects that might adversely
                    impact the pelicans. Nesting sites are avoided during disposal operations.

                    Project 2:
                    Apalachicola Bay Dredging, Florida

                    Project Description: Hydraulic pipeline; volume of less than 1 million cubic
                    yards; completed in 1959; diked areas still used for disposal for small local main-
                    tenance dredging projects.

                    Resources at Risk: Oysters, other marine species.

                    Rationale for Windows: State and Federal agencies were concerned with the
                    effects of dredging on a number of marine species, primarily oysters. The con-
                    cern was that turbidity plumes would bury and destroy recently set oyster spat,
                    and that the dredges would entrain eggs and larvae of various species. Another
                    concern mentioned was the potential for avoidance and behavior modification in
                    fish. Agencies recommended a window between October and March, when oys-
                    ters and other species were not spawning. This window was based on available
                    literature and agency recommendations.

                    Action: A window of October to March was implemented and remains in effect.

                    Project 3:
                    Dredging of Apalachicola River Inland Navigation Channel; Gadsen, Jackson,
                    Liberty, Calhoun,  Gulf,  and Franklin Counties, Florida

                    Project Description: Hydraulic pipeline dredge; limited placement within in-
                    bank CAD cells; upland diked containment areas; up to 1,000,000 cubic yards
                    annually; constructed in 1957.

                    Resources at Risk: Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), a Federally listed
                    threatened species, and  Gulf striped bass (Morone saxitalis).

                    Rationale for Windows: State and Federal agencies were concerned about poten-
                    tial impacts of dredging to anadromous fish spawning behavior and habitat, caused
                    by entrainment and excessive turbidity. Requirements for seasonal restrictions were
                    based on agency recommendations that the Corps consult with State and Federal fish
                    and wildlife agencies if dredging is planned between March 1 and May 15 in order
                    to minimize or avoid impacts to staging or spawning fish, eggs, or larvae. These
                    dates were set by coordinating agencies and are based on literature and expert opinion.
B-4

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Actions: A limited exclusionary prohibition is in place from March 1 to May 15.
This is detailed in Florida State regulations and the Clean Water Act in Section
7 (consultation between agencies) and in section 401 (water quality certification).
Dredging is not expressly prohibited, but agencies seeking to perform dredging
between March 1 and May 15 are required to consult with the other cooperating
agencies.

The key points of the discussion during this session are summarized below.
Turtles:
    •  Species-specific windows have been established for sea turtles. These
      windows are temperature-based and may be closed if a "take" occurs,
      providing needed flexibility for regulators and dredging companies.
    • The geography and resulting turtle migration patterns in the Gulf of
      Mexico are unique, necessitating the use of a geographically specific turtle
      management strategy, including the use of windows.
    • WES (Waterways Experiment Station) is conducting research on spe-
      cies behavior and equipment technologies to reduce the risks and potential
      impacts to turtles from dredging.

Communication/Coordination:
    • A strong sentiment was expressed for the  need to improve coordination
      and communication among the regulatory agencies, between the
      regulatory agencies and the ACOE, and among the various ACOE
      districts (e.g., communicating the availability of dredging equipment
      would improve the process).
    •  Stronger partnerships need to be built among the local environmental
      groups, State regulatory agencies, and the ACOE in setting and imple-
      menting dredging windows.

Process Issues:
    • Overall, approaches to the implementation of windows vary by
      geographical location.
    • Windows are frequently used as a management tool for "takes."
      Competition for "takes" can be a problem when "takes" of endangered
      species are permitted. Additionally, "take  limits" for endangered species
      are often subject to legal action.
    • Long-term planning by the resource agencies and the ACOE will assist
      those industries that actively seek to comply with windows.
    • Monitoring is an essential component to the establishment of windows.
      Monitoring allows for flexibility and provides a scientific approach for
      measuring performance outcomes.
    • In the Southeast region, windows have been established without sufficient
      scientific evidence. In these cases, the regulators felt the need to take a
      conservative precautionary approach. In general, there are many estuary-
                                                                                             B-5

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                          dependent species in the region, necessitating the need to collect data to
                          identify critical habitat areas.
                        • Most concurred that species-specific windows were easier to implement
                          and manage than "blanket" or ecosystem-based windows.

                     Summary of the Northeast Case Studies
                     The Northeast discussion group focused on case studies from the Detroit
                     District, the New York District, and the Mid-Atlantic region including the
                     Norfolk and Baltimore Districts. The following general themes emerged from
                     the discussion.
                        • First, in the Detroit District, windows' designations have historically been
                          single-species-based; however, no one participating in the discussion was
                          able to characterize windows as either typically single-species- or typically
                          multiple-species-based.
                        • Second, while the windows in the New York District case studies were
                          primarily established based upon the needs of a specific species, the
                          recommendations often were not accompanied by supporting scientific
                          data. And, economic analyses were rarely supplied.
                        • Third, it was the prevailing view of the group that windows are generally
                          accepted based upon the strength of a recommending agency's authority
                          and essentially considered as design restrictions and/or "overhead" by
                          ACOE district managers. Therefore, disputes seem to be rare occurrences.
                          Negotiations are conducted, but no single process was identified for
                          initiating or conducting the negotiations. The most common disputes
                          cited were those that occur between Federal and State resource agencies
                          centering on the interpretation of existing data. Many participants
                          suggested that the  resource agencies actively seek to find methods for
                          reaching consensus on data interpretations.
                        • Fourth, the majority of participants agreed that technological
                          improvements/best management practices need to be factored into
                          the window-setting process by resource agency personnel. In order to
                          accomplish this goal, it was recommended that the ACOE  and other
                          experts on advances in dredging technology and best management
                          practices educate resource agency staff on dredging technology and
                          techniques.
                        • Fifth, the concept of programmatic recommendations was debated
                          with most concurring that for small ecological areas, programmatic
                          recommendations make sense. These recommendations should not
                          eliminate, however, case-by-case reviews, but rather supplement the
                          reviews and streamline the process.
                        • Sixth, it was noted that windows are frequently determined through the
                          use of monitoring during a dredging process. All agreed that monitoring is
                          a suitable method for introducing flexibility into the process.
B-6

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
    • Lastly, participants strongly urged District staff to routinely disseminate
      dredge findings and research results throughout the Corps: such results
      need to be embedded in the process in order to avoid "reinventing the
      wheel."

