*>
€*^
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
------- |