 Prior to the conclusion of the session, participants offered suggestions for cre-
 ating a template for establishing windows, for improving coordination  among
 agencies, and for researching key windows setting requirements.

 Template Development: One size does not fit all!
    • Programmatic approach combined with a regional approach, as appropriate
    • Routine dredging template and single-action case-by-case assessment
    • Revisit decisions as new data become available (both resource and
      technological data)
    • Follow-up with coordination and  monitoring programs (meetings)
    • Include impact avoidance and mitigation aspects of assessment
    • Review available technology and equipment with associated Best
      Management Practices to minimize impacts to the environment and to the
      project

 Coordination
    • Coordination must go beyond talk to data dissemination (tech transfer).
    • Discuss and set objectives and thereafter prioritize activities (include
      sorting among alternatives for dredging and disposal projects).
    • Observers may provide flexibility to continue projects if agreed to among
      agencies but may be difficult within contract (unknown cost).
    • Regulatory and Federal projects must be coordinated and treated in the
      same manner or there is an appearance of a two-tiered system.

 Research Requirements
    • Is there a  baseline  of data to set windows?
    • Can we quantify the impact to the fisheries (portion of stock affected) and
      determine the economic impact to fisheries and to projects?
    • Can States and Federal agencies publish lists of sensitive areas and species
      on a routine basis?
    • What are the cumulative effects of different operational options  (periodic
      versus single intense activity) to the resource of concern?
    • Can web-based data sets be posted in a graphical information system
      (GIS) for public and agency review including physical, chemical, and
      biological data?
    • When are data too old?
                                                                                             B-7

-------
                                              Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                        • Research on equipment and technologies to protect the resources needs to
                          be documented and distributed to the agencies reviewing the threatened
                          species as a measure to apply rather than windows

                     Summary of the Pacific Northwest Discussion
                     Discussion in this session focused on information supplied from case studies
                     involving the San Francisco  Bay area and the Columbia River/Puget Sound
                     region. The Endangered Species Act formed the backdrop for the overall discus-
                     sion. Key points from the discussion are as follows.
                     Communication
                        • Ideally, all pertinent players should be involved in the dredging process
                          from the beginning. In general, NMFS/FWS staff felt that they are
                          brought into the process too late.
                        • Several participants representing State agencies and the ACOE expressed
                          frustration with the fact that NMFS/FWS staff frequently do not attend
                          meetings regularly and/or take too long to respond in writing with
                          windows recommendations to the ACOE. There was recognition from all
                          present that meetings  may not constitute the most effective use of time and
                          that conference calls are a viable substitute. Participants also acknowledged
                          that the lack of response and/or delay in response time by FWS/NMFS
                          personnel was largely  due to understaffing, particularly in offices that deal
                          with protected species.
                        • A template for interagency coordination on ESA issues has been developed
                          in the Northwest and  has subsequently been adopted by other parties in
                          the Southwest. This template could serve as a starting point for developing
                          a national template.
                     Information
                        • It was recognized that those involved in setting windows often find
                          it difficult to clearly assess the current state of knowledge on a topic;
                          synthesis documents that are regularly updated were recommended as
                          a solution to this problem. As regulatory staff may not have the time to
                          prepare such documents, it was proposed that other agencies currently
                          involved in windows issues may be recruited to develop the documents.
                        • Resource agency staff at both the State and Federal levels should be
                          encouraged to attend training courses on dredging issues and technologies.
                        • Several participants expressed a desire to conduct further research on
                          translating laboratory  models to actual dredging scenarios.
                     Dredging Equipment
                        • Resource agency staff noted a disconnect in the setting of windows
                          and the selection of dredging technology. Specifically, resource agency
                          staff are frequently asked to provide recommendations on windows for
                          a particular dredging  project prior to the selection of the dredge type.
B-8

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
      Dredging equipment is usually determined during the bid process, which
      may occur after the resource agency staff have been requested to provide
      recommendations on windows.
    • While it was acknowledged that obtaining additional dredging equipment
      may increase the pace of dredging, it was also noted that the resulting
      "downtime" for the equipment would be factored into the dredging cost.
    • Technological improvements in dredging equipment may reduce the
      impacts to certain species and habitats. As windows recommendations are
      revised when additional information on the species is made available, it
      was stated that windows recommendations should also be revised when
      new information on the dredging technology becomes available.
 Setting/Extending Windows
    • Windows maybe lengthened through the use of monitoring. In order
      for monitoring to be successful, however, all parties must communicate
      extensively and continuously. All parties must also recognize that
      monitoring may result in the shortening of windows  as well.
    • ESA has had a demonstrable effect on the windows issue. For example, in
      Puget Sound windows were established to avoid the periods of maximum
      out-migration by anadromous fishes.
    • It was noted that the technical and scientific justification for establishing
      environmental windows is not applied to other types of windows, e.g.,
      tribal fishing windows. Having various types of windows, in addition to a
      multitude of species, complicates the process.

Jerry Schubel's Analysis of Cross-Cutting Issues Raised in the Three
 Concurrent Sessions
    • Improvements to the windows process will come through a series of
      relatively modest changes.. .but the net improvement could be significant.
    • Windows are a tool.. .the framework for developing,  administering, and
      monitoring them needs to be flexible.
    • Extending windows will come primarily through technology that reduces
      impacts of dredging and disposal and through greater knowledge of the
      species, their life cycles, and distributions in time and space.
    • Technology.. .not all people in key positions are aware of the state of
      the technology. Selection of the most appropriate kinds of dredges and
      disposal means could reduce impacts and open windows. Resource agency
      staff should be encouraged  to attend trainings and/or to receive primers on
      dredging techniques and technology.
    • Communication and coordination are continuing issues. They need greater
      attention and need to be managed. The resource agencies need to give
      them a higher priority.
                                                                                          B-9

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                        • Monitoring can add flexibility in the application of windows.. .both to
                          shorten and to expand.
                        • The impacts of dredging and disposal need to be put into the context of
                          other activities, including not dredging.
                    Session: Developing Tools to Make Windows Decisions—Evaluating
                             Economic Instruments That Could Be Used in Setting
                             Environmental Windows.
                             Tom Wakeman, Mark Sickles, and Torn Chase
                    Tom Wakeman began the discussion by reminding the audience that port
                    authorities operate in a competitive business environment and therefore base
                    their decisions on the best economic interest of the port. It has become clear to
                    the port that neither the ACOE nor the resource agencies consider economic
                    evaluations when setting environmental windows. In fact, no equation, magic
                    bullet, or process even appears for such an evaluation.
                    When a port considers whether to dredge, the following costs must be considered:
                        • Estimated initial construction costs
                        • 404/401 permit requirements
                        • CZMA mitigation requirements
                        • Essential Fish Habitat mitigation
                        • Endangered species requirements including environmental windows
                        • TMDL requirements
                        • Host community requirements
                    In evaluating whether  to proceed, the port authority will evaluate six economic
                    approaches:
                        • Proceed with an open checkbook
                        • Conduct a cost-benefit analysis
                        • Prepare an assessment of the trade-offs
                        • Review the decision-making theory
                        • Conduct a risk-based assessment
                        • Prepare a return-on-investment calculation
                    How do the resource agencies and the ACOE consider whether to set environmen-
                    tal windows? Tom recommends that the following key parameters be considered:
                        • Are endangered species involved?
                        • Can the project  be redesigned?
                        • What biological resources are at risk?
                        • What are the Best Management Practices?
B-10

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade


    • What are the financial risks?
    • What are the trade-offs to society?

Tom concluded his remarks by cautioning that the approach of "waiting for
things to get back to normal is a bad strategy!"

Mark Sickles commented that, in general, businesses require as much certainty
as possible and the dredging contracting business is no different. Unfortunately,
the process for setting windows has been plagued by surprises, minimal coordi-
nation, and short notices  despite the fact that the first windows were set over 30
years ago and that over 80 percent of ACOE projects contain windows. Mark
also noted that most dredging companies are small family-owned businesses that
may own only one to two dredges and many limit their work to only one district.
It is simply the nature of  the business and must be understood and recognized by
all involved in the window-setting process. Windows that result in "equipment
crunches" will be problematic.

Lastly, Tom Chase focused his remarks on the window-setting process or lack
there of. Overall, he stated, the system needs more predictability; most of the
guidelines are too broad and ill defined and provide virtually no guidance. A
National Research Council report in this area is sorely needed and could be
extremely helpful.

Closing Statement. Jerry Schubel.

The next steps in the NRC process include an NRC workshop in Washington,
DC, in March 2001, which will bring together experts in the field to discuss
issues and potential recommendations. Participants in the NDT Jacksonville
meeting are invited to this NRC workshop. Following the workshop, the NRC
Committee will prepare a report that is targeted for completion in the early fall
of 2001.
                                                                                          B-ll

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Appendix C: Workshop Agenda

Dredged Material Management:
Issues and Needed Actions for the Next Decade
A Workshop Sponsored by the National Dredging Team*
January 23—25, 2001  •  Jacksonville, Florida

Objectives of Workshop:
    • A national action agenda for dredged material management will be developed.* *
    • The workshop will facilitate communications between the National Dredging Team (NDT),
      Regional Dredging Teams (RDTs), and stakeholders to build partnerships for improved
      effectiveness in dredged material management and to exchange information about scientific and
      programmatic dredging issues.
    • Key actions will be identified to strengthen Regional Dredging Teams in taking leadership
      roles in effective  dredged material management and in communication and coordination with
      stakeholders, with emphasis upon links to the broader Marine Transportation System activities.
    • Day 3 will be a special session hosted by the National Research Council on Environmental
      Windows for Dredging Projects.
Workshop Registration—January 22, 6:00-8:00 PM
Day One—January 23

  7:00-8:30AM  Continental Breakfast & Registration
  8:30-9:OOAM  Opening Remarks
                Welcome	  Rick Ferrin, Port of Jacksonville
                NDT Background, Goals & Accomplishments	Craig Vogt, EPA
                Workshop Objectives	  Barry Holliday, Corps of Engineers
 9:00-10:00AM  Keynote Addresses
                Port Perspective	  Frank Hammons, Port of Baltimore
                Environmental Interest Perspective	   Jim Tripp, EDF
                State Perspective	  Tony MacDonald, CSO
10:00-10:15AM  Break
 10:15-11:15AM  Panel 1—BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL: What have we
                learned? What are the economic, engineering, ecological, and regulatory/political
                issues that need to be addressed?
                Moderator: Tom Chase, AAPA
                Rick Gimello, State of New Jersey

* Includes a special session on January 25 hosted by the National Research Council on Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects.
  The national agenda will be coordinated and complementary with the Marine Transportation System action plans.
  http://iuiuiu.epa.go'u/oiuoiu/oceans/ndt
                                                                                       C-l

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                John Carey, Alabama State Docks
                John Torgan, Narragansett Baykeeper-Local Planning Group
                Jim Reese, Corps of Engineers-Portland: Columbia River Deepening
11:15-11:30AM  Break
11:30-12:30PM  Panel 2—SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT: Experiences and strategies for
                watershed/regional planning and the minimization of dredging and contaminants.
                Moderator: BillMcAnally, Corps-WES
                Barry Holliday, Corps of Engineers
                Tom Wakeman, Port of NY/NJ
                Roxane Dow, State of Florida
  12:30-2:30PM  Lunch
                Luncheon Speaker—Bob Wayland, EPA, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
                                   and Watersheds
  2:30-4:30PM  Concurrent Breakout Groups***
                Work Groups Session 1—Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
                Charge: What have we learned? What are the economic, engineering, ecologi-
                cal, and regulatory/political issues that need to be addressed? What are the specific
                needed  steps to make it happen?
                Work Groups Session 2—Sediment Management
                Charge: What are the key elements in Sediment Management, the players, and what
                steps need to happen to encourage more watershed planning to reduce the need for
                dredging as well as the contaminants coming from upstream?
  4:30-4:45PM  Break
  4:45-6:OOPM  Plenary Session
                Moderator: Michael Carter, MARAD
                Dredged Material: Beneficial Use Regulatory Case Studies, John D. Pauling, Roy F.
                    Weston
                Boston  Harbor Contaminated Dredged Material: Lessons Learned on Disposal,
                    Deerin Eabb-Erott, State of MA
                Success: Local Planning Groups-Dredged Material Beneficial Use, Kelly Burch, State
                    of PA &? Co-Chair Great Lakes RDT
                Decontamination of Dredged Material: Making a Useful Commercial Product,
                    Eric Stern, EPA
                Use of Dredged Material in Restoration of Abandoned Mines, Andrew Vows, NY/NJ
                    Bi-State Commission
  6:00-7:00PM  Work Groups reconvene as needed.
*** Several breakout groups with the same charge will be established depending upon number of participants.
C-2

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Day Two—January 24
        7:30AM  Continental Breakfast
   8:30-9:30AM  Panel 3—EMERGING ISSUES
                 Moderator: Jim McGrath, Port of Oakland
                 Decision-Making Using Risk Assessment/Risk Management for Results of
                    Bioaccumulation Testing, Todd Bridges, Corps/WES
                 TMDLs, Brian Ross, EPA
                 Essential Fish Habitat, Tom Bigford, NOAA
                 Opportunities for Improvement-The Regulatory Process, Jackie Savitz, Coast Alliance

  9:30-10:30AM  Panel 4—STRENGTHENING REGIONAL DREDGING TEAMS
                 Coordination, Communication, Outreach, & Issue Resolution
                 Moderator: Kelly Burch, State of PA fcf Co-Chair Great Lakes RDT
                 RDTs: Hopes and Expectations, Craig Vogt, EPA
                 Great Lakes Team Overview, Steve Thorp, Great Lakes Commission
                 Ports Participation, Doug Hotchkiss, Port of Seattle
                 Environmental Interests Participation, Fred Stine, Delaware Riverkeeper Network
 10:30-10:45AM  Break
 10:45-12:00PM  Concurrent Breakout Groups***
                 Work Groups Session 3—Emerging Issues
                 Charge: How can the emerging issues be best addressed during the planning and
                 regulatory processes? What further improvements are needed to provide better
                 efficiency in the project planning, review, and permitting process to ensure timely
                 and effective decision-making while  meeting environmental goals? What steps are
                 needed to implement these improvements?
                 Work Groups Session 4—Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams: Coordination,
                 Communication, Outreach, & Issue Resolution
                 Charge: What needs exist for better  coordination and communication? What
                 mechanisms can assist in national, regional, and local communication/coordination
                 and issue resolution? What role can  local groups play in development of dredged
                 material management plans? How can stakeholders participate  with Federal and
                 State dredged material managers? How can RDTs be strengthened? What steps are
                 needed for enhanced coordination with the MTS Initiative?
  12:00-1:30PM  Lunch
                 Luncheon Speaker—Jerry Schubel, President, New England Aquarium
   1:30-3:30PM  Field Trip-Port of Jacksonville
                                                                                        C-3

-------
                                            Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
  3:30-6:OOPM  Plenary—Development of the National Action Agenda on dredged material
                management issues.
                Moderator: Steve Mathies, Battelle
  3:30-4:30PM  Action Agenda 1: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
                The Draft Action Agenda: Steve Mathies, Battelle
                Perspectives on the Draft Action Agenda:
                  Rick Gimello, State of New Jersey
                  Tom Chase, AAPA
                  John Torgan, Save the Bay
                  Discussion, Audience
                Action Agenda 2: Sediment Management
                The Draft Action Agenda: Carlton Hunt, Battelle
                Perspectives on the Draft Action Agenda:
                  Roxane Dow, State of Florida
                  Tom Wakeman, Port of NY/NJ
                  Jim Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund
                  Discussion, Audience
  4:30-5:00PM  Break
  5:00-6:OOPM  Action Agenda 3: Emerging Issues
                The Draft Action Agenda: Karen Foster, Battelle
                Perspectives on the Draft Action Agenda:
                  Steve Goldbeck, State of California
                  Frank Hammons, Port of Baltimore
                  Jackie Savitz, Coast Alliance
                  Discussion, Audience
                Action Agenda 4: Strengthening Regional Dredging Teams
                The Draft Action Agenda: Elizabeth Cavit, Battelle
                Perspectives on the Draft Action Agenda:
                  Kelly Burch, State of Pennsylvania
                  Ellen Johnck, Bay Planning Coalition
                  Cindy Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network
                  Jim Reese, Corps of Engineers
                  Discussion, Audience
       6:00PM  Closing Remarks

       7:00PM  Reception/Mixer
Craig Vogt and Barry Holliday, EPA/Corps
C-4

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Day Three—January 25
 Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects
 Hosted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council (NRC)
        7:30AM  Continental Breakfast
  8:30-9:OOAM  Plenary: A Brief Primer on "Environmental Windows" and an Overview of the
                NRC/TRB Project
                Jerry Schubel, New England Aquarium
                Denise Reed, University of New Orleans
 9:00-10:30AM  Plenary: Process of Setting, Administering, and Monitoring Dredging Windows
                Moderator: Susan-Marie Stedman, NMFS
                Ron Sechler, NMFS Beaufort, NC
                Don Palmer, FWS (invited)
                George Whisker, State of Connecticut DEP
                Doug Clarke, Corps of Engineers
 10:45-12:30PM  Concurrent Breakout Sessions: Small groups will discuss and analyze the results
                of case studies involving environmental windows.  The primary objective will be to
                determine how well the process worked and, if necessary, to identify specific recom-
                mendations for improvements.
                Group 1: Gulf and South Atlantic Regions
                    Facilitators: Susan-Marie Stedman and John Torgan
                Group 2: New York and New England Regions
                    Facilitators: Tom Wakeman and Henry Bokuniewicz
                Group 3: West Coast Regions
                    Facilitator: Denise Reed
  12:30-1:30PM  Working Plenary Lunch With Reports from the Breakout Groups and a Search
                for Robust Recommendations for Improving the Process
                Jerry Schubel, Facilitator
   1:45-2:45PM  Plenary: An Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Economic Instruments
                That Could Be Used in Setting Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects
                Facilitator: Tom Wakeman
                Mark Sickles, Dredging Contractors of America
                Tom Chase, AAPA
                Tom Wakeman, Port of NY/NJ
   2:45-3:OOPM  Summary and Next Steps:	Jerry Schubel
                                                                                       C-5

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Appendix D: Workshop Participants




 Abood, Karim A., Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS), Pearl River, NY



 Acosta, Ivan, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL



 Adams, John, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL



 Altamirano, Roland, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL



 Anacheka-Nasemann, Alan, USAGE, Buffalo District, Buffalo, NY



 Anderson, Kathy Straiker, USAGE, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA



 App, Charles, USEPA, Region 3, Ecological Assessment 8c Management, Philadelphia, PA



 Baier, Lawrence, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ



 Barber, Jessica, St. Johns River Water Management District, Jacksonville, FL



 Barnes, Willie, MARAD, Norfolk, VA



 Barnett, Dennis W, USAGE, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA



 Babb-Brott, Deerin, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA



 Bellis, Caroline J., NC Division of Coastal Management,  Raleigh, NC



 Bigford, Thomas, NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD



 Bohn, Cynthia, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA



 Bokuniewicz, Henry, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY



 Bonnevie, Nancy, Battelle, Duxbury, MA



 Breitmoser, Richard, Foster Wheeler Environmental, Poulsbo, WA



 Bridges, Todd, USAGE, WES, Vicksburg, MS



 Brodehl, Brian, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL



 Brown, Ralph, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL



 Bryant, ClayM., Gahagan 8c Bryant Assoc Inc, Tampa, FL



 Burch, Kelly, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Meadville, PA



 Burrowes, Todd, Maine Coastal Program, State Planning Office, Augusta, ME



 Butcher, Dan, USAGE, Great Lakes/Ohio River Division, Cincinnati, OH



 Caldwell, Mark, South Carolina DHEC, OCRM, Charleston, SC



 Calvit, Elizabeth, Battelle, New Orleans, LA



 Carey, John P., Alabama State Port Authority, SE Region Dredging Team, Mobile, AL
                                                                                              D-l

-------
                                                Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Carrigan, John A., Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA




Carter, Michael, MARAD, Washington, DC




Chang, Mohammed, USAGE, Los Angeles, CA




Chase, Thomas, American Association of Port Authorities, Alexandria, VA




Christerson, Neil, NOAA, Coastal Programs, Silver Spring, MD




Clarke, Douglas, USAGE, FL




Collins, Gary, USEPA, Region 4, Atlanta, GA




Coyne, Melanie,  California Coastal Conservancy




Creef, Edward, USAGE, New Orleans District, New Orleans, LA




Crum, Bo, USEPA, Region 4, Atlanta, GA




Cunningham, Debbie, MARAD, Washington, DC




Dadey, Kathleen  A., USEPA, Region 9, San Francisco, CA




Davis, Jack, USAGE,  Research 8c Development Center, Vicksburg, MS




Delaney, Ellen, USEPA, HQ_, Washington, DC




Dempsey, Wayne, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL




Diers, Ted, New  Hampshire Coastal Program, Concord, NH




Dwinell, David, USAGE, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA




DuCote, Gregory J., Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA




Dugger, Kenneth, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




Eagleton, Matthew, National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK




Eapen, Mathew, NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Long Island City, NY




Ehinger, Stephanie, NOAA/NMFS, Lacey, WA




Ehlers, Paula, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA




Ekren, Stan, B+B Dredging Company, Oxwego, IL




Esparza, Robert, EAI International, Suison City, CA




Evans, Lawrence C., USAGE, Portland District, Portland, OR




Farr, Helen, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD




Fedorko, Beverly, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ




Fenedick, Al, USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, IL
D-2

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade









 Ferguson, John, Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY




 Fields, James, USAGE, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA




 Friis, Mike, Wisconsin Department Administration, Coastal Management Program, Madison, WI




 Fonferek, William J., USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




 Foster, Karen, Battelle, Duxbury, MA




 Fudge, Tim, USAGE, Huntington District, Huntington, WV




 Gaffney, Kaitlin, Center for Marine Conservation, Santa Cruz, CA




 Gawel, Michael J., Guam Coastal Management Program, Yigo, Guam




 Gimello, Richard, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Maritime Resources, Trenton, NJ




 Glasgow, James S., Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME




 Godwin, Walter, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL




 Goldbeck, Steve, SF Bay Conservation 8c Development Commission, San Francisco, CA




 Graf, Thomas P., Department of Environmental Quality, Lansing, MI




 Graffeo, Anthony, Battelle, Duxbury, WA




 Gray-Scott, A'Licia, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




 Griffin, KathyM., USAGE, Buffalo, NY




 Griggs, James, Alabama Department of Conservation, Montgomery, AL




 Habel, Mark, USAGE, New England District, Concord, MA




 Hairie, Jennifer L., New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY




 Hall, Deirdre, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Monterey, CA




 Hales, Lyndell, USAGE,  Research/Development Center, Coastal/Hydraulics Lab, Vicksburg, MS




 Haluska, James D., US Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA




 Hamlin, Eric P., Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Portland, ME




 Hamons, Frank L., MD Port Administration, Baltimore, MD




 Harris, Jeff, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA




 Hartman, Greg, Foster Wheeler Environmental, Poulsbo, WA




 Haubner, Dan, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




 Hawk Eric G., NOAA/NMFS, St. Petersburg, FL




 Heinzelmann, Ray, Port of Philadelphia and Camden, Camden, NJ
                                                                                                D-3

-------
                                                Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
High, Jeff, US Coast Guard, Waterways Management, Washington, DC




Higman, John, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL




Hill, Glynis, USEPA, HQ^, Washington, DC




Hitch, Susan, USEPA, HQ_, Washington, DC




Hoellen, Kris, Senior Program Officer, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC




Holliday, Barry, USAGE, HQ_, Washington, DC




Hopman, Bob, Foster Wheeler Environmental, Portland, OR




Hotchkiss, Doug, Port of Seattle, Seattle, WA




Humphreys, William S., Hendry Corporation, Dredging Contractors of America, Tampa, FL




Hunt, Carlton, Battelle, Duxbury, MA




Janson, Roger, USEPA, Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Boston, MA




Johnck, Ellen Joslin, Bay Planning Coalition, San Francisco, CA




Johnson, Douglas K., USEPA, Region 4, Atlanta, GA




Johnson, Laura, USEPA, HQ_, Washington, DC




Jones, Steve, USAGE, MV District, Vicksburg, MS




Joyner, Curtis, South Carolina DHEC, OCRM, Charleston, SC




Kaminsky, George, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA




Keegan, Michael, USAGE, New England District, Concord, MA




Kehoe, Kerry, Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC




Kinner, Peter, Normandeau Associates, Inc, Bedford, NH




Kuhn, Kenneth, USAGE, San Francisco, CA




Lawrence, Robert, USAGE, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA




Lechich, Alex, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Long Island, NY




Lee, Charles,  USACE/WES, Vicksburg, MS




Lee, Michael, USAGE, Pacific Ocean Division, Fort Shaffer, HI




Leeser, Tracy, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




Legatski, Richard, Department of Commerce/NOAA, Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC




Lousberg, Macara, USEPA, HQ_, Washington, DC




Love, Susan E., Resource Planner, Delaware Coastal Management Program, Dover, DE
D-4

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
MacDonald, Tony, Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC




Malek, John, USEPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington




Marzolf, Erich, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL




Mathies, Peter S., Battelle, New Orleans, LA




Matrangos, Kelie, Department of Natural Resources, Brunswick, GA




McAdams, James, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




McAnally, William H., USAGE, Vicksburg, MS




McArthur, Chris, USEPA, Region 4, Atlanta, GA




McClellan, Hugh, USAGE, Mobile District, Mobile, AL




McCrossin, Jack, CITGO Petroleum/API, Pennsauken, NJ




McGrath, James, Port of Oakland, Oakland, CA




McGuckin Kathryn D., NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Long Island City, NY




McKee, Jeffrey A, USAGE, Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD




McKillip, Doris, USAGE, Portland District, Portland, OR




McReynolds, Dawn, Department of Environmental Conservation, Long Island City, NY




Merten, Amy, NOAA/NOS, Silver Spring, MD




Miller, Martin, Battelle, Sequim, WA




Milligan, Kristen, Clean Ocean Action, Highlands, NJ




Mitchell, Cheryl L., Naval Station Mayport, Mayport, FL




Minton, Julie, USAGE, Sacramento, CA




More, James E., Navy, Facilities 8c Environmental, Kings Bay, GA




Muir, William C., USEPA, Philadelphia, PA




Murphy, Sally R., South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, SC




Muslin, Dan, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, San Diego, CA




Newby, Ray, Texas General Land Office, Austin, TX




Nicholson, Scott, USAGE, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA




O'Bourke,  Nancy Case, Case O'Bourke Engineering Inc, Miami, FL




O'Connor, Thomas, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD




O'Donnell, Edward, USAGE, New England District, Concord, MA
                                                                                                D-5

-------
                                                Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
O'Donoghue, William, USAGE, Detroit District, Detroit, MI




Pabst, Douglas, USEPA, Region 2, Dredged Material Management Team, New York, NY




Parry, Robert, USAGE, Seattle District, Seattle, WA




Patel, Shailesh K., BCI Engineers 8c Scientists, Inc, Daytona Beach, FL




Patella, Lawrence, Western Dredging Association, Vancouver, WA




Pauling, John, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA




Pawlak, Brian T., NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD




Payonk, Philip M., USAGE, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC




Pearce, William H.,  USAGE, New York District, New York, NY




Peterson, Alyse, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY




Pointon, Mark R., USAGE, Alexandria, VA




Powell, Richard, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




Proni, John, Department of Commerce/NOAA, Miami, FL




Quirin, Olga, USEPA, Region 1, Boston, MA




Redford, Dave, USEPA,  HQ_, Washington, DC




Reed, Denise, University of New Orleans, Department of Geology/Geophysics, New Orleans, LA




Reese, Jim, USAGE, Northwest Division, Portland, OR




Reiss, Mark, USEPA, Region 2, Dredged Material Management Team, New York, NY




Ross, Brian, USEPA, Region 9, San Francisco, CA




Rozsypal, Johnny, USAGE, Galveston District, Galveston, TX




Sanchez, Nelson, USAGE, Mobile District, Mobile, AL




Sands, Jack D., USAGE, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA




Santarone, James E., Naval Station Mayport,  Mayport, FL




Sarthou, Cynthia, Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, LA




Savitz, Jackie, Coastal Alliance, Washington, DC




Schaul, Peter, USEPA  Region 3, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, Philadelphia, PA




Schmidt, David, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




Schorr, Henry, Manson Construction,  Seattle, WA




Schubel, Jerry R., New England Aquarium, Boston, MA
D-6

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade









 Schuster, Glenn, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




 Schwartz, Suzanne, USEPA, HQ_, Washington, DC




 Schwichtenberg, Bradd, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




 Sechler, Ronald, NOAA/NMFS, Beaufort, NC




 Seebode, Joseph, USAGE, New York District, New York, NY




 Sickles, Mark, Dredging Contractors of America, Alexandria, VA




 Sigua, Gilbert, St Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL




 Sosnow, Allan D., Port Everglades Department of Broward County




 Stedman, Susan-Marie, NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD




 Stern, Eric, EPA/Region 2, New York, NY




 Stevens, Stuart, Department of Natural Resources, Brunswick, GA




 Steward, Joel, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL




 Stine, Fred, Delaware Keeper Network




 Stirling, Stephanie, USAGE, Seattle District, Seattle, WA




 Sutlick, Albert, USAGE, Walla Walla, WA




 Tanis, Deborah, Battelle, Duxbury, MA




 Tavana, Mohsen, USAGE, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA




 Tapp, Steve, USAGE, Fountain City, WI




 Taylor, Ancil, Bean  Stuyvesant, LLC, New Orleans, LA




 Thompson, Mark, NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division, Panama City, FL




 Thorp, Steve, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI




 Torgan, John, Save the Bay,  Providence, RI




 Tortorici, Cathy, NMFS, Portland, OR




 Tripp, Jim, Environmental Defense, New York, NY




 Van Hoff, Robert J., USAGE, Louisville District, Louisville, KY




 van Rossum,  Maya, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Washington Crossing, PA




 Vining, Rick, Department of Ecology,  Olympia, WA




 Vogel, Leigh, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Long Island, NY




 Vogt, Craig, USEPA, HQ^, Washington, DC
                                                                                                 D-7

-------
                                                 Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Voros, Andrew, NY/NJ Clean Ocean & Shore Trust, New Brunswick, NJ




Wakeman, Thomas, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY




Walker, Leon, Port of Pensacola, FL




Walsh, Joe, Lake Michigan Contractors, Holland, MI




Walters, Angela, Battelle, Ojai, LA




Wayland, Robert, USEPA, HQ_, Washington, DC




White, Jonas, USAGE, Jacksonville, FL




Wikar, Cornelia Pasche, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD




Wilbur, Anthony, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA




Wileska, Jim




Willis, Jeffrey M., Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, Wakefield, RI




Wilson, Joe, USAGE, Washington, DC




Wisker, George, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT




Worthington, Richard, USAGE, HQ_, Washington, DC




Yoo, Paul, USAGE, Pacific Ocean Division, Ft Shafter, HI




Young, John, National Fish 8c Wildlife Service, Portland, OR




Young, Monica, USEPA, Region 6, Dallas, TX




Zipf, Cindy, Clean Ocean Action,  Highlands, NJ
D-8

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
Appendix E: National Dredging Team Charter
               National Dredging Team
                                   CHARTER
Vision
Dredging of U.S. harbors and channels is conducted in a timely and cost
effective manner while meeting environmental protection/restoration/
enhancement goals.

Goals
The National Dredging Team will facilitate communication, coordination, and
resolution of dredging issues among the participating Federal agencies, and will
serve as a forum for promoting the implementation of the National Dredging
Policy and the recommendations in the National Dredging Team's Dredged
Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade (2003) (Action
Agenda).

Legislative Authorities
The following laws are the primary Federal statutes governing dredging and
dredged material disposal. They provide the agencies represented on the
National Dredging Team with the authority to carry out their responsibilities for
dredging and related activities.
    • Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water) Act
    • Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
    • Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
    • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
    • Endangered Species Act
    • Coastal Zone Management Act
    • Merchant Marine Act
    • National Environmental Policy Act
    • Water Resources Development Acts
    • Magnuson-Stevens Act
    • Marine Mammal Protection Act
                                                                                 E-l

-------
                                            Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                    Operating Principles
                    The National Dredging Team embraces and will operate under the National
                    Dredging Policy as outlined in the Action Agenda, referenced above.
                    Fundamental to this Policy is the recognition that a network of ports and har-
                    bors is essential to the U.S. economy and national security, and that the nation's
                    coastal, ocean, and freshwater resources are critical assets, which must be pro-
                    tected, conserved, and restored.

                    The National Dredging Team will function as a forum for information
                    exchange, issue identification, and timely resolution of issues affecting dredging
                    programs.

                    The National Dredging Team will serve as  the principal operating organization
                    within the Marine Transportation System with respect to dredging issues.

                    The National Dredging Team will review policies and issues that are national
                    in scope; regional and local issues will be addressed by the Regional Dredging
                    Teams and the Local Planning/Project Groups.

                    Regional Dredging Teams may elevate dredging issues to the National Dredging
                    Team for resolution, in accordance with the Guidance to Regional Dredging
                    Teams; however, the National Dredging Team is committed to resolution of
                    issues at the lowest authorized management level. Regional Dredging Teams
                    are expected to utilize all available means to resolve issues prior to elevating an
                    issue to the National Dredging Team (e.g., an issue involving the assessment of
                    environmental impacts of a proposed dredging project should be addressed at the
                    local/regional level).

                    The National Dredging Team is committed to completion and timely implemen-
                    tation of the Action Agenda's recommendations.

                    The agenda and issues to be addressed by the National Dredging Team will be
                    determined by the National Dredging Team based upon recommendations from
                    National Dredging Team members, from Regional Dredging Teams, and from
                    stakeholders.

                    Information will be sought from stakeholders to help clarify specific issues as
                    well as provide factual data on the issues.

                    Participation on the National Dredging Team will not supersede or otherwise
                    affect any authority of the participating agencies.

                    Membership
                    The National Dredging Team shall consist  of representatives from the follow-
                    ing Federal agencies: Department of Defense/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                    (USAGE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of
                    Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean
E-2

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
 Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Transportation/
 U.S. Maritime Administration, Department of Interior/U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 Service, and Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Coast Guard. Other
 Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Service and the U.S. Navy, may
 also participate.

 The National Dredging Team shall be co-chaired by the U.S. Army Corps of
 Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 The National Dredging Team will be guided by a Steering Committee. The
 Steering Committee will be composed of senior level executives appointed by the
 department/agency head; Steering Committee members should have the authority
 to make binding policy decisions and commitments for their respective agencies.

 The National Dredging Team will be composed of agency managers and deci-
 sion-makers, and technical experts.  Each agency shall designate in writing the
 names of a member and an alternate to represent their agency on the National
 Dredging Team. Because the USAGE and EPA are Co-Chairs with a very
 extensive agenda, these two agencies may have two members and one alternate
 each on this Committee.

 Members of the National Dredging Team shall keep their senior Agency man-
 agement and, in particular, their National Dredging Team Steering Committee
 member informed of activities, actions, and issue deliberations/resolution.

 Objectives
 The overall objective of the National Dredging Team is to serve as  a forum
 for issue identification and resolution, implementation of the Action Agenda's
 recommendations, and communication/coordination with Regional Dredging
 Teams, as well as  other stakeholders.

 Specific objectives of the National Dredging Team as detailed in the Action
 Agenda include:
    •  Promotion of the beneficial use of dredged material.
    •  Promotion of overall sediment management approaches, particularly at the
      watershed level.
    •  Identification and resolution of emerging issues.
    •  Support to Regional Dredging Teams and to Local Planning/Project
      Groups.
 Twenty-two specific  actions to be undertaken are included in the Action
 Agenda.

 Other actions by the  National Dredging Team include:
    •  Develop annual work plans including identification of specific issues,
      needed guidance, and other actions to promote efficient dredging of
                                                                                          E-3

-------
                                             Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
                          channels and harbors while meeting environmental protection and
                          enhancement goals.
                        •  Identify and invite stakeholders, including the nation's ports and
                          environmental interest groups, to provide information and data to the
                          National Dredging Team that would help clarify the factual basis for
                          deliberations on specific issues.
                        •  Conduct meetings with Regional Dredging Teams as necessary to promote
                          information exchange and to support continuing efforts with Local
                          Planning/Project Groups to manage dredged material in a watershed
                          context.
                        •  Sponsor periodic forums of dredging stakeholders with the National
                          Dredging Team to provide an opportunity to hear the concerns of
                          stakeholders, to exchange information, and to facilitate a continuing
                          dialogue on dredging issues.
                        •  Coordinate closely with other initiatives.
                        •  Prepare a communications plan to provide periodic updates to stakehold-
                          ers and the Regional Dredging Teams on the actions and plans of the
                          National Dredging Team.

                    Procedures
                    Meetings are to be co-chaired by representatives of USAGE and EPA.

                    Meetings of the Steering Committee will be held on an "as needed" basis and
                    will be held as requested by the Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee or the
                    National Dredging Team.

                    Regular meetings of the National Dredging Team will be scheduled by the Co-
                    Chairs. Special sessions can be requested by members and scheduled by the Co-
                    Chairs as needed.

                    The National Dredging Team will elevate issues to the Steering Committee
                    for decisions or policy guidance, as needed. In addition, other actions by the
                    National Dredging Team, such as the annual work plans, will be provided to the
                    Steering Committee for information and approval, as needed.

                    Agreement
                    Members of the National Dredging Team agree to fully participate in the Team
                    activities and will operate under this Charter. Participation is subject to agency
                    budget constraints. This charter is not intended to commit members to specific
                    funding levels.

                    This charter shall be effective upon the date of signature. Agencies can termi-
                    nate their participation at any time by notifying the other parties 60 days in
                    advance of the termination.
E-4

-------
Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next Decade
           Signed by:

              ^  2. *4
           Honorable George S. Dunlop
           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation)
           U.S. Department of the Army
           Co-Chair
           G. Tracy
           Assistant Admi
           Office of Water
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Co-Chair
           Timothy R.E. Ke
           Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
           National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
           U.S. Department of Copwserce
           Robert B. Ostrom
           Chief Counsel
           Maritime Administration
           U.S. Department of Transportation
            Steve Williams
            Director
            Fish and Wildlife Service
            U.S. Department of Interior
                        as H. Gilmour
      V '^•'•''Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, & Environmental Protection
            U.S. Coast Guard
            U.S. Department of Homeland Security

            July 9,2003
                                                                                         E-5

-